I haven’t blogged now for around 10 months now (doesn’t time fly) but I thought I needed to write an article about a recent book I read for more reasons than just the book itself. It’s something I have seen a few reviews about and have always been meaning to get a copy of it yet it had always evaded my purchasing habits until now. The book is entitled “Naughty.” Despite its name it’s not a porn collection, though it does have some tits in (in a purely metaphorical sense of course). The book, itself, is the story of a man called Mark Chester with excerpts from other blokes about their time running with the football hooligan firm linked to Stoke City called the Naughty Forty.
The first thing that springs to mind from it is that football hooliganism has moved on from violence to being a nice little money-making industry. This is by two methods. The first being organised crime linked to drugs. Easy to see how when you already have an organised group of men who have little to lose and up for the fight as reflected in sequel to this book “Sex Drugs and Football Thugs” but perhaps more surprisingly the completely legitimate business of using the media and even the education system to give extra coverage to the issue. These books about football hooliganism are numerous in many book shops now and the authors, like Chester, have hit the lecture circuit and regularly give talks at the universities on the issue as well as even having his own website. Go and kick someone’s head and then write a book about how and why you did it. Easy money it seems.
The one thing I particularly liked about the book was the fact that the author called a spade a spade. Too many authors often dress up events but here he was honest by telling things how they were no matter how unpleasant they were. Having a situation where your mother is a tart, your father is absent and your principal carer an alcoholic isn’t going to have you first in the queue to study at Oxford. But not everyone who goes through it ends up a violent criminal either. I would have appreciated a bit more on why he wasn’t going to take the conventional route in life as well as why he went on to lead the life that he did. The two aren’t necessarily the same thing.
Some things in it particularly caught my attention. The first thing you find from the book about the people involved is that the outcome of it all is far from the easy life. For every one gracing university lecturing halls up and down the country now, there are ten who are in jail, dropouts from society or even worse six foot under, many through the choice of their own. Most of the guys involved ended up this way with most as well starting like this. Drugs, alcohol, violence with damaged parents or often-absent ones were all features of the usual crap childhood that a significant proportion of kids have to go through in the supposed enlightened age of the 21st century. It seems that this sort of upbringing is what attracted these men to Stoke City and the violence attached whatever the rights and wrongs of that maybe.
However it seems that characters involved were unable to take out their anger just through football violence. What is noticeable is that they would fight over increasingly trivial things such as a guy giving you a funny look in a bar. It became increasingly like an addiction picking on new victims no matter who were they (a reference to Newcastle game in 1995 when anyone in black white was fair game for a smack in the mouth). What also became increasingly clear what that that these guys had very little in their lives aside from the football. Sure there are some wives/girlfriends/bits on the side/ and maybe even some children mentioned but it doesn’t seem like anyone was making strides in a professional career during the week just drifting from job to job. I also found slightly disturbing how the group would arrange fights for lads as young as 14 by taking them all over the country to smash people and places up. If the author cared so much for these lads as he says he did surely some more helpful guidance in life would have done them more justice. Many of the lads seem to have looked up to him as a father figure and he let them down just as his father had let him down.
I do have a few criticisms of the book as well. Firstly I wanted to hear more about the why behind football hooliganism than the how. If I want to see a fight I can just stick on the telly or go into a city centre at night. After all, there is only so many times you can read “such and such ran straight into the first one of them with a forearm smash.” There was a bit too much of it and it became repetitive after a while.
Another point was the humour side of it. Ok if I want to laugh maybe I should read a book on a more cheerful subject than this but even so their must have being a bit of humour the guys could have shared even from the years. I counted one moment in the book that I found funny which is pretty poor for 380 pages. Incidentally the joke was about a game where Stoke fans invaded the pitch and then wrote “supportive messages” to the players on the dugout such as “you’re f***ing toss.” Well it made me laugh at least.
Finally, it seemed that a lot of the people involved loved the violence more than the club. There was very little about Stoke as a football team and when there was the details were incorrect for example spelling ex players names incorrectly. Often the guys would turn up late for games. When you prioritise a punch up over the team it is difficult to see you as a supporter.
Overall, The main message the book confirmed for me is that football is something very special to many people. By football I don’t mean sitting in that nice warm sports bar following the multinational company of your choice be it the shit, Arsenal, Chelsea etc. I mean having the psychology having the affinity with a place that might be as grim as my waistline and then paying 40 quid of your hard earned money travelling to such glamour spots as Barnsley, Bradford or even Stoke itself to see a load of overpaid donkeys representing that place running around at the same time as getting pissed on and seeing your team lose 4-0 in the vain hope that one day they will turn it around and do something you will be proud of along with 500 or so other lonely souls. Sad you may say but addictive. Yet the activities of this group made it to a certain extent a more miserable experience. As a regular football supporter you are often characterised as a moron but due to hooliganism the authorities used a sledgehammer to crack a nut and imposed measures on Stoke fans that would be have made the front page of the Guardian if done to other groups in society. The Naughty Forty is partially to “thank” for this inconvenience.
I think also this book confirmed to me that football hooliganism is increasingly coming a thing of the past or at least changing. ID cards, all seater stadiums and games kicking off at 12pm on a Sunday have led to a loss of appetite for those seeking a fight. Trouble at the games these days seems to be small groups of chavs no older than 18 waving their arms around and coming out with certain muffled phrases that might be English to them but not to me. Very rarely does this lead to real fights. Not that there is anything wrong with it. Football is male tribalism at its most natural. Where else can you go and spend 90 minutes voicing your opinion in such poetic language with 20,000 people doing exactly the same? The difference seems to be that most can do this and then walk back into their everyday lives. These guys didn’t, because they simply didn’t want to, been perfectly happy to pull anyone in who was remotely interested. That’s the reason that football hooliganism creates more losers than winners. The fact that the losers come in as the weakest people leads me to think that for all the thrills the Naughty Forty were a cancer on the club. Most of them don’t go anymore and it seems that the club has gone from strength to strength on and off the pitch without them. That’s why they are gone and forgotten.
