Non Bird Watcher

A blog in which I provide my opinions on matters relating to politics, popular culture and real world events, which is a polite way of saying 'ranting about life'. Also, pictures look nice.

[nonbirdwatcher]

If you're feeling pressured to have it all figured out by now, don't. No matter what your age, no matter what you're doing, we're all trying to figure life out and we're gonna have better days and we're gonna have sucky days and we're human beings at the end of the day and that's something that unites us all and should give us all a little bit of comfort because we're all in this together.

Ingrid Nilsen, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwkaEQ7xXe8]

[insideonemind-deactivated202106]

Nothing could be more indicative of the intellectual crisis of Scottish nationalism than the fact that this political movement, which set out criticising the British state for its attachment to feudal totems and international finance, has ended up relying on the monarchy and the Bank of England as the guarantors of a Scottish ‘independence’ that approaches parody. […] In comparison to the Scottish nationalism of 1999 or even 2007, that of 2014 lacks a coherent account of either the state or the economy. In its place, a politics of assertion, rejection and blind hope has emerged. The style and mode of the SNP’s argumentation has become correspondingly vague, simplifying, and wilfully obfuscatory. Both its fabled ‘positivity’ and its quickness to blame arise from a comfortingly voluntaristic conception of politics, in which Scotland’s problems can be attributed to malign foreign institutions that are wilfully frustrating the natural genius of its people.

James Stafford, Independence After the Crash, Renewal: A Journal of Social Democray

I voted Yes but I’m a masochist who thrives on this type of searing critique of my (former?) political beliefs. Either way it’ll be important for the Scottish National Party and wider indpendence movement to engagement with criticisms like this if they have any hope of winning the next referendum.

(via insideonemind)

I didn’t know you were into masochism...but seriously, the SNP and others supporting independence really need to make their economic plans clear. Perhaps a consultation for a future blueprint with pro-independence people on structures would be a good idea in the event of a future referendum, so the pro-independence group can have and be seen to have a much clearer plan than the anti-independence parties.

I also think an independent Scotland should have an independent Scotland, with a specific written constitution, requiring referenda on any intended constitutional changes, but then that’s just my view. Maybe I need to make myself clearer :L

[cursim-deactivated20120427]

Reblog if no matter if you have 50,000 or 50 followers, you appreciate every single one. Reblog if you appreciate the messages you get, whether it's 100 or 1. Reblog if a little smile comes across your face everytime you see a new follower or message. Reblog if even though most of us aren't tumblr famous, we appreciate the little things.

[nonbirdwatcher]

Joey Graceffa clarifying a few things about music video ‘Don’t Wait’, including the one-word chapter in his book and why he came out now:

“What matters to me most is that I’m affecting lives and I’m using my story to make a difference in the world and I want to affect as many people as possible. That’s the real goal here.”

 My post about that music video is available at http://nonbirdwatcher.tumblr.com/post/119182736397/lets-get-one-thing-straight-joey-graceffa

[nonbirdwatcher]

"Let’s get one thing straight: Joey Graceffa isn’t"

There’s a lot of LGBT+ related stuff going on right now. Firstly, about what the term to describe that spectrum should be. Should it be LGBT, LGBT+, LGBTQIA+ or something else? Perhaps a sexual spectrum or 'sextrum'? Or maybe a 'rainbow community'? It’s something I think ought to be settled sometime. But that’s besides the point.

Today, 17th May 2015, is International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia. It's the 15th anniversary of the day the World Health Organisation chose to remove homosexuality from their list of classified mental disorders [http://ilga.org/may-17th-is-the-intl-day-against-homophobia/]. Perhaps I’m just saying this because I’m a UK citizen but that seems surprisingly late. I must say, though, what great progress we’ve made as a society since then.

Last week, Scotland got the bragging rights to say it was the most LGBT+ friendly country in Europe - and, arguably therefore, the world - following the release of a report by the Europe branch of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Association (ILGA) saying it met 92% of its criteria for LGBTI+ protections [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/10/scotland-tops-league-for-gay-rights]. The UK as a whole got a similarly impressive 86%, pushing them well above countries such as Italy, Germany and Finland [http://www.ilga-europe.org/sites/default/files/Attachments/side_a_rainbow_europe_map_2015_a3_no_crops.pdf]. The passage of same-sex marriage, expansion of parenting rights, measures to tackle hate crime and anti-discrimination components in the Equality Act are among contributory factors to the rating.

Seeing all this, one might be tempted to think: 'Oh, that’s it. Gay people are just accepted as people now and have all the same rights as straight people. So, we’re done here. We can all live happily ever after now.'

Except, as all LGBT+ people know, that is not the case at all.

There are still battles to be fought in Scotland, the UK and abroad, including going further to stamp out bullying and discrimination in schools, the workplace and in public life [http://www.ilga-europe.org/sites/default/files/Attachments/01_full_annual_review.pdf p172]. The disparity between the restrictions on donation of blood for gay men for 12 months after having sex, while straight men have no such restrictions irrespective of what their sex lives are like [http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/11/04/tory-mp-michael-fabricant-to-push-for-end-to-illogical-gay-blood-donation-rules-in-bbc-interview/], still needs to be sorted out. The UK Government currently refuses to issue gender X passports, despite the International Civil Aviation Organisation allowing them [http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/05/06/qa-nicola-sturgeon-on-gender-x-passports-conversion-therapy-and-gay-blood-bans/]. And this is before we even mention Northern Ireland, where the debate about a so-called 'conscience clause' is ongoing [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-31530934].

All of this could be good cause to remark, as a certain someone so often does, "oh my goodness gracianious" - or at least, I think that’s how it’s written.

And so to the Joe. In what has to be one of the least unsurprising surprises I’ve ever witnessed being uncovered, Joey Graceffa has come out of the closet as homosexual. He has reportedly publicly acknowledged this in his upcoming book [http://superfame.com/post/joey-graceffa-is-gay-offically-comes-out-in-his-book-im-tired-of-hiding/] and heavily implied it in his new music video 'Don’t Wait' [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kcwo_mhyqTw]. I’m guessing that title was intentionally ironic.

