It is now Question Time for us, perhaps

I, along with many people in this country, will have just finished watching ‘Question Time’ on the BBC. I dare say that Question Time had its highest viewing figures in years. The reason behind this sudden upsurge in popularity is clear – Nick Griffin.

I have received BNP leaflets at my home – but I have the sense to shred them. The problem is that, at the heart of the party, is a bedrock of very astute campaigning on behalf of the party. They manage to find the minor issues that are of concern to the local populace that they are concentrating on, and find seemingly reasonable solutions to those problems. The problem is that they fail to mention the more pernicious aspects of their whole raison d’etre.

So this is the thrust of my blog post tonight, my friends. If you are going to register a protest vote, please, please PLEASE try to find a party that brings with it far fewer risks. The BNP do not realise that a protest vote for them is merely that – they think that it legitimises their extreme views on society in this country, and therefore it gives them more confidence to peddle their views.

I consider myself disenfranchised in this country. I live in a constituency where there is more chance of finding Elvis in a compromising position with Lord Lucan than there is of electing a Labour MP – I am disappointed with the Liberal Democrats’ lack of communication with myself, and I have some very real concerns about the Conservatives’ education policies (being a teacher). I am, however, damned if I am going to vote for the BNP.

I might contact the Official Monster Raving Loony Party to see if they need a candidate here!

Wogan – He does it his way!

This morning, at 8:05, the news that I, and 8 million others were dreading, but which we knew was inevitable, happened. Sir Terry Wogan, doyen of the airwaves, beloved broadcaster, and the TOGs’ equvalent of  a guru, has decided to quit while he is ahead and to leave his daily breakfast show.

Yesterday morning I read the ‘exclusive’ on the website of thr Daily Mail, and hoped that it was not true. Yet it did have the ring of veracity about it. The old chap is 71 (note that he is not 59), so it would be stupid and unrealistic to expect him to go on forever.

It would have been ‘good form’ if the Mail had left it to Sir Terry to announce this in his own good time, rather than rush out an ‘exclusive’ to garner publicity than someone who has served the public in his own unique way for 27 years in two stints. That is the way of tabloid journalism, alas.

I will miss Sir Terry. He occasionally reads out my ramblings, and occasionally laughs at them (he is very kind to the bewildered). It feels like a beloved relative is moving away, so that we will not get to see him as much as we are used to.

I will listen to Terry’s new show on Radio 2, and I will continue to send emails bemoaning the pace of modern life and the stupidity of technology. In fact I look forward to the show/

As for Chris Evans? I have read a lot of gnashing of teeth, of people saying that, no matter what, they will not listen. Why on earth don’t they give him a chance. Of course it will not be anything like Wake Up to Wogan, mainly because the only person who can carry that format is Sir Terry himself.  If Mr Evans tried to emulate the format in its current form then he will be accused of having no imagination and of being nothing like his predecessor – that is something he cannot and should not do.

I will listen to the breakfast show in 2010 – it will be different, but fear or dislike of anything just  because it is different has caused many problems over the years. Let’s give Chris a chance. Let’s toast him when he has served 27 years and is leaving with the love of the public in his heart.

A Dark Day for Great Britain, but a dark day for GB?

I am sorry, but I am throughly depressed. This will be one of my serious blog essays, and not one of the ones where I try to appear witty.

The main reason for my unhappiness is a creeping perniciousness that has made headway in British society without actually becoming more popular. If you are wondering what I am blathering on about, I am surprised, but I will explain. Last night, when the results of the UK round of the 2009 Euro elections were being announced, it transpired that the BNP had gained 2 seats in the north of England. The BNP’s share of the vote did not go up – this transpired because the Labour Party is about as popular at the moment as Dr Crippen would have been if he had been a marriage guidance counsellor. Labour’s vote around the country plummeted faster than a paving slab with a death wish – third in terms of share of the national vote behind the Conservatives and UKIP, and even fifth behind the Cornish Nationalists in Cornwall. So why are they so unpopular?

I have become an avid reader of Nick Robinson’s blog on the BBC website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson). Most of the time he cuts through the balderdash and tells things how they are. I hope he might read this and ask someone the following pertinent question:

Throughout the good times (remember them?), the Conservatives kept saying that the wealth and success our country enjoyed was as a result of the good times of the world, and the hard work of the Conservative Party. It is indeed true that the world was having a great time – there was much health, wealth and happiness in political circles. However the Labour Party poured cold water on this and explained that the wealth and happiness was purely as a result of policies and actions taken by the Labour Party.