Sunday 25 May 2008
Friday 27 July 2007
Danny Turner: Bigger threat to world peace than Bin Laden……allegedly
Danny Turner: Bigger threat to world peace than Bin Laden……allegedly
Since I’m working over the next few weeks I thought I would write something slightly different in my blog but upon searching the internet came across this interesting piece that, with the permission of the author, I thought I would share with you all…………..
Danny Turner: Bigger threat to world peace than Bin Laden……..allegedly
Blah blah blah…..Danny Turner……..blah blah blah………always beats me at chess……blah blah blah………manic socialist.....blah blah blah………..tories are great…………blah blah blah………bloody immigrants………..blah blah blah……. crap since 1990……blah blah blah…….. bring back Mrs T…………blah blah blah
Comments (1)
Danny Turner wrote:
Richard Davies is a fucking lowlife degenerate. Him and his surrogate mother Thatcher have ruined my life. Take last week. I got up for work and found there’s no milk left to have with my coco pops. My mum said it’s because I had forgot to go to the shop the night before to get some but I ain’t having any of it. It’s that milk snatching woman. She’s even robbed me of my breakfast.
If that ain’t bad some smug git cut up the Turner mobile (aka my pink push bike) on my way to work. I started yelling at him and then he pulled me up and said I was under arrest for a breach of the peace. He didn’t appreciate my joke about all those thug coppers breaking up strikes in the 80’s breaching the peace. Bloody police. Thatcher’s private army against the working class I say.
Managed to talk him out of it though, yet the bugger made me late for work. That was another sodding shock. Arrive at the mine to hear the bastards have closed it. Some bollocks about a free market. My protests of “but I’m the great Danny Turner, those ungrateful taxpayers should think nothing of paying my wages” fell on death ears.
Mope around for the rest of the day down the job centre looking for some work but apparently registered Tory hater isn’t a valid qualification on a CV. Damm it the whole system is against me!!!
Things get even worse when I got home. My mum has rented out my room to an immigrant. Some Cuban fruit picker called Fidel Castro. Sounds like a nice guy to me even though it means I’m on the sofa from now on. What’s really wrong though is that Auntie Maggie is visiting with that little brat of a cousin Davey C. He thinks he’s so cool in his wimpy suit and the bow tie. “Call me dave, danny boy” he says. Cheeky git. What’s the point of private boarding schools just to allow them out on evening release?
By now I have had enough but when they both call me a lazy bastard for not having a job I lose it and tell them to get out. “I’m not for turning out the door young Daniel….I have just got here,” says Maggie…..the old cow. It’s at that moment, I reach for my Simpsons chess set and bash the bishop on their heads killing them both.
And now look at me. Life imprisonment for killing two Tories. Where’s the justice, the fairness, the equality in that?!?!?
Mind you things could be worse. They let me out my cell twice a week to go on the internet so I can read Rich Davies’ blog. What a treat!!!!
Since I’m working over the next few weeks I thought I would write something slightly different in my blog but upon searching the internet came across this interesting piece that, with the permission of the author, I thought I would share with you all…………..
Danny Turner: Bigger threat to world peace than Bin Laden……..allegedly
Blah blah blah…..Danny Turner……..blah blah blah………always beats me at chess……blah blah blah………manic socialist.....blah blah blah………..tories are great…………blah blah blah………bloody immigrants………..blah blah blah……. crap since 1990……blah blah blah…….. bring back Mrs T…………blah blah blah
Comments (1)
Danny Turner wrote:
Richard Davies is a fucking lowlife degenerate. Him and his surrogate mother Thatcher have ruined my life. Take last week. I got up for work and found there’s no milk left to have with my coco pops. My mum said it’s because I had forgot to go to the shop the night before to get some but I ain’t having any of it. It’s that milk snatching woman. She’s even robbed me of my breakfast.
If that ain’t bad some smug git cut up the Turner mobile (aka my pink push bike) on my way to work. I started yelling at him and then he pulled me up and said I was under arrest for a breach of the peace. He didn’t appreciate my joke about all those thug coppers breaking up strikes in the 80’s breaching the peace. Bloody police. Thatcher’s private army against the working class I say.
Managed to talk him out of it though, yet the bugger made me late for work. That was another sodding shock. Arrive at the mine to hear the bastards have closed it. Some bollocks about a free market. My protests of “but I’m the great Danny Turner, those ungrateful taxpayers should think nothing of paying my wages” fell on death ears.
Mope around for the rest of the day down the job centre looking for some work but apparently registered Tory hater isn’t a valid qualification on a CV. Damm it the whole system is against me!!!
Things get even worse when I got home. My mum has rented out my room to an immigrant. Some Cuban fruit picker called Fidel Castro. Sounds like a nice guy to me even though it means I’m on the sofa from now on. What’s really wrong though is that Auntie Maggie is visiting with that little brat of a cousin Davey C. He thinks he’s so cool in his wimpy suit and the bow tie. “Call me dave, danny boy” he says. Cheeky git. What’s the point of private boarding schools just to allow them out on evening release?
By now I have had enough but when they both call me a lazy bastard for not having a job I lose it and tell them to get out. “I’m not for turning out the door young Daniel….I have just got here,” says Maggie…..the old cow. It’s at that moment, I reach for my Simpsons chess set and bash the bishop on their heads killing them both.
And now look at me. Life imprisonment for killing two Tories. Where’s the justice, the fairness, the equality in that?!?!?
Mind you things could be worse. They let me out my cell twice a week to go on the internet so I can read Rich Davies’ blog. What a treat!!!!