OK, OK, admittedly that’s not fair comment. It’s not reasonable to assume what somebody’s sexuality is based off their behaviour and personality alone, even if they act like this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOWC3MrZS8Y]. After all, Marcus Bachmann, the husband of a US Republican who opposed same-sex marriage and a man who became well known for conducting so-called 'ex-gay therapy', appeared to dance and speak like this [https://youtu.be/BRmnNJsSdao?t=1m]. It just goes to show: you don’t really know what somebody’s sexual identity is until you ask them. Quick side note: I wouldn’t recommend asking them that either. They might not take it kindly, especially if you don’t really know them that well.

Anyway, back to Joey. Superfame [nope, I’ve never heard of them either] reports that chapter 14 of his book, under the heading 'Surprise!', contains one sentence:

"I’m gay." [http://superfame.com/post/joey-graceffa-is-gay-offically-comes-out-in-his-book-im-tired-of-hiding/]

Simple but effective, no? He goes on in the next chapter to say that:

"I wanted people to focus on the things I was creating, not whether I wanted to kiss boys […] I needed something of my own that I could keep for myself. I was teased about being feminine so much when I was a kid […] Being called gay as an insult had left me emotionally scarred." [http://superfame.com/post/joey-graceffa-is-gay-offically-comes-out-in-his-book-im-tired-of-hiding/]

I must say, props to Graceffa. There’s an interesting double whammy Graceffa and his commercial associates get out of this: they can maximise the profits they make for the book and video ad revenue off the back of the previously accumulated momentum while simultaneously proclaiming they are bringing a message of social equality and acceptance to the masses. Indeed, with more than 4.6 million subscribers, he certainly is. I sincerely hope nobody is stubborn enough to unsubscribe just because of this video but then, I know what some people on the Internet are like.

However, I’m going to brush aside the commercial interest in doing this and talk about an important point Joey’s story does highlight. You may be a high profile YouTuber, trying to keep millions of subscribers and your advertisers happy for the sake of maintaining a livelihood, you may not. You may like to tease people you know about having a bromance or whatever it is 'the kids' are calling it these days, you may not. You may be the most effervescent, egotistical and materialistic man in the world, you may not. (Sorry, Joey.) You may be something other than heterosexual, as roughly 95% of the population are, and come to realise this through your own personal experiences and emotions. But to tell someone to reject the natural feelings that have blossomed within them over time, that they are somehow inappropriate or unnatural and should be suppressed or that they should act in a way other than the way you deem 'acceptable for society'? In my view, you may not.

There will probably be countless reaction videos that follow this music video, all giving you anecdotes and advice on the coming out process. However, while you can certainly use these accounts as resources, I don’t think any particular video is going to be a definitive guide or should be treated as gospel *ahem*. Discovering your sexual identity is something you have to do yourself, based on your own personal experiences and emotions. In time, you should be able to work out how you are naturally inclined. If you have worked it out and am wondering what to do next or what will happen next, perhaps this recent video from Troye Sivan [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfXEcpGCxiw] can be of some use to you. In it, he says:

"Coming out is 100%, without a doubt in my mind, the best decision I’ve ever made in my entire life." [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfXEcpGCxiw]

I imagine Joey must be thinking along quite similar lines right now. However, even if you’re not in the LGBT+ bracket, I think the Graceffa's video can speak to a lot of people who struggle with an inner conflict of their own, perhaps sparked by something that makes them fear they are not 'normal' enough.

If I may extend the metaphor from Graceffa’s 'Don’t Wait' music video, I’d like to say that, for me, each day is a battle, as my inner conflict continuously rages on. It has done so for many years. Some days, I can genuinely feel like all hope is lost and there’s nothing out there worth fighting for. Nonetheless, I have realised one thing:

Each day, I am fighting for my own survival. Each day I survive is a victory in a battle. I hope Joey and everyone who reads this continues to win their battles.

That title is based on a great pun tweeted by @sexualshoey  [https://twitter.com/sexualshoey/status/599715011896975360].

'In Real Life: My Journey to a Pixelated World' by Joey Graceffa is set for release on Tuesday 19th May 2015 and is available for pre-order now.

The single 'Don’t Wait' by Joey Graceffa is available for purchase now. The music video is at the link below and I must say, it’s quite a good watch. The video actually inspired the philosophical walk I had which lead to this post. Eek.

"Don’t wait for the world to be ready/Who says you can’t explore, who says you can’t explore/Don’t wait for the world to be ready/Find what you’re looking for, find what you’re looking for" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kcwo_mhyqTw]

[nonbirdwatcher]

Who’s going to prop up who?

It's the SNP and not Labour who could easily face a nightmare situation next Friday, 8 May 2015.

Firstly, a confession: I didn't watch the Question Time leaders' special on BBC One yesterday, 30 April 2015. However, I have seen the widely splashed clip [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32541078] of Labour leader Ed Miliband appearing to rule out a Labour-SNP deal in the programme. This sounds like the clearest assertion to me so far that Labour would not agree to any kind of arrangement. However, when she appeared on Sunday Politics on 19 April, I think Shadow Leader of the House of Commons Angela Eagle hinted at what the reality of the situation is more likely to be: one of budget consultation and passing legislation on a vote-by-vote basis. At the time, she commented:

"Well, what we have said is that if we are forming the largest party and writing a Queen's Speech then we will put that Queen's Speech to the House of Commons and if that Queen’s Speech gets through a vote in the House of Commons we will begin to be able to put it into effect […] We’ll speak to any party that has got representation in the House of Commons in order to try and build a majority for a Queen’s Speech that the country desperately needs for a change of government, so that we can have a country where the economy works for all working people and not just a few at the top." [https://youtu.be/FllIxSJGWxs?t=9m29s]

In my last post, I talked about the risk of the SNP getting complacent about their voters. Now, I’m going to talk about the risk of the SNP getting complacent about the Labour Party.