When the wheels started falling off, however, the powers that be explained that this was a world recession, and that it had nothing to do with the actions of those who, theoretically, know best and do things in our name.

Forgive me for being dim, but how dare someone who said that happiness and wealth was all his work suddenly start blaming others for things going pear-shaped. Either he really believes this, or he thinks the electorate are fools.

Gordon Brown wants to continue leading us. He thinks he is the man to lead us out of the reception. That is a bit like the man who has suddenly leapt on you in the street and really laid into you with punches and kicks telling you it is okay because he knows the way to the hospital.

It has been suggested, by those who think that they can read our minds, that the reasons for such a bad election showing are the recession and the expenses row. Sorry, it has been officially expanded to an expenses scandal. I am sorry to try to bring a dose of reality to politicians, particularly those in charge. The election results were bad because of Gordon Brown – he is universally unpopular.

This unpopular man is also, sadly arrogant, an aspect that he maintained last week that he was not. Yes, the results were bad. Yes, he took responsibility. Yes, there was a big message. Surely, though, if he is going to take ultimate responsibility he should stand down. Otherwise what he said should be read as nothing more than arrogant rhetoric.

Oh, by the way, in theory I am a Labour supporter (note the ‘in theory’).

How to bring about a General Election…NOW!

This is merely a suggestion, as I am sure that no-one would dare take me up on this suggestion.

Here are some observations:

1 – The public is fed up with the expenses row

2 – The MPs think we want them to resign

3 – The Conservatives and others are demanding a General Election

I think I have come up with a way for the people who demand dissolution to get their way.

Why don’t all the Conservatives and Lib Dems immediately stand down with the intention to stand again in a by-election. The ensuing meltdown should cause enough of a constitutional crisis to bring one about.

What do you think? Or are the Conservatives merely being brave for the sake of being seen to be brave?

With no expense saved

It must be a hard life being a Member of Parliament. All that time spent in Westminster, all those long weekends ‘in the constituency’, surgeries, and all those damned inconvenient recesses.

In addition it must be hard to survive on a salary of £64000, which is why they receive all those allowances.

I am appalled by the reprehensible behaviour of MPs. The furore of the expenses publication has led to comments that they are acting ‘within the rules’. That doesn’t actually matter to us, the electorate, as they are the ones who drew up the rules. The fact that they claim for as much as possible to subsidise their already considerable salaries may well be allowable, but is it morally justifiable?

I am aghast at the attitudes displayed. It would appear that the aim of a career politician is to maintain a lavish lifestyle. If they can claim £20k+ per year on all manner of things, what on earth do they do with their salaries?

I am a teacher – I earn around £35000 per year. I live in the country, but I work in the city. I maintain a mortgage and pay for diesel and digs with no chance to claim money back for them. I also pay child maintenance for my daughters.

I am seriously considering standing for Parliament, under the banner of not claiming any expenses. It should be simple enough to live somewhere in digs in London, to be at the House of Commons or to be in your constituency and still have money to spare on £64000 per year. I would like to see if it is possible.

Watch out, Parliament, Sir Blimely is on his way!

Time for a little political comment

I normally try to inject a little humour into my posts. I have to inform you, dear reader, that I am in a state of shock.

I am not in a state of shock because Captain Darling is showing increased ineptitude with regard to steering the British economy. I think he needs relieving from his duties very soon.

To be honest, I think shock is a bit of an understatement. I am utterly amazed. It transpired today that Ministers admitted that handed over terror suspects in Iraq to US authorities, who transported them to Afghanistan for interrogation. This is something that has been denied over and over and over again.

This happened in 2004. It didn’t come to light until 2006, when ‘brief references’ were made in papers given to the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, and the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke.

This begs one very simple question, and one that has not actually been asked yet: Who on earth authorised it?

Here are another couple of questions to be going on with:

How come it takes until 2009 for the ‘truth’ to come to light?

How come a simple ‘we didn’t appear to be truthful to MPs’  is all the government thinks is necessary? 

It pains me to write what I am about to write. I am, by my very nature, politically left-of-centre. To realise that a government that I thought cared for everybody, a government that was all about fighting for people’s rights, had colluded in this kind of activity leads me to believe that it does not have the right to represent my beliefs, my attitudes or, quite simply, my family.

They should go now, and not attempt to stand for re-election.

Are those who complain Universally Challenged?

I watch University Challenge, and I am proud to admit it. I like to get some questions right, which I normally do.

That is not to say, however, that I get every question right, but I do not mind.