Thursday 26 July 2007
A long way to go up the Mountain of Power
My judgment as a kid wasn’t very good. You can tell that by fact I decided to use my spare time to follow two organisations. These been Stoke City and the Conservative Party. Thus it seems I dedicated my life to one of misery and constant letdowns. The failings of the Potters are ones to talk about another day. The failure of the Conservative Party is far more important considering the missed opportunities and neglect of the last ten years.
In my opinion for any main opposition party to return to power they need three things. Firstly the current government needs to be discredited in one of two ways. This is either that it has put its people through active hardship due to bad policy or because they are seen as completely out of touch. In the last 30 years the governing party has only changed twice and it was exactly for the two reasons shown above. In 1979 with the Winter of Discontent, all the strikes and the general feeling that the country was not progressing, Labour was booted out and in 1997 the Conservative government had long gone past its sell by date and was heavily disabled by the numerous incidents of sleaze. The problem now the Conservative Party faces is a national feeling that with the new prime minister neither of those reasons is occurring to any level that would justify the Labour party to be a government in crisis. It was going that way if Blair had stayed on, but with Brown in charge this has obviously acted like adding a new set of batteries. Yet to get back into power the Conservatives can’t obviously sit around waiting for mistakes to happen. Not only does this appear idle but it increases the chances of them making mistakes.
The second part is a vision. Often something radical that the majority can feel comfortable supporting needs to be offered by the opposition. That requires policy. One of my main bones to pick on this is that somehow the party must choose between the policies of the centre ground and ones of the right. In my eyes, it’s never been the socialist policy or the conservative policy but the correct policy. In short its possible to offer a mixture of both. The best way of doing this is to consult the widest base of people possible and that’s why it’s good to see agendas like the “Stand Up, Speak Out” website been setup so anyone can give their opinions on policy. Policy must not be reactionary at all guaranteeing that we aren’t jumping on every passing bandwagon. A party needs a plan and to then stick to that plan. Chopping and changing leader or approach every five minutes won’t work.
The third ingredient is to relate that message successfully to the people. Labour didn’t just lose elections pre 1997 because they had bad policies but their public relations were appalling that you would have thought the Trotter brothers were in charge. Anyone remember Michael Foot’s car breaking down on television as well the more commonly remembered premature celebrations in Sheffield by Neil Kinnock? Cameron obviously has cleaned up on presentation to make sure this doesn’t happen but the party is still putting in own goals. The selection of Tony Lit is an example of this. On the surface this seemed a good choice as a candidate but surely that now infamous photo with Blair must have been cited as a problem at an earlier stage and someone somewhere in the Conservative Party must have realised that any Labour Party researcher with half a brain cell would have exploited it to as full extent as possible. If a party is making these mistakes with a relatively simple task of selecting a candidate how can they be trusted, some may ask, to run a country with all the dangers this one faces?
Beyond this the party has many deep rooted problems that would hamper its own success no matter who was the leader. The first is that it is seeking a huge surge of support from the most downbeat and uninspired electorate of modern times in the current political parties who I think can be split into the following sections. The first are those who simply do not understand the system of voting. I have many friends in this section. Haven’t got a clue what politics is about and don’t understand the meaning of the words like economy and taxes. These aren’t kids but people over 18 who just don’t get it. The second section are people who can understand the system but simply aren’t interested and see all politicians as the same. The next group are those on either the left or right of the centre ground who feel that their party be it Labour on the left or Conservative on the right no longer relate to them. The fourth group are party political and have made their minds up to align themselves with a particular party. That leaves only a final fifth of the electorate floating around with votes to be had by political parties. The point is to suggest that the party has massive problems attracting support from the electorate before they even think of drawing up policy because this country is so fragmented with the way it views politics.
The second is that the Labour/Conservative seesaw is still based around the country on divides that are not as relevant as they use to be. This is an economic one that can be casually referred to as the workers versus the bosses. But since all the main three parties accept free market capitalism and government spending from GDP at around 40% this is a done argument. The more relevant arguments now are open/restricted immigration, europhile/eurospectic, punishment/rehabilitation on crime and britishness/multiculturism. They are so many working class people who would ideologically back the right wing arguments on those four issues but because of old battles over areas like the Minor’s strike drift towards groups like the BNP and simply won’t vote Tory.
Another problem is that the two fastest growing groups in the electorate have special interests in the Labour Party. The first is immigrants who are more likely to back Labour than vote for the Conservatives. 2.5 million workers have come to the UK over the last five years. When your main opponent is importing voters, you have a big problem. Also when Labour can put voters on the payroll by employing them in a growing public sector, they do have a vested interest in voting for the party that believes in the largest amount of public spending in believe that this will mean more job security for themselves.
Overall, perhaps the best way of summing up the huge problem the Tories face is to take a look at the one fact on my facebook profile that best sums up modern Britain. Not my drunken pictures or lousy jokes but the fact that of the over 300 friends listed, a massive 50% have not listed a political belief. Not even when they have bland descriptions like “other” to choose from. People are disillusioned. They need a new hero who can inspire and motivate them. Whether that is David Cameron remains to be seen.
In my opinion for any main opposition party to return to power they need three things. Firstly the current government needs to be discredited in one of two ways. This is either that it has put its people through active hardship due to bad policy or because they are seen as completely out of touch. In the last 30 years the governing party has only changed twice and it was exactly for the two reasons shown above. In 1979 with the Winter of Discontent, all the strikes and the general feeling that the country was not progressing, Labour was booted out and in 1997 the Conservative government had long gone past its sell by date and was heavily disabled by the numerous incidents of sleaze. The problem now the Conservative Party faces is a national feeling that with the new prime minister neither of those reasons is occurring to any level that would justify the Labour party to be a government in crisis. It was going that way if Blair had stayed on, but with Brown in charge this has obviously acted like adding a new set of batteries. Yet to get back into power the Conservatives can’t obviously sit around waiting for mistakes to happen. Not only does this appear idle but it increases the chances of them making mistakes.