Now, as we know, the SNP are willing to support a Labour government but have refused to support a Conservative government under any circumstances and remain heavily critical of Conservatives [http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2015/mar/nicola-sturgeons-address-snp-conference]. However — and I know I’m not the first person to say this — the SNP could easily face a serious problem. Labour could present a budget seriously at odds with SNP demands: it could support austerity, nuclear weapons and virtually no new devolved powers for Scotland, in line with its Smith Commission proposals [http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/smithdevo1.jpg]. In that scenario, far from being the kingmakers, the SNP may be virtually powerless to stop them because the alternative it either hand the baton back to the Conservatives or call another general election in a few months time, where it all goes up in the air again. Labour would use this as a golden opportunity to proclaim that the SNP are holding 'our country' [meaning the UK] back. I say that based on an STV News report from today, 1 May 2015, where Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy cleverly swivelled the onus onto the SNP by saying this:

"The SNP brought a Labour government back down in 1979. To do that again, I think Scotland would punish them forever; so, we don’t need a deal, we don’t need a pact with the SNP. If Labour wins the most seats, we’ll get on and govern and if the SNP support us, that’s up to them." [http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/319109-labour-ed-milibands-no-deal-vow-will-boost-snp-vote-says-sturgeon/]

Note how, like Angela Eagle, Jim Murphy basically says 'If the SNP want to support a Labour government then yeah, fair enough'. In any case, that comment suggests the SNP would be willing to stop Labour in its tracks if it didn’t do what they wanted. In my view, the SNP kinda lack the power to do that, whereas Labour do not. It seems a direct contrast with what SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon said about Labour refusing to come to any kind of arrangement with them:

"If he was saying that he would rather see the Tories back in office than work with the SNP then that’s evidence Labour have completely and utterly lost the plot […] Well, if Ed Miliband doesn’t have a majority and he wants to be in government, then if there’s no deal, he has to win support on an issue-by-issue basis." [http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/319109-labour-ed-milibands-no-deal-vow-will-boost-snp-vote-says-sturgeon/]

So, if Labour refuse to do a deal with the SNP, then the SNP are also facilitating the Conservatives getting back into power by holding back a Labour government. In other words, both Labour and the SNP are to blame for the problem. Confused? I am.

However, this is not to say I think you should vote Conservative, not at all. If you think that’s going to avoid a chaotic situation in the formation of the next government, you’d be wrong. Looking at the statistics on May2015.com [http://may2015.com/category/seat-calculator/], the website predicted on 1 May that Conservatives would win 275 seats, while on the same day ElectionForecast.co.uk suggested the number would be 280; Elections Etc. said 290 and The Guardian predicted 276. Whatever the actual number, it’s clearly not going to be anywhere near 326. What I am saying is that the SNP are now in a precarious position: how can they persuade Labour to change tack on their policies knowing that Labour know full well the SNP are counting on the next government being Labour?

Far from being the kingmakers in the next parliament, Labour may well be poised to push the SNP into check. I just hope they’re successful with their appeal [http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/20/nicola-sturgeon-reaches-out-to-labour-at-snp-manifesto-launch] to make Labour MPs their mates.

[nonbirdwatcher]

Who goes? You decide?

So, things are looking alright for the SNP, then.

Yesterday, 29 April 2015, an opinion poll by Ipsos MORI for STV News had this set of results:

SNP: 54% Scottish Labour: 20% Scottish Conservatives: 17% Scottish Liberal Democrats: 5% Scottish Greens: 2% UKIP: 1% [https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Scotland/scotland-pom-april-2015-tables.pdf]

Now, of course, there’s all sorts of caveats you should throw in there, such as 'this is only an opinion poll' and 'this doesn’t take into account tactical voting and candidates' local popularity'. Nonetheless, this is quite an amazing poll for the SNP. The Wikipedia list of opinion polls suggests this is only the second time SNP support has been as high as this for this election and, at 34 points, it’s the biggest lead the SNP has had over Labour so far [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_United_Kingdom_general_election#Scotland]. Compare that to the last time Ipsos MORI did this poll for STV in January 2015, when the results looked like this:

SNP: 47% Scottish Labour: 24% Scottish Conservatives: 12% Scottish Liberal Democrats: 4% Scottish Greens: 4% UKIP: 1% [https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Scotland/scotland-pom-jan-2015-tables.pdf]

All of which makes Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy’s somewhat predictable response to the April 2015 opinion poll quite confusing. When STV News asked him about it, he said: "It’s another fantastic poll for David Cameron because David Cameron can’t beat the Labour Party here in Scotland, so someone else has to do that for him and that way, David Cameron gets to cling onto power because if he’s the leader of the biggest party, the likelihood is David Cameron will remain Prime Minister." [http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/318815-stvipsos-mori-poll-snp-set-to-win-all-scots-seats-at-general-election/]

I must say, props to Murphy for managing to say 'David Cameron’ four times in one sentence. But seriously, if we gloss over the part about 'the biggest party getting to form the government', which has already been shown to be overwhelmingly at odds with various pieces of evidence [http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-weight-of-evidence/] and compare those two sets of results, this doesn’t seem to compute because the share of Conservative support appears to have gone up by 5 points between January and April, yet Labour support went down by 4 points in the same period, meaning the two parties were tied in the April poll once the margin of error is taken into account. Scottish Conservatives leader Ruth Davidson bragged about it in that STV News report after riding around on a tank for no apparent reason. [Quick side note: who arranges her photo opportunities? They look like such good fun.] It looks like the Conservatives are very much trying to 'secure a better future' for Scotland too, then.

STV digital political correspondent Stephen Daisley [http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/analysis/318894-analysis-stephen-daisley-on-the-stv-ipsos-mori-poll-on-snp-election-win/] yesterday touched on two significant potential threats the SNP now face: one is the the SNP getting complacent about their perceived upcoming success and failing to mobilise voters accordingly, the other is unionists managing to effectively mobilise voters into tactically voting against the SNP and for either Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrats, depending on the constituency. Whether Conservatives would rather vote Labour to keep the SNP out or vice versa is unclear. I would have thought the former was more likely to be the case but after listening to Jeremy Vine on BBC Radio 2 today [http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05rk8sq], I’m rather less certain now.

In any case, it looks like the biggest loser in this year’s general election is going to be our first-past-the-post voting system, which GPEW leader Natalie Bennett has described as "an utterly failed system that doesn’t reflect the reality of British politics today" [https://www.facebook.com/thegreenparty/videos/10152767897755785/?permPage=1]. She’s right. Today, 30 April 2015, the Electoral Reform Society shared an infographic [https://www.facebook.com/electoralreformsociety/photos/a.10150267497295132.385309.137385490131/10153244901805132/?type=1&permPage=1], captioned 'For my next trick', which illustrated how problematic it would be if the SNP could get 100% of Scottish seats in the House of Commons based on 54% of the Scottish vote; because that would mean 46% of Scottish votes going elsewhere than the SNP, including 20% for Labour and 17% for Conservatives, would get no representation in the UK Parliament. Even if the SNP only win 57 out of 59 seats, that would still equate to them winning 97% of seats with about 51% of the vote.