When I attended university in the late 1980s, University Challenge was not on our screens. That is a shame as I would have liked to have tried to get on a team. Please note I put in the word ‘tried’.

The reason I am on the verge of getting my dander up (typical, never the opportunity to use it when it is up!) is that there would appear to be a lot of spleen venting within the online community about a contestant in tonight’s final. That contestant is Gail Trimble, the captain of the team from Corpus Christi, Oxford.

Now I am not exactly sure what the problem is. Is it:

Because she is a woman? or

Because she is blessed with phenomenal intelligence and exceptional general knowledge.

I am not under-blessed in the intelligence and general knowledge capability myself, but what I know pales into insignificance in comparison to Gail. Let me let you into a little secret as well – I don’t mind.

Not everybody can be fantastic at everything – that is a fact of life that people should grasp at an early age. I myself cannot believe that there are people who are slamming her for being intelligent. for being ‘the worst contestant ever’, being smug, and being devoid of personality.

Just you try and cope with the media groping for a story and coming and sticking a camera up your nose. She is not smug, she is clearly a person who is on a programme because she is blessed with excellent knowledge on a large range of subjects, due to the fact that the very raison d’etre of said programme is to demonstrate exceptional knowledge.

I put it to you, oh members of the Internet community and my faithful readers, that those who are voicing the loudest negative opinions are merely feeling inferior for the first time in their lives and cannot handle it.

Live with it folks! Some people will be better than you at some things. Some people may be better than you at a lot. It is a fact of life and you should just seek to improve yourselves, and not berate those who have chosen to improve themselves.

Anyway, if you want to single out someone who looks smug just watch CJ on Eggheads!

Education – An email to the Togmeister 19/02/09

Guten Morgen, Herr Togmeister!

I sat down last night, being the ardent educationalist I am (currently on a week’s leave from St Agatha’s Academy for ‘Gels’), to watch a BBC 1 programme called Waterloo Road. I think it is to be commended that the BBC is scheduling documentaries at this time of night, but I have one or two quibbles with the substance of the programme:

1 – I have never, in my entire teaching career, been in a school where 6 teachers do all the teaching for 1000 pupils.

2 – The school appears to have a number of problems, which have been highlighted over the last few weeks – guns, pregnancy, disruptive behaviour, drugs and, the worst of all, illegal boxing contests. It certainly knocks my problems with Jemima Fortescue not submitting her needlework and bodybuilding essay (a difficult little assignment I dreamt up to stretch the more able students) into a cocked hat.

Has anyone alerted the authorities about this school? Should we do our civic duty and let someone know.

What do you think? Your word is my command,

Sir Blimely Windy

Pictures

I found this online today. Whoever the paparazzo was who snapped me on holiday in Skegness has a lot to answer for.

Where is Paul Daniels?

I seem to have a great deal to say about television at the moment. Maybe it is the fact that most of the tripe that is broadcast is, to quote Frank Lloyd Wright, ‘chewing gum for the eyes’.

I have become oddly addicted to one particular programme. Now let me make it clear, when I say oddly addicted I don’t mean that start behaving in some bizarre and extremely erratic fashion. I actually mean that the programme in question is such a load of old pap that I don’t know why I watch it, but I do (thank you Clarence ‘Frogman’ Henry for providing me with a song title I can so easily change).

In the mid to late 1980s there was a television programme presented by Paul Daniels, which was called ‘Wipeout’.  It itself was watchable rubbish, and has absolutely nothing to do with my current viewing. Sorry to digress, I will wipe up later.

Somewhere in the wilds of Argentina is a bizarre obstacle course which is the star of ‘Total Cop-out’ sorry, ‘Total Wipeout’. People get wet, fall into mud, try to jump over four massive balls by bouncing on them, and generally get ridiculed by Richard Hamster. The Hamster offers one-liners with that sound so  much like a script that they could probably be delivered by Patrick Stewart (other Shakespearean actors are available, even Chuffer Dandridge) with equal aplomb.

As each programme progresses, 20 contestants are whittled down (I do like the word ‘whittled’) to 12, then 6, then 3, who brave a moonlit obstacle course. The prize? A measly (by today’s standards) £10000. £10000 is a lot of money to some, indeed it is to me, but when you can win £60-70k  by answering inanely stupid questions on ‘In it to Win it’, physical punishment for 10 grand doesn’t seem like much.

The most startling thing, I shall say again, is that I watch it, I watch it every week.

I am off to ring my therapist, and bounce him on a very big ball.