The second part is a vision. Often something radical that the majority can feel comfortable supporting needs to be offered by the opposition. That requires policy. One of my main bones to pick on this is that somehow the party must choose between the policies of the centre ground and ones of the right. In my eyes, it’s never been the socialist policy or the conservative policy but the correct policy. In short its possible to offer a mixture of both. The best way of doing this is to consult the widest base of people possible and that’s why it’s good to see agendas like the “Stand Up, Speak Out” website been setup so anyone can give their opinions on policy. Policy must not be reactionary at all guaranteeing that we aren’t jumping on every passing bandwagon. A party needs a plan and to then stick to that plan. Chopping and changing leader or approach every five minutes won’t work.
The third ingredient is to relate that message successfully to the people. Labour didn’t just lose elections pre 1997 because they had bad policies but their public relations were appalling that you would have thought the Trotter brothers were in charge. Anyone remember Michael Foot’s car breaking down on television as well the more commonly remembered premature celebrations in Sheffield by Neil Kinnock? Cameron obviously has cleaned up on presentation to make sure this doesn’t happen but the party is still putting in own goals. The selection of Tony Lit is an example of this. On the surface this seemed a good choice as a candidate but surely that now infamous photo with Blair must have been cited as a problem at an earlier stage and someone somewhere in the Conservative Party must have realised that any Labour Party researcher with half a brain cell would have exploited it to as full extent as possible. If a party is making these mistakes with a relatively simple task of selecting a candidate how can they be trusted, some may ask, to run a country with all the dangers this one faces?
Beyond this the party has many deep rooted problems that would hamper its own success no matter who was the leader. The first is that it is seeking a huge surge of support from the most downbeat and uninspired electorate of modern times in the current political parties who I think can be split into the following sections. The first are those who simply do not understand the system of voting. I have many friends in this section. Haven’t got a clue what politics is about and don’t understand the meaning of the words like economy and taxes. These aren’t kids but people over 18 who just don’t get it. The second section are people who can understand the system but simply aren’t interested and see all politicians as the same. The next group are those on either the left or right of the centre ground who feel that their party be it Labour on the left or Conservative on the right no longer relate to them. The fourth group are party political and have made their minds up to align themselves with a particular party. That leaves only a final fifth of the electorate floating around with votes to be had by political parties. The point is to suggest that the party has massive problems attracting support from the electorate before they even think of drawing up policy because this country is so fragmented with the way it views politics.
The second is that the Labour/Conservative seesaw is still based around the country on divides that are not as relevant as they use to be. This is an economic one that can be casually referred to as the workers versus the bosses. But since all the main three parties accept free market capitalism and government spending from GDP at around 40% this is a done argument. The more relevant arguments now are open/restricted immigration, europhile/eurospectic, punishment/rehabilitation on crime and britishness/multiculturism. They are so many working class people who would ideologically back the right wing arguments on those four issues but because of old battles over areas like the Minor’s strike drift towards groups like the BNP and simply won’t vote Tory.
Another problem is that the two fastest growing groups in the electorate have special interests in the Labour Party. The first is immigrants who are more likely to back Labour than vote for the Conservatives. 2.5 million workers have come to the UK over the last five years. When your main opponent is importing voters, you have a big problem. Also when Labour can put voters on the payroll by employing them in a growing public sector, they do have a vested interest in voting for the party that believes in the largest amount of public spending in believe that this will mean more job security for themselves.
Overall, perhaps the best way of summing up the huge problem the Tories face is to take a look at the one fact on my facebook profile that best sums up modern Britain. Not my drunken pictures or lousy jokes but the fact that of the over 300 friends listed, a massive 50% have not listed a political belief. Not even when they have bland descriptions like “other” to choose from. People are disillusioned. They need a new hero who can inspire and motivate them. Whether that is David Cameron remains to be seen.
Sunday 22 July 2007
Neo Conservatism: The endangered species of political thought
Sometimes it’s good to be unpopular. To be the odd one out in a group people and provoke debate rather than going alone with an uneasy silence. Yet you have to listen as well and then come to a reasoned judgement. That’s compromise without leaving principles behind. That’s what neo conservatism has to do now.
To label oneself as a neo con these days carries a similar social stigma as lighting up a cigaragette in a pub as well as possibly admitting you owned a spice girls cd as a kid (for the record I didn’t…..ahem). This isn’t a surprise. The three main political parties in the UK seem to have no time for it. The Lib Dems are completely against it, the Conservatives currently has much worse relations with their sister party (the American Republican party), which acts as the political base for neo conservatism, than it did in the Reagan/Thatcher days and the Labour Party is still incredibly split on issues related to it such as the Iraq war. The UK public seem to dislike it even more with support dropping across the board for neo conservative actions such as the war in Iraq. Even in its own backyard of the USA it is losing support and there’s a real risk that there won’t be a Republican President in 2008. Where does this resentment leave neo conservatism? The answer is dangerously close to extinction.
You know something is wrong when seemingly sane people in the UK actively believe that the USA is a bigger danger to world peace than Al Qaeda and associated groups such as Hamas as well as actively campaigning for a coalition defeat to the terrorists in Iraq. Whatever you think of the theory, if you destroy it as a politically active belief on the world stage then we are seriously limiting our options with dealing with this huge international threat. But equally the theory is not sustainable in its current form. Something needs to change both with neo cons and western none (or should that be anti) neo cons. It doesn’t surprise me that many of my peers don’t believe in neo conservatism. What does surprise me is that people believe the serious misinformation campaign that has been launched against it.