This isn’t what I’d call terribly fair. For the SNP’s part, they have historically supported electoral reform [http://www.scotsman.com/news/salmond-likely-to-say-yes-to-av-system-1-1493826] and were elected to the Scottish Parliament under an AMS system. However, I’ve heard more or less nothing from any of the big or moderately big parties about this issue in this election, save for the Greens [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29281831] and UKIP [http://www.ukip.org/ukip_announces_plans_for_political_reform], even though I would regard it as incredibly important for political engagement and, by extension, our democracy as a whole.

As you’ve probably guessed, I don’t really like tactical voting.

In all seriousness, I don’t want to be too cynical. Even if you don’t like 'safe seats', I would still encourage you to vote for who you really want to and not just who you want to vote against. However, until electoral reform happens, for now it looks like it’s not so much 'Who goes? You decide' and more 'Who goes? You decide?'

[nonbirdwatcher]

“We could not be clearer”, says party being unclear

Deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman appeared on The Andrew Marr Show today, 12 April 2015. Intriguingly, she categorically ruled out Labour doing a deal with the Liberal Democrats. And yet she can't do the same for the SNP. Here's the quote:

"At this stage, with 26 days or something left before the general election, where not a single vote has been cast, you'll forgive me if I make it absolutely clear beyond peradventure: we are not talking to the Lib Dems. We are not doing any deals with the Lib Dems. We have made it absolutely clear that there will be no SNP ministers in any future Labour government." [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbC23vlsvzY]

In essence, Labour are basically saying “We could not be clearer on this...” Except you could, really, couldn’t you?

On the Lib Dems, I heard the magic words “not doing any deals” from Harman, which have been notably absent from their talk about the SNP, just that there wouldn’t be a formal coalition with them.

I mean, we all know Labour wouldn’t allow SNP MPs to be within its UK cabinet [http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/16/ed-miliband-labour-will-not-form-coalition-with-snp]. What they’ve been less clear on is whether there could come to some kind of looser arrangement with the SNP, as illustrated by interviews like today’s and previous entertaining exchanges, like this one [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTQJ_Uz5zA8].

It seems likely, in my view, that Labour will have to turn to the SNP for support in the event of a hung parliament, not least because opinion polls suggest the latter are set to take the vast majority of Scottish seats [https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/04/10/how-tactically-minded-scots-may-affect-election/]. I imagine Labour would still get to take a lead in determining government policy after the general election but would be likely to struggle in areas of conflict with the SNP on policies the Liberal Democrats, UKIP and Conservatives choose to oppose. Labour obviously don’t want to admit this, probably for fear of losing votes, although I can’t imagine their skirting round the issue is really making things any better for them. Mind you, Harman herself today worded Labour’s attitude in a rather wonderful way:

“If we form the government, it’s open to members of parliament from other parties to support our programme when we’re in government. That is open to them.” [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbC23vlsvzY]

I hope that’s made things a bit clearer for you all.

‪

[nonbirdwatcher]

Taxes (and death)

"Nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes" was the famous quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin. But what about death IN a tax?

Conservatives are claiming they would increase the inheritance tax threshold from £325,000 to £500,000 per person, or £1 million per household, if you prefer. Watching Chancellor George Osborne on The Andrew Marr Show today, 12 April 2015 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94hdq5iX9m8], he seemed to suggest that Conservatives would reduce public spending in order to make up gaps between government income and expenditure, rather than raising certain taxes or increasing borrowing. On the same show, Harriet Harman said such a change was "not a priority" for Labour [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbC23vlsvzY]. I would agree with that view. In this age of austerity, to say this looks like a case of misplaced priorities looks like an understatement to me. And it’s not really going to help that perception of the Conservatives as being ‘the party of the wealthy’ either.

Instead of having a 60p top income tax rate, like Greens would, or 50p top income tax rate like Labour and the SNP would, Conservatives want to increase the starting point for the current 40p higher income tax rate* from £42,400 to £50,000 and, like the Liberal Democrats, raise the income tax threshold to £12,500 [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/manifesto-guide?fb_ref=Default , ‘Taxation’]. This is bearing in mind Conservatives have already pledged not to raise VAT. I find all this troubling, particularly when the Conservatives rattle on about having to make "difficult decisions" with departmental spending, like Osborne said today. Well, I can't imagine changes like this are going to make things easier for you, are they?

*I should point out this is a slightly different thing [https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates/current-rates-and-allowances]

The Liberal Democrats would tax homes worth more than £2 million, which appears to be similar to Labour's 'mansion tax' idea. While Labour would scrap non-doms, Liberal Democrats would seek to increase charges on them instead. While Labour say they would tax bankers' bonuses - I must say, banning them if they appear unjustifiable might be a better idea - Greens would introduce a wealth tax on the '1%', worth £3 million+ and a financial transaction tax on banks [or 'Robin Hood tax', as they like to call it] [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/manifesto-guide?fb_ref=Default , ‘Taxation’].

In the midst of all this, UKIP seem to be pledging the lowest tax rates of them all: £13,500 personal allowance/income tax threshold and no inheritance tax at all, yet still trying to get big business to pay a 'fair share' of taxes. As for income tax rate, they're got a rather interesting idea: a 40p higher income tax rate for those on £55,000 or more a year and a 35p higher income tax rate for those on those earning between £42,285 [very precise for some reason, that] and £55,000 [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/manifesto-guide?fb_ref=Default , ‘Taxation’].

The SNP would rather all tax were devolved to Scotland [and the rest...but let's leave that aside for now], via full fiscal autonomy or devo max. I can't see this happening in the next UK Parliament, given the Conservatives' and Labour's opposition to it, but if the Scottish Government ever do get that, it's not really clear how they will fill in any funding gaps. I personally have no idea whether or not to believe that £7.6 billion figure the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies came up with, given it may have left out several important factors, particularly with regard to revenue raising. Higher taxation and borrowing, as opposed to public spending reductions, looks like the most likely answer, having listened to what Nicola Sturgeon's had to say when interviewed on the matter on Sunday Politics Scotland today.

Also, I've barely heard a peep from anyone about National Insurance, save for Labour saying they wouldn't increase it [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32056028]. I'm surprised by how little we seem to talk about this tax, given its importance in UK Government.

