node-one.com

OK, the results are not all in yet, but it’s roughly what we were led to expect. So now what? The situation no politician was willing to speculate about. Looks like we have LibDems going to Conservatives to do the gentlemanly thing and talk to the people with the biggest share of the vote first. Nick Clegg talking about it as if it’s just about numbers, seems to be ignoring policies. And seriously, would anyone trust LibDems again if they propped up the Tories? is this genuinely what those people thought they were voting for? From the LibDems I know, I’d say emphatically not.

Who should be talking?

But here’s my problem: if it really is about going with the people’s mandate like he says, then Conservatives  and Labour should be forming a pact, not Con-Lib!! (if anything Con and Lab have more in common, I’d say.)

So, we’re told we’re in confusion… as if The Public have failed to vote properly. It’s being presented as a crisis. I hate the stupid rolling news - BBC is showing a live helicopter shot of Clegg’s car “making it’s way through the london traffic”! And there’s speculation about 1974-type scenario: minority government then another election in months. Surely we’ve moved on from that?

The polticians said they didn’t want “behind closed doors deals” - all parties have said they don’t want to do this (they’ve used it as argument against nhing parliament). Fine: easy, just do the deals publically then!

Coalition not Pact

It makes absolutely no sense for the parties that came first and third getting together. Other countries must be laughing at us! The coalition should be between the strong first and second! The very fact that this is unthinkable to Labour and Conservative exposes someething ver deeply wrong with our political system.

It really is very simple. The people of Britain have placed most of their votes with Labout and Conservative. It is those two parties who should be working together to make a coalition  that truly represents the mandate.

The Lib Dems should hardly get a look in, given their share of the vote. (And this is truly what people actually object to - them having “kingmaker” powers, large representation for small vote share)

What situtuations should the coalition be between first and third parties, excluding the second? It might make sense if Lib and Con were very closely allied in terms of policy and very far from Lab. But that is clearly not the case here. The Labour party has  exempted itself for purely childish reasons!

People seem to think “work with” has to mean “agree with”. Trust shouldn’t come into it, it’s not needed: if you’re paying attention to the issues, you don’t need to trust the leaders, because you are engaging. It is only if you (the public, or the backbench MPs) are being lazy and not engaging that you need Trust.

A Hung Parliament Is Dangerous?

This myth of a “strong stable” government… meaning giving absolute power to one party - so entrenched in our political culture - really needs to be swept away. If we had a fair voting system (some form of PR), we’d never have a single party having majority control.

Is  hung parliament really such a terrible thing. Isn’t it possible it’s actually a positive thing? If we had proportional representation in this country, all parliaments would be hung. Parties would be forced to always work together. Let’s use the word “coalition” - which suggests real engagement - as opposed to “hung” which suggests a failure.

Coalition government is pretty common too. In the whole of Europe only three countries currently have a majority government (France, Greece, Malta)

One argument against coalition government is that it will lead to worsening debt problems and and fiscal imprudence. Here’s the evidence that this is rubbish.

Coalition government is something we should strive for. It’s far more democratic than Supreme Power to whoever got half the seats (usually not much over a third of the votes) because it means the popular parties all get a say.

A Real Opportunity

We now have a real chance to develop our country’s political system into something mature and modern. A chance to finally sweep out the historical anomalies. To have a proper grown up political system. Like other countries.

We shouldn’t be in a situation where we’ve said what we want but we don’t know what we’re going to get.

A couple of positives

I’m encouraged by the anger of people being turned away from voting: not exactly the voter apathy we are told about.

I’m thrilled by the election of Caroline Lucas in Brighton. So refreshing to see her interviewed by Paxman and actually answering the question! It’s
refreshing but also actually exposes/shows up how poor other politicians are.

This is fun: an Aardman animation to promote the country code.

Download it from here.

From the government’s countryside access site.

(Look out for that seagull with the carrier bag!)

This is a blog post I wrote about a few weeks ago, right after her death, but decided to postpone publishing till a short while after. So forgive me for being out of date.

The Princess Diana reaction has already started. The Prime Minister has, inevitably, made a statement. And all the lovies such as Stephen Fry are issuing their tributes. And the tabloid press has gone mad of course. OK Magazine even issued a tribute magazine (issue 666) before her death!

Let’s face it: she’s best known for Being Stupid and for Being A Racist. I’m sorry, and I know how this comes across, but that’s really not something worth celebration.

Latterly, she’s considered brave for Having Cancer. This is a ludicrous stance to take. Bravery always involves some sort of choice: doing the difficult, dangerous thing rather than taking the easy option. If she’d chosen to be infected with cancer that would be a different matter. The fact that we have sympathy with her does not mean she is brave. (cf. John Diamond’s incessant writings on the subject)

If I met her, I seriously doubt I would have found her interesting or charming; though the fact that we’d have nothing in common doesn’t, obviously, make her a Bad Person (though I’m willing to be proved wrong: Stephen Fry, for example, found her compelling and fun!).

But you see… We don’t need to accord greatness to a person to believe they deserve respect and humanity. I believe every human being deserves to be treated properly - with respect, dignity, humanity, fairness - and this is unconditional on whether I’d like them or agree with them.

Can we just take amoment to remind ourselves (see illustration) how utterly despicable the press was in its treatment of Jade Goody when she was alive? That is not respect. that is not humanity. Princess Diana: déjà vu?

There are bombers and murderers who I’d have no hesitation in describing as despicable people, but I would still demand they were treated fairly by any justice system, and given the opportunity of free speech etc. Or for instance not to be executed by the state. The point is: I don’t have to like people to believe they should be treated like human beings. If we start to feel we can pick and choose who gets treated with dignity, that’s where the rot sets in. And that’s what (inversely) this attempt to portray her as Something Great is symptomatic of.

[As an aside I'm reminded of the difficulty the environmental/animal rights movement has in raising money or awareness for animals that are not cute and fluffy. There may be some slimy slug that is crucial to the balance of the ecosystem; but cute baby seals are always going to get more public sympathy. Again - our concern and respect should be unconditional and go beyond our aesthetic judgement.]

Panorama has revealed that Primark has used child labour to produce its ultra cheapo clothing: Guardian’s report. Yeah, well, of course it has!! Did anyone really think otherwise? Are we in such a state of denial about how things are produced?

So… Primark is acting all shocked and firing the firms that have done this - see BBC report.

Am I just too cynical? I find this funny: http://www.ethicalprimark.co.uk/

And this highlights a much wider debate regarding what we really think we should pay for things… whether music, food etc. And how we need to get out of the way of thinking of things as being disposable. Just today, Gordon Brown’s been telling us to Stop Wasting Food! Quite right, but shouldn’t that be obvious?

We must stop thinking of things as being throwaway… i’ve heard people talk about Primark as “use-once clothing”… or even - just buy a selection, doesn’t matter if you never wear it at that price. This is horrible in a world of finite resources.

Google has been doing these (mildly) entertaining variations on their logo for many years. A fun way to play with a logo styling while retaining the brand identity. You can see some here, and Google’s previous Earth Day logos here.

Even Yahoo (usually slow to follow trends) has changed its logo today - to a fairly irritating animated one.

So far, aside from Christmas, I’ve not seen much evidence of companies doing this kind of thing. Maybe not worth the effort for short periods (Google’s are frequently a day). Who knows what value it has as a talking point…?

Anyone spotted any other logo variants?

Oh! And before I forget - the reason behind all of this - Earth Day.