Since it came into existence the theory has had numerous successes. For a start its foundations are completely unconservative. This comes from the Trotskyist idea of permanent revolution of communism spreading through the world. The neo conservative alternative is of course democracy. Further evidence of this comes from individual influential neo conservatives who started their political lives with socialist tendencies such as James Burnham and Max Shachtman. By adapting left wing ideas and left wing figures the philosophy is able to see the argument from the other side better than a theory that has always been rooted in right wing politics. This broad view is its main strength. On a more practical side the main achievement comes from encouraging a strong change of attitudes during the cold war against the Soviet Union from one of appeasement to one of victory. By spending more on defence and challenging communism more aggressively wherever it emerged around the world the Soviet Union was led into a position of destruction. That also destroys a myth that the Soviet Union somehow killed off itself. It spent the money it did to try and keep pace with the USA and when it couldn’t anymore it failed. This was only made possible by Reagan and the Republican Party raising the challenge.
It was only when the approach of pre emptive strikes against emerging enemies of the West was reduced that we began to store up problems for ourselves. This short-sightedness can be blamed, I believe, upon the Clinton Administration. They ignored the threat for too long and allowed it to become too powerful. This is recognised by sources far more important than my thoughts, primarily the 9/11 commission and is one of the main reasons why the terrible terrorist attacks on the USA happened.
Yet whilst all the above reasons offer strengths for the Neo Conservative cause, there are weaknesses as well. Here’s what I think they are and what needs to be done to correct them:
1: Wars on the cheap:
The reason the West won the cold war was that it was prepared to invest in defence for the long term. In the short term this can be seen as a waste of money but if it cements a country’s position in the world order then it is well worth the investment. This didn’t happen at first in Iraq as the situation on the ground was misjudged in believing that the war would be a quick one. As we all know now that hasn’t happened and led to us having to spend more money than if it had been properly planned in the first place we would have had to spend
2: Alienation from the public:
After 9/11, 90% plus of people wanted to change strategy, to make it impossible for something like that to never happen again. That has now decreased drastically and left the theory looking like a closed group. This is not just people within the USA/ Britain etc but all across the Muslim world as well
3: Ideology no matter the cost:
Power sometimes brings arrogance and it is possible to exist outside the reality based world because of this. This is fine when it produces results but when it doesn’t it is seen as weak and ignoring genuine concerns of people on a practical level.
These three points leave big gapping holes that the enemies of Neo Conservatism can attack. Yet there are solutions and to implement them needs to brought about by brave and bold change.
1: Export free markets as well as democracy:
All western countries are successful when judged against there counterparts around the world not just because they are democratic but also because they exist as free market economies. Many states in the Middle East are run along complete or at least semi socialist lines guaranteeing the power of an elite at the top of society. It is naïve to think that an instant use of force is the only way to stop this. Economic change can bring change in a slower way by sidelining government and empowering citizens. The Neo Con needs to work with institutions like the IMF and World Bank to embrace these changes as much as possible.
2: Culture Wars:
The long terms history of Christian Conservatism is closer to the social conservatism of many Muslims than the liberal agenda pushed mercilessly in the West over the last 45 years. Bearing this in mind with the fact that the Neo Con agenda wishes to spread throughout the world it must have something to offer that is beneficial. Drug addicts, teenage pregnancies and mass abortions isn’t it and as long as groups like Al Qaeda can portray Western society as decadent then on a social scale the Neo Cons won’t be able to convince the people of the middle east that they wish to see a similar social culture to the one taught in the Koran. In essence, one must get their own house in order before looking to sort out others.
3: Africa:
This huge area will be the battleground of the next 100 years between the West and the Terrorists. Fundamentalism Islamic is spreading into the north east of this continent at an enormous rate and causing great atrocities in places like the Sudan. It is also used to control people. An example is education. Many African children still do not go to school so Islamic governments only offer schools that teach agendas such as Sharia law effectively brainwashing children who are desperate for an education. The Neo Con agenda is largely silent on this area and ignores the vast landscape at its peril. It is often forgotten that the origins of Al Qaeda were formed in North African countries close to Europe. History does repeat itself and the idea of gaining a base on your enemies’ doorstep appears to be nothing new here. Something must be done to stop this.
Those three objectives are no means the only things needed to change Neo Conservatism for the future. Much structural work needs to be done to win in Iraq and Afghanistan but the operation on the ground is pointless if the bigger theoretical argument isn’t won both at home and also with the majority of people in the Middle East who the philosophy is aimed at to liberate so they can enjoy the same quality of life and opportunity as we do in the West.
To label oneself as a neo con these days carries a similar social stigma as lighting up a cigaragette in a pub as well as possibly admitting you owned a spice girls cd as a kid (for the record I didn’t…..ahem). This isn’t a surprise. The three main political parties in the UK seem to have no time for it. The Lib Dems are completely against it, the Conservatives currently has much worse relations with their sister party (the American Republican party), which acts as the political base for neo conservatism, than it did in the Reagan/Thatcher days and the Labour Party is still incredibly split on issues related to it such as the Iraq war. The UK public seem to dislike it even more with support dropping across the board for neo conservative actions such as the war in Iraq. Even in its own backyard of the USA it is losing support and there’s a real risk that there won’t be a Republican President in 2008. Where does this resentment leave neo conservatism? The answer is dangerously close to extinction.
You know something is wrong when seemingly sane people in the UK actively believe that the USA is a bigger danger to world peace than Al Qaeda and associated groups such as Hamas as well as actively campaigning for a coalition defeat to the terrorists in Iraq. Whatever you think of the theory, if you destroy it as a politically active belief on the world stage then we are seriously limiting our options with dealing with this huge international threat. But equally the theory is not sustainable in its current form. Something needs to change both with neo cons and western none (or should that be anti) neo cons. It doesn’t surprise me that many of my peers don’t believe in neo conservatism. What does surprise me is that people believe the serious misinformation campaign that has been launched against it.