Then there's UKIP wanting to ban the 'tampon tax'. In other words, they say if we leave the EU, the UK would be able to remove the 5% VAT on the 'non-essential luxury' of women's sanitary products, which is apparently the minimum it can be under EU legislation [http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/32239182]. Presumably, the alternative would be to try and persuade the European Parliament to change tack on VAT by using your vast collection of MEPs to stand up for...oh, wait.

There are far too many other details to mention about taxation than I can care to go into. I’d highly recommend you go research these for yourselves. All this, of course, also has to come with the caveats that political parties can’t always be trusted and we have no idea which of these tax policies would be changed in the event of any coalition or other joint government.

As for tax avoidance and tax loopholes, I'm sure all the big parties say they have ways to clamp down on it but it's an extremely difficult thing to do, so I'd rather not rely on recouping of such money as a revenue source for government funds. Where there's a will, there's always another way.

[nonbirdwatcher]

A ‘nat-sy’ surprise: The aftermath

Well, I must say, I was pleasantly surprised by the response my last Tumblr post got - at least 15 notes, including likes and reblogs - suggesting quite a few people agreed with the point I was trying to make, that while The Daily Telegraph was heavily implying Nicola Sturgeon secretly wants to see the Conservatives return to power in the UK Government, the newspaper was in reality secretly trying to tear down the SNP.

I had a rifle through some of the others’ Tumblr blog posts and came across one from harbourseal about the ITV Leaders Debate on Thursday 2 April. Four words for you: more like this, please. I think it will be helpful for democracy. Incidentally, isobaepickwill added in a "lol @ Scottish Labour" to their reblog of my post, which I found quite funny.

It was one of those political rants I like to rustle up in about half an hour. I enjoy making those; it’s quite good fun. However, there were some minor errors I made I would like to address now.

Firstly, some typographical mistakes. I forgot to italicise certain terms, such as The Daily Telegraph and made some grammatical errors, so sorry for that. Secondly and rather more importantly, about that title: 'A nat-sy surprise'. When I used the word ’nat-sy', I meant it as a play on words of how what I called the UK establishment would be in for a nasty surprise, in part because of the Scottish National Party, which has a nationalist cause. However, it was only afterwards that I realised the term ’nat-sy' sounded like another kind of ’nationalist socialist cause'…it was never my intention to conflate the two and I know the SNP aren’t anything like that, so sorry about that too.

In any case, I hope I managed to make a useful political contribution. Enjoy the rest of your week.

[ainsleyfudge]

summary of the uk party leader’s debate for anyone who didn’t catch it

[nonbirdwatcher]

Yep, pretty much.

[nonbirdwatcher]

A ‘nat-sy’ surprise

You could be forgiven for thinking there’s a conspiracy in the UK media - a conspiracy against the Scottish National Party and against Scottish independence. Except, of course, it’s not a conspiracy, given how most UK newspapers openly declared an opposition to independence prior to last year’s referendum [http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/sep/18/scottish-independence-national-newspapers].

Yesterday, 4 April 2015, something rather interesting cropped up: a front page story in The Daily Telegraph, also picked up by the Scottish Daily Mail [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30603495], claiming Nicola Sturgeon had privately said she would rather have Conservative leader David Cameron as Prime Minister than Labour leader Ed Miliband [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11514933/Nicola-Sturgeon-secretly-backs-David-Cameron.html]. Apparently, an unidentified UK civil service source leaked a memo to The Telegraph discussing the French ambassador to the UK’s meeting with Nicola Sturgeon on 26 February 2015 that said, amongst other things:

"The Ambassador also had a truncated meeting with the FM (FM running late after a busy Thursday…). Discussion appears to have focused mainly on the political situation, with the FM stating that she wouldn’t want a formal coalition with Labour; that the SNP would almost certainly have a large number of seats; that she had no idea ‘what kind of mischief’ Alex Salmond would get up to; and confessed that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material). I have to admit that I’m not sure that the FM’s tongue would be quite so loose on that kind of thing in a meeting like that, so it might well be a case of something being lost in translation." [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11515276/Revealed-Full-text-of-Nicola-Sturgeon-memo.html]

It’s a rather shocking thought, given how it seems completely at odds with what the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon profess in public. For instance, in her speech at the SNP spring conference the previous Saturday, Nicola Sturgeon said:

"Let me said [sic] it loud and let me make it clear - the SNP will never put the Tories into government." [http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2015/mar/nicola-sturgeons-address-snp-conference]

There’s one fatal flaw with this story: The Telegraph reporter failed to check his sources properly. It was actually based on a "fourth-hand" account because, as the blog Wings Over Scotland explains:

"First-hand would have been Nicola Sturgeon [who allegedly said it]. Second-hand would have been the ambassador [who she allegedly said it to]. Third-hand would have been the consul-general [who would have told them what she had allegedly told the ambassador]. The civil servant - who doubted the story him/herself - is fourth-hand." [I’m not even going to go into this one.] [http://wingsoverscotland.com/leesten-varry-caurfelly/]

The story was based on an anonymous UK civil service source that wasn’t actually present at the French ambassador meeting. Both Sturgeon and Pierre-Alain Coffinier, France’s consul general, strongly denied anything like that had been said [http://news.sky.com/story/1458676/investigation-ordered-into-leaked-sturgeon-memo] -- not that The Telegraph had bothered to ask Sturgeon before publishing, as this tweet from her illustrates:

"Your story is categorically, 100%, untrue…which I’d have told you if you’d ask me at any point today" [https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/584094997890359297]

Additionally, as the earlier quote about "the FM’s tongue" shows, even the person who wrote the memo on which the entire story hinges wasn't absolutely sure she had said that. Surely, this alone should have sent alarm bells ringing?

And yet there went Scottish Labour, endorsing this Telegraph story as 'proof' that the SNP really want to see the Conservatives in the UK Government or spinning the story to claim "the Tories are desperate for the SNP to do well, and the SNP are happy to see another Tory government" [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32177315] [https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=822766077815594]. Not true, of course.