Since it came into existence the theory has had numerous successes. For a start its foundations are completely unconservative. This comes from the Trotskyist idea of permanent revolution of communism spreading through the world. The neo conservative alternative is of course democracy. Further evidence of this comes from individual influential neo conservatives who started their political lives with socialist tendencies such as James Burnham and Max Shachtman. By adapting left wing ideas and left wing figures the philosophy is able to see the argument from the other side better than a theory that has always been rooted in right wing politics. This broad view is its main strength. On a more practical side the main achievement comes from encouraging a strong change of attitudes during the cold war against the Soviet Union from one of appeasement to one of victory. By spending more on defence and challenging communism more aggressively wherever it emerged around the world the Soviet Union was led into a position of destruction. That also destroys a myth that the Soviet Union somehow killed off itself. It spent the money it did to try and keep pace with the USA and when it couldn’t anymore it failed. This was only made possible by Reagan and the Republican Party raising the challenge.
It was only when the approach of pre emptive strikes against emerging enemies of the West was reduced that we began to store up problems for ourselves. This short-sightedness can be blamed, I believe, upon the Clinton Administration. They ignored the threat for too long and allowed it to become too powerful. This is recognised by sources far more important than my thoughts, primarily the 9/11 commission and is one of the main reasons why the terrible terrorist attacks on the USA happened.
Yet whilst all the above reasons offer strengths for the Neo Conservative cause, there are weaknesses as well. Here’s what I think they are and what needs to be done to correct them:
1: Wars on the cheap:
The reason the West won the cold war was that it was prepared to invest in defence for the long term. In the short term this can be seen as a waste of money but if it cements a country’s position in the world order then it is well worth the investment. This didn’t happen at first in Iraq as the situation on the ground was misjudged in believing that the war would be a quick one. As we all know now that hasn’t happened and led to us having to spend more money than if it had been properly planned in the first place we would have had to spend
2: Alienation from the public:
After 9/11, 90% plus of people wanted to change strategy, to make it impossible for something like that to never happen again. That has now decreased drastically and left the theory looking like a closed group. This is not just people within the USA/ Britain etc but all across the Muslim world as well
3: Ideology no matter the cost:
Power sometimes brings arrogance and it is possible to exist outside the reality based world because of this. This is fine when it produces results but when it doesn’t it is seen as weak and ignoring genuine concerns of people on a practical level.
These three points leave big gapping holes that the enemies of Neo Conservatism can attack. Yet there are solutions and to implement them needs to brought about by brave and bold change.
1: Export free markets as well as democracy:
All western countries are successful when judged against there counterparts around the world not just because they are democratic but also because they exist as free market economies. Many states in the Middle East are run along complete or at least semi socialist lines guaranteeing the power of an elite at the top of society. It is naïve to think that an instant use of force is the only way to stop this. Economic change can bring change in a slower way by sidelining government and empowering citizens. The Neo Con needs to work with institutions like the IMF and World Bank to embrace these changes as much as possible.
2: Culture Wars:
The long terms history of Christian Conservatism is closer to the social conservatism of many Muslims than the liberal agenda pushed mercilessly in the West over the last 45 years. Bearing this in mind with the fact that the Neo Con agenda wishes to spread throughout the world it must have something to offer that is beneficial. Drug addicts, teenage pregnancies and mass abortions isn’t it and as long as groups like Al Qaeda can portray Western society as decadent then on a social scale the Neo Cons won’t be able to convince the people of the middle east that they wish to see a similar social culture to the one taught in the Koran. In essence, one must get their own house in order before looking to sort out others.
3: Africa:
This huge area will be the battleground of the next 100 years between the West and the Terrorists. Fundamentalism Islamic is spreading into the north east of this continent at an enormous rate and causing great atrocities in places like the Sudan. It is also used to control people. An example is education. Many African children still do not go to school so Islamic governments only offer schools that teach agendas such as Sharia law effectively brainwashing children who are desperate for an education. The Neo Con agenda is largely silent on this area and ignores the vast landscape at its peril. It is often forgotten that the origins of Al Qaeda were formed in North African countries close to Europe. History does repeat itself and the idea of gaining a base on your enemies’ doorstep appears to be nothing new here. Something must be done to stop this.
Those three objectives are no means the only things needed to change Neo Conservatism for the future. Much structural work needs to be done to win in Iraq and Afghanistan but the operation on the ground is pointless if the bigger theoretical argument isn’t won both at home and also with the majority of people in the Middle East who the philosophy is aimed at to liberate so they can enjoy the same quality of life and opportunity as we do in the West.
Wednesday 27 June 2007
White Scum?
Can a person be rascist towards those people of the same skin colour who come from the same area of himself? It’s a difficult question to answer. Yet it’s relevant to a story that has been in covered in the media recently
This is the news that social mobility within the UK, the measurement by which you judge how a child progresses through their lives on the social ladder, is poor in comparison within many other countries in the developed world. Add to this a recent piece that discovered that white males in our state schools are often amongst the biggest underachievers in our society it becomes increasingly clear that this group includes people like me. If you have experienced a problem first hand then it’s often the case that you can give a better view about it.
The main theme to the question is to ask why we see so many people like me lagging behind. Conservative instinct points to blaming Government. I believe they must take some of the blame. The current administration has pumped billions more pounds into education which has led to some improvements but not the consistent value for money across the board. They also appear to be misguided by the ways they measure success by pushing through the idea of GCSE marks been the golden standard, whilst moving children through the system who often lack the basic skills of being able to read and write. This is a problem but logic suggests that ideas at the top can always be changed if they offer a better chance of success.
The far wider problem comes in the actual society where people like me come from. When I say society I refer to the places, which include the vast majority of the country, where the wider approach of success has seemingly passed by and therefore led to missed opportunity.
This cultural degradation has many roots, some of which I have experienced and have led to resentment within myself. One is the lack of cultural opportunities to experience events outside their status quo. Fortunately for myself, I had parents who allowed me to witness subjects like classical music and architecture of various periods at a young age. I doubt I appreciated them as a child but looking back there were massively for my benefit and allowed me to reach places that I couldn’t have done by myself. Yet I think I am in the minority in this area. I always remember when I went to places of culture in Stoke like the museum them being pretty much empty. I also remember how you could go and wander five minutes from there and find white males, like me, all over the centre of Stoke doing nothing at best and often causing trouble at worst. I asked then as I do now what makes them different from me? What makes me want to discover about our culture and them to prefer sitting around doing nothing. I certainly had an advantage over them because I had being encouraged to discover these things but surely it doesn’t take much drive to open one’s eyes and want to experience these things. Haven’t the many not gone down that path because they were never shown it or is it because they didn’t want to and therefore rejected that path?
Not that exposure at an early age to the world of arts and culture means that someone can’t fulfil their potential. There are other reasons. One of them is the “it’s not what you know but who you know” system we live under that affects so many industries. It’s a real bitch of a job trying to get anywhere in the law or politics if you don’t have the contacts. Bitterness often stems from this state of affairs and it does take staying power when you see others given a foot up ahead of you simply because they know someone you don’t. People getting on who are neither hard working nor particularly talented on the back of contacts is often an injustice. All this is seen from someone like me with stable parents. Parents, who knew nobody who could help with my fledging career, but help as best they can. Many similar white males don’t even have that. Nobody to encourage their dreams or interests or to give them that help at home when it’s most needed during childhood. We are talking about kids going homes where parents are too stoned or drunk to communicate on a simple level let alone do things like help with homework. Homes where nobody works, nobody has achieved anything, places without a sense of pride. That’s complete isolation of opportunity and backed up with little financial resources is incredibly difficult to go through a period of ten years plus in education trying to forge a career and better standard of life.
What makes this worse is not just the basics described above been wrong but the day to day routine being one which lacks any kind of intellectual stimulation. I think back to my time at school and try to remember when I was encouraged to think about the wider issues in the world. I honestly can’t remember a time when I was. That’s 11 years of schooling when individual thought about the world isn’t tempted into the open. Yet, that’s how we learn and become stronger, from listening to others and putting our own arguments across and reacting to how they are challenged. The bottom line is that you won’t acquire these skills when you never have the opportunity to. If you aren’t given the opportunity to think in a formal setting then why will you ever apply it to your everyday setting for the rest of your life?
This all relates to the title of this piece. I intended to call it White Scum. This was to describe a resentment I felt towards white people who seemed to have nothing in their lives and achieved little. I think you could label this group as chavs. It’s common to think of them as the human rubbish in our society. You can find websites called chav scum and to believe the images in the press that this group is out of control. But with every “who” there is a “why.” That’s why I added the question mark to the title. The kind of ridicule would never be accepted if we labelled people as black scum or paki scum but because these people are white and uneducated it seems in the mainstream to be fine.
This is the news that social mobility within the UK, the measurement by which you judge how a child progresses through their lives on the social ladder, is poor in comparison within many other countries in the developed world. Add to this a recent piece that discovered that white males in our state schools are often amongst the biggest underachievers in our society it becomes increasingly clear that this group includes people like me. If you have experienced a problem first hand then it’s often the case that you can give a better view about it.
The main theme to the question is to ask why we see so many people like me lagging behind. Conservative instinct points to blaming Government. I believe they must take some of the blame. The current administration has pumped billions more pounds into education which has led to some improvements but not the consistent value for money across the board. They also appear to be misguided by the ways they measure success by pushing through the idea of GCSE marks been the golden standard, whilst moving children through the system who often lack the basic skills of being able to read and write. This is a problem but logic suggests that ideas at the top can always be changed if they offer a better chance of success.
The far wider problem comes in the actual society where people like me come from. When I say society I refer to the places, which include the vast majority of the country, where the wider approach of success has seemingly passed by and therefore led to missed opportunity.
This cultural degradation has many roots, some of which I have experienced and have led to resentment within myself. One is the lack of cultural opportunities to experience events outside their status quo. Fortunately for myself, I had parents who allowed me to witness subjects like classical music and architecture of various periods at a young age. I doubt I appreciated them as a child but looking back there were massively for my benefit and allowed me to reach places that I couldn’t have done by myself. Yet I think I am in the minority in this area. I always remember when I went to places of culture in Stoke like the museum them being pretty much empty. I also remember how you could go and wander five minutes from there and find white males, like me, all over the centre of Stoke doing nothing at best and often causing trouble at worst. I asked then as I do now what makes them different from me? What makes me want to discover about our culture and them to prefer sitting around doing nothing. I certainly had an advantage over them because I had being encouraged to discover these things but surely it doesn’t take much drive to open one’s eyes and want to experience these things. Haven’t the many not gone down that path because they were never shown it or is it because they didn’t want to and therefore rejected that path?
Not that exposure at an early age to the world of arts and culture means that someone can’t fulfil their potential. There are other reasons. One of them is the “it’s not what you know but who you know” system we live under that affects so many industries. It’s a real bitch of a job trying to get anywhere in the law or politics if you don’t have the contacts. Bitterness often stems from this state of affairs and it does take staying power when you see others given a foot up ahead of you simply because they know someone you don’t. People getting on who are neither hard working nor particularly talented on the back of contacts is often an injustice. All this is seen from someone like me with stable parents. Parents, who knew nobody who could help with my fledging career, but help as best they can. Many similar white males don’t even have that. Nobody to encourage their dreams or interests or to give them that help at home when it’s most needed during childhood. We are talking about kids going homes where parents are too stoned or drunk to communicate on a simple level let alone do things like help with homework. Homes where nobody works, nobody has achieved anything, places without a sense of pride. That’s complete isolation of opportunity and backed up with little financial resources is incredibly difficult to go through a period of ten years plus in education trying to forge a career and better standard of life.