In a subsequent article, Alan Cochrane, Scottish editor for The Telegraph, stuck to the paper line, claiming Sturgeon had "appalling double standards", as well as claiming this emphasises:

"that she is perfectly prepared to dupe the Scottish people if it helps the SNP win votes on May 7. It also shows that a Conservative government in London, when taken together with a tiny number of Tory seats in Scotland, is part of the nationalists’ grand plan to provide the perfect breeding ground for another referendum which would, this time, see the break up of Britain." [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11514682/Nicolas-appalling-double-standards-exposed-for-all-to-see.html]

I’d like to mention this is the same Alan Cochrane who, in his 2014 book Alex Salmond: My Part in His Downfall, wrote this:

"[Better Together chairman Alistair] Darling rang and asked me not to publish my bashing of Downing Street as it would simply add fuel to the flames [...] I had already thought about not filing it and told Darling that [...] [my wife] Jenny said I should do what Darling asks. He’s in charge after all. It’s not really good journalism but what the hell does journalism matter?"

I had been looking for something to use for my Journalism case study on ethical issues. I think I may have just found it.

So, firstly, *sigh* Alan, dear.

I don't think the SNP have ever hid the fact they still want independence for Scotland. They also make it clear they would rather a majority of Scottish people voted for independence in a referendum. But to suggest the SNP secretly want the Conservatives to stay in power so as to further that interest is ridiculous, not least because it's not really in their best interests for this to happen. Yes, an increase in support for Scottish independence may be a side effect of such a government but another independence referendum remains a long way off - assuming it ever does happen, of course - so in lieu of that, the SNP will continue to seek more powers for Scotland so they can use them to pursue their own collectivist agenda in the Scottish Government. In my view, the most likely big party they can persuade to give them those greater powers is the one that created the Scottish Parliament in the first place: Labour. And 'double standards'? I don't think so. Sturgeon unambiguously and frankly denied The Telegraph's claims, including in that BBC News interview, for example, whereas other politicians in a similar scenario may well have dodged the questions.

I suspect this whole story is simply not true. In any case, it’s based on a source of such remoteness and dubiousness to the story it would seem more in place in The Sun than in The Telegraph, to my mind. The old 'A source said' defence may be OK to protect some sources. Not this time, though.

This incident is simply going to stoke support for the SNP and greatly help their underdog image, if only because of the wave of nationalists who have been provided with a nice chunk of meat to bite off the bone. This includes Wings Over Scotland, one of my favourite blogs. And, incidentally, I personally think BBC News' reporting of this story has not exactly been brilliant either.

Isn't it rather interesting how this memo, which was apparently written on 6th March, is only being reported to us now, two days after a debate in which Nicola Sturgeon was widely regarded as having performed well [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11513636/Leaders-debates-the-SNP-won.-The-rest-of-the-country-lost.html]? Doesn’t that seem just a trifle strange?

If this story was meant to puncture Scottish nationalists and the SNP, it looks to me like the UK establishment is going to be in for a nasty, I dare say 'nat-sy', surprise.

[nonbirdwatcher]

LabCon 2015?

Could the Conservatives and Labour form the next UK government together?

I’d forgive you for thinking I’m mad to suggest such a thing, not least because of how the two big parties love stoking hatred of each other. For instance, when the Conservatives claimed voting for Labour instead of them would "wreck" a "recovering economy" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seYDn3L2UKc] . Or when they were telling people 'vote UKIP, get Labour' [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29565764]. Or when the Scottish Conservatives claimed opinion polling proved neither Labour [https://www.facebook.com/ScottishConservatives/photos/pb.136308776480.-2207520000.1425729394./10152624330366481/?type=1] nor the Liberal Democrats [https://www.facebook.com/ScottishConservatives/photos/pb.136308776480.-2207520000.1425729394./10152624334716481/?type=1] could stand up to the SNP. Incidentally, I’m not sure where they get the 21% figure from the Liberal Democrats. It’s not difficult to see why they use percentages there and MP numbers for Labour, though: the same opinion polling results they seem to be quoting from [page 3 of http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Aggregated-Scotland-poll-tables-Feb-15-LAM124A.pdf] put Conservatives at 21%, compared to Labour at 30% and the SNP at 40%.

How about when Labour today asked us "What’s worse than two more months of David Cameron? Letting him win five more years." [https://www.facebook.com/labourparty/photos/a.249540562410.149481.25749647410/10152655682177411/?type=1&theater] What about Labour’s epidemic usage of #VoteSNPgetTories in its social media campaigning, despite the fact that when Scotland voted Labour last time, we got a Conservative-lead government? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010_(Scotland)] They told people to stay away from UKIP as they were "more Tory than the Tories" [https://uk.news.yahoo.com/video/ed-miliband-says-ukip-more-145516165.html] , which I’ll grant you is right, but when they have also tried to prevent any potential defections to the Greens, Shadow Justice Secretary Sadiq Khan opened his pitch with -- no, go on, have a guess. Yes, that’s right. "Whether we like it or not, our electoral system means that every vote for the Green party makes a Tory government more likely. I don’t want to scare people, but that’s the truth." [http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/14/sadiq-khan-labour-fightback-green-party-popularity-surge]

Actually, no, that is not the truth. It just means every vote for them means a government with your party is slightly less likely. And would it kill you to at least pretend to care about changing our voting system to make it more representative of the broader electorate’s desires?

Anyway, all of this may be about to become obsolete.

On 1 March 2015, LabourList published an article [http://labourlist.org/2015/03/labour-mp-says-party-shouldnt-rule-out-a-grand-coalition-with-the-tories/] reporting Labour MP Gisela Stuart’s comments to The Financial Times [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5c7a8830-bb6a-11e4-a31f-00144feab7de.html#axzz3TgmPmNxy] about how a 'grand coalition' between Labour and Conservatives shouldn’t be ruled out. She said:

"If on May 8 you had a position where Labour had more seats than the Tories but not enough to form a government - but the Tories had more votes than Labour - I think you should not dismiss the possibility of a grand coalition in terms of regrouping of the main."

She added:

"When you have to make very difficult decisions, the broader the baseline from which you work, the more you are able to do these things. If no party has won an overall majority then it will have to work with another party. And as you work through the options, do not rule out that you have a grand coalition."

Today, 7 March 2015, BBC News [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31776943] is reporting Conservative peer Lord Baker of Dorking’s comments that just that kind of grand coalition may be needed. He’s quoted as saying in a BBC Radio 5 Live interview: "I’m not advocating there should be a coalition between Labour and the Conservatives but it might have to come to something like that."

Lord Baker knows that this idea is, in his own words, "quite unthinkable the moment and, at this time, likely to be rejected by both of them" [http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/general-election-2015-why-a-conlab-coalition-may-be-needed-to-save-the-united-kingdom-10092247.html] . To quote the Financial Times piece on Stuart’s comments, Labour said the proposal was "utter, utter nonsense", while the Conservatives gave a big "snowball in hell’s chance" of that happening. Now, the Financial Times claimed that means the two parties are "implacably opposed".

I don’t think so. You’ll notice the phrase 'won’t do a deal' or anything similar to that is distinctly absent from these comments. As, indeed, it has been in all the material I’ve ever come across from Conservatives and Labour. And I regularly follow their material on Facebook. I’ve no idea why but I do. But that’s besides the point.

Both parties may claim that in this year's general election, your vote will be a choice between either Labour or Conservative, as the BBC News article I referenced earlier indicates. However, both parties have had their golden opportunities to say they would never, ever arrange to form a government with each other - a bit like the way the SNP [http://youtu.be/jL0kC1OAMMw?t=6m47s AT 6:47] and the Greens [http://youtu.be/eL3DBx8BVr0?t=10m36s AT 10:36] have both said they would never prop up a Conservative government - and simply not taken them. But why?

In just three words, I’ll tell you why: Scottish National Party.

Stuart said the coalition could be necessary "in terms of regrouping of the main", while Baker was rather more explicit. In his article for The Independent, he said:

"[being] sustained in power by the SNP voting on critical issues such as the Queen’s Speech, motions of confidence and the Budget […] may be looked upon as a triumph by default for Labour, but would in fact be a nightmare for them. Mr [Alex] Salmond would demand a high price for his support. He has already banked the promises of further devolution following the 2014 referendum and he would assuredly demand more powers to be devolved which will move Scotland closer to independence and the break-up of the UK."

He later went on to say in the article:

"In order to preserve that unity, another way should be found."

In other words, this Conservative is so desperate to stop the very real threat of the SNP that he’d rather have his party go into coalition into Labour. Meanwhile, David Cameron’s latest headline political spin is to talk of "the people who want to bankrupt Britain", meaning Labour, "and the people who want to break up Britain", meaning the SNP, as he did today [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31779777] .

Both Stuart and Baker drew parallels with the current situation in Germany, where another 'unthinkable' coalition between the SPD and their rivals in the CDU/CSU grouping is happening now. Don’t forget Labour and Conservatives were in coalition government between 1940 and 1945 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_war_ministry]. Mind you, there was the small matter of World War II to deal with back then. UKIP tanks on Labour’s lawn today seem a bit underwhelming by comparison.

If you refer back to the Scottish Conservatives material I mentioned earlier, you’ll notice they specifically use the phrase "won’t do a deal with the SNP". Astonishingly, Scottish Labour have even claimed David Cameron wants the Scottish people to vote SNP [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5XoO9RQYtY AND https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3qwDfZ97XE] . Funny that, I would have thought he was more of a Conservative man himself. Perhaps, in a roundabout way, he does want us to vote SNP but not for the reasons Labour’s trying to suggest. To be clear, what I mean by that is having to put up with Labour would arguably be bad, but not as bad, as having to deal with the SNP.

BBC Scotland political reporter Brian Taylor put Lord Baker’s suggestion to Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-31764576] . Would he rule it out? The response came:

"Absolutely. We don’t need lessons from Tory dinosaurs about how to run Scotland. What a ludicrous idea. The difference between the Labour Party and the Tory Party is bigger than it’s been for so many years. There’s one way of running the economy and there’s a different view from the Labour Party. We’ve got so little in common when it comes to some of these big issues that it’s never going to happen."

That may sound definitive but does that mean Gisela Stuart, the Labour MP for Birmingham Edgbaston, no less, is also a 'dinosaur'? I should point out that in the same answer Murphy also said this:

"In every election since there was adult universal suffrage, since long before the Second World War, the biggest party forms the government. It’s a fact of political life and in this election it’s either Labour vs Tory."

Go back to the two Scottish Labour videos I referenced earlier and look carefully at the difference in the wording of the text at the end of the first video ["the single biggest party gets to form a government"] and the text and the end of the second ["For the last 90 years, the largest party after the election has formed the government"].

In the event of a hung parliament, which looks very likely if opinion polls are to be believed, it will be the largest party currently in government - in this case, Conservative - that will get first shot at forming the next government. As far as I can tell, there are only two scenarios where two parties can work together to get the majority required to form a government:

Labour + SNP OR Labour + Conservative

Are both undesirable? Of course they are. Nobody votes for a coalition government. However, a confidence and supply agreement may provide a way for political parties to provide a relatively stable government while also allowing the parties to stick to their principles, assuming they have any.

So, if we vote Conservative or Labour at this election, who knows what we’re going to get? I’m just hoping revelations like this will help to prevent blind brand loyalty [i.e. voting for a party just because your parents did] and people will now vote not necessarily against what they fear but for what they believe in.

[nonbirdwatcher]

What UK MPs think about nuclear weapons

On Tuesday, an opposition debate was held in the House of Commons on the motion to not renew Trident, the UK's current nuclear programme. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Trident_programme]

This is how your MPs voted on the motion to abolish Trident that day. [http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php…]

All 5 SNP MPs, both Plaid Cymru MPs, the 1 Green MP and the 1 Respect MP were all present and, I'm not surprised to learn, voted Yes.

Mark Reckless of UKIP voted No. The other UKIP MP was absent.

Of the 121 Labour MPs present - I hasten to add that's a turnout of 46.9% - 102 voted No and 19 voted Yes.

Brian Donohoe, a Labour MP representing Central Ayrshire, was amongst those voted No. I'm afraid I did not watch much of the debate but I did tune in just in time to hear him say this: "When there are submarines from Russia going up the Clyde right now, he [Angus MacNeil MP] is trying to tell us that we shouldn't have a deterrent. That's absolutely unreal. And tankers going over the top of Scotland from the same place. Absolutely unreal that we should find ourselves absolutely defenceless. It's a crazy notion." [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtiR38d5TTg] I think that means he's not exactly in favour of its removal, then? As the blog Wings Over Scotland pointed out, what he said is not exactly true [http://wingsoverscotland.com/chimp-of-the-day/].

The Liberal Democrats seemed to be even less concerned about this issue - only 10.5% turned up. Mind you, 5 of the 6 voted Yes. The other said No.

Of the 84.8% of Conservative MPs present, 254 voted No and one voted Yes - Crispin Blunt.

Based on the above results, it would appear Labour, Conversatives and Liberal Democrats are unwilling to remove Trident, although they have told us before about what they see as a need for a nuclear deterrent. The SNP, Plaid Cymru, Green parties and Respect all seem to vehemently disagree.

Now, I don't know whether or not you think the UK should continue to have a nuclear deterrent. I personally believe it should not. However, what is clear is that Trident is not going anywhere any time soon. Probably just as well in a way; I don't want to think about what might happen if we were to actually use it.

I'll leave you with a critique of Facebook commenter Dean McKinnon on Scottish Labour's latest party political broadcast, about the idea of Scotland needing to change. "Those nuclear weapons your party voted to renew yesterday would certainly change Scotland if anything went wrong with them," he said. [https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=781371891955013&permPage=1]

[nonbirdwatcher]

I hope your 2015 will the year you see you're not a failure. Nowhere near. There are people to whom you are incredibly important. They love and care about you and you do not disappoint them. People like me who don't even know you personally are inspired by you. That's a fair achievement I'd say. You matter, even if you can't even see a future for yourself at this moment in time. This unhappiness will pass, I promise; and you'll see all the positive things people say about you to be true <3

Whoever you are, I'm bugged by the fact that you're asking these questions anonymously. Despite what you say here, I think I do know you personally already and vice versa. If that is the case, I ask you to message me on Facebook as soon as you can read this.

That's some interesting analysis you come up with there.

There's a kind of 'power and status' seeking mentality that often goes through my mind but even if I had one million followers on Twitter, I would still think my opinions are wrong and that I should just shut up and let sensible people with normal brains do the talking instead. God knows, I need to learn how to just shut up and stop talking over people with meaningless drivel that nobody cares about.

Reading news articles and blog posts, commenting on them and sharing them does not constitute 'research'. Absolutely not. I have no idea how to find facts for things or how to make any kind of judgement 'on balance', whatever that means. Just ask me where I would like to live or what constitutes a good or bad landlord and I'm stumped because I'm too stupid to be able to work things like this out. The opinions I have are not fully developed and probably won't ever be to a satisfactory level. I cannot imagine myself giving a presentation on anything or asking specific questions to any politician I like or dislike for fear of my entire argument crumbling to pieces, such is the difficulty in knowing whether to believe anything I read or not. I'm also very, very gullible which is very, very bad.

That's what I mean when I say my opinion is invalid and ridiculous and I have basically no research skill ability.

It is perhaps ironic and paradoxical that I say 'in my opinion, my opinion is invalid' -- indeed, it reminds me of time when I told my sister 'One bit of advice for you: Don't take advice from me' -- but I stand by the statement.

I believe I am liked in spite of who I am, not because of it.

2015 will be a very bad year for me indeed. By the end of it, the extent to which I am a vicious, intolerable and moronic person will probably become apparent anyway. There's nothing I can do about becoming a proper teenager, since my brain is so backwards, so I don't see what I can do to hide it or indeed why I should even bother. I'm not satisfied with life overall anyway. I fail to see the point in it all somewhat.

Thank you for your cooperation. Hope you enjoy your life.

[nonbirdwatcher]

Please never ever get sucked into UKIP and the Tories vacuum Ryan *shudders*.. my opinion's not worth a lot of clout as a Tumblr Anon I realise but I agree with a lot of your views.. and although maybe your opinions are still forming; you at least bother to inform yourself and make reasoned arguments. You at least engage with political issues, and question and use evidence to decide what your views are. Your vote in any election is therefore meaningful. Our generation needs a tonne more like you

I appreciate the sentiment, sir, but even if I may appear to instinctively lean in the same direction as you politically right now, I don’t know what the point is in even bothering.

Basically any politician can claim to care about everybody else around them, to love their country and want what is best for them, which is why they adopt that political belief, whether you are Communist or Labour, Conservative or Britain First; it makes words such as ‘patriot’ and ‘compassionate’ completely meaningless, sucking all signs of hope out of the system. Why even bother saying you’re a political party for ‘hard working families’? Who in their right mind is going to actively proclaim they are part of a party for lazy people?

The difference between competence and chaos can be anything you want it to be; extremist positions can emerge via slippery slope tactics, such is what is probably happening to me and many other people around me already.

My arguments are not reasoned; they are a parroting of others’ arguments. I have no idea how to work out whether they are telling the truth or not; my research skills are dire at best. I know nothing, including how to know anything.

It may well turn out the conservative-leaning people were right all along and all this rhetoric I’ve been spouting, sharing, retweeting, reblogging and so on and so forth will turn out to be complete nonsense and that I should in fact be as selfish as possible instead. But what does it really matter? Nobody really cares for my opinion and what I have got to contribute - which is essentially nothing, anyway - and rightly so; it’s positively deceptive tripe.

All that really matters to politicians is the V-card. The vote. And although the number of floating voters appears to be increasing, it will never be by enough of a margin to shunt politicians broadly in the direction of public opinion. The voting system question may not even be enough to get this problem to go away: either we vote for the party we like second least or have a system where we can choose the party we really believe in but end up deadlocked with all other big parties and having to constantly compromise. In any case, all of this doesn’t really matter because I have always been a useless minority person and always will be.

I respect your opinion but certainly do not agree with it right now.

The politicians have already won over the people.

My opinion is completely invalid and complete drivel.

You go have fun now.

[nonbirdwatcher]

Death of transgender teenager Leelah Alcorn

In a statement on Facebook on 28 December, Alcorn's mother wrote: "My sweet 16-year-old son, Joshua Ryan Alcorn went home to heaven this morning. He was out for an early morning walk and was hit by a truck. Thank you for the messages and kindness and concern you have sent our way. Please continue to keep us in your prayers."

Note the deliberate use of the word 'son' and Leelah's birth name there, thereby illustrating her mother's failure to give her the dignity of her preferred gender identity, even in death.

An article from WCPO in Cincinnati, Ohio details the discussion that's been sparked by this suicide case [http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/warren-county/leelah-alcorn-suicide-note-sparks-transgender-discussion]. Even if there may have been some evidence to the contrary, Leelah clearly did not think she was getting enough support. That is perfectly understandable.

If you have been affected by this story and would like someone to talk to, I am willing to listen on Tumblr. Feel free to message me.