What makes this worse is not just the basics described above been wrong but the day to day routine being one which lacks any kind of intellectual stimulation. I think back to my time at school and try to remember when I was encouraged to think about the wider issues in the world. I honestly can’t remember a time when I was. That’s 11 years of schooling when individual thought about the world isn’t tempted into the open. Yet, that’s how we learn and become stronger, from listening to others and putting our own arguments across and reacting to how they are challenged. The bottom line is that you won’t acquire these skills when you never have the opportunity to. If you aren’t given the opportunity to think in a formal setting then why will you ever apply it to your everyday setting for the rest of your life?
This all relates to the title of this piece. I intended to call it White Scum. This was to describe a resentment I felt towards white people who seemed to have nothing in their lives and achieved little. I think you could label this group as chavs. It’s common to think of them as the human rubbish in our society. You can find websites called chav scum and to believe the images in the press that this group is out of control. But with every “who” there is a “why.” That’s why I added the question mark to the title. The kind of ridicule would never be accepted if we labelled people as black scum or paki scum but because these people are white and uneducated it seems in the mainstream to be fine.
This is why, I realised I was looking at the issue from the wrong angle. I resented white males like myself, who I see every time I go into places like Stoke, when I should have aimed that resentment towards the system that has created them. A system, which allows people to be on the same university course as me, not through academic achievement, but because their private school has rung up to reserve them a place. My dislike should be aimed at that status quo and the people who have created it. It has severely disadvantaged people like me and has left many others in a position where they are ridiculed as thick and stupid with no chance of social mobility. Go to any city centre to see the evidence of this nationwide failure.
Monday 25 June 2007
Something to believe in
"They came from miles around to worship every Sunday and rejoiced at the wonder of 3 for 2 and 50% off. Filling aisle after aisle in praise as they turned to page 243 of the holy summer catalogue with the blessed store manager on the public announcement system proclaiming where the latest divine price cut could be found in this sacred place"
What is the purpose of the above paragraph? It might sound on first reading like an extract from a trashy novel or some sort of alternative advertising campaign. Both of these are wrong. Its purpose is to show that if a society rids itself of religious belief completely it is left with people who believe in very little at all. Not that this opinion is held to be popular with UK society as a whole in 21st century Britain
Since I have spent most of my life outside the majority, I always like to argue against the popular opinions of the day wherever possible. This is not just to be controversial but because I believe many of the concepts we take as fact in the 21st century can be construed as misguided at best and plain wrong at worst. One of these is the rise of atheism and with it the degrading of the Christian culture and religious belief within the UK.
If you get rid of a cultural aspect within a country then a gap is left and something will always come to fill it. This is modernisation. So if religion, through a factual certainty based on atheism, is to be purged what replaces it? Two theories spring to mind both of which are on the increase in modern society. One refers back to the quote at the top of the page and can be seen as increased consumerism and materialism in our modern age. You only need to go to any out of town superstore on a weekend to see the car parks full of people flocking in to try and buy things on the cheap which is what generally these stores offer. There is nothing wrong with this idea in a free society but it's beyond argument to recognise that the less people hold religious belief the more they adhere to a life dedicated, perhaps subconsciously, but dedicated none the less to the collection of material goods. By material goods I don't just mean essential things needed to live but luxuries which most of the time people go to these sorts of places to buy. A significant proportion of these luxuries actually replace other luxuries that people own. As a believer in the free market this in the correct context is not a problem but with religious belief in place, it acts as a strong counter balance in place based on a sense of duty to do something as a person that goes beyond the belief in the collection of goods for oneself and to help the wider community and world.
The other area that in my opinion grows in secular societies is addictions. This can be to alcohol, drugs or gambling amongst other things. How does this develop from the lack of religious faith? Mainly, because an addiction traps the user into a routine. This can be drinking daily or meeting regularly with a drug dealer. This routine is a cancerous one which is incredibly difficult to get out of. Religion provides a solid counterbalance to this. It too provides a routine of regular worship, attendance and most importantly belief. Often this belief rejects outright consumption of substances like drink and drugs in the first place and even when it doesn't it offers support networks for those who do find themselves trapped in the menace of addiction. Away from government, religious groups do provide this sort of social safety net but if you reject religion then you ignore the great public service many of these groups do not just in the sense of social protection but in areas such as public education.
The main rejection of religion seems to be on the idea of control. Of course principles are contained within it but it is never compulsory. The bad side effects of it come from the abuse of it by people. They abuse religion and not the other way around. This is either for profit (perhaps related to the idea of material gain discussed elsewhere in this post) or violence, for example cult Islamic fascism that we see today. Religious texts do never condone some of the shameful behaviour that goes on by people acting under the name of religion from pedophile priests to gross material gain for themselves and nobody else. People who support the separation of church and state miss the point. It's not that religion needs to get out of politics but that politics has become too involved in religion.
Whilst I don’t believe that to be a good person you have to be religious a theoretical argument shows that a religious background provides a stronger argument. This is because a religious person would see the earth as a mere test for the next world where their behaviour is to be judged to see if they are fit to have a prosperous afterlife. This is where the idea of conscience develops from as a belief that there is a presence beyond us which can evaluate what we do whilst those who purely believe in a secular system will realise that only they will know all of their own actions.
In conclusion, any society is a combination of freedom and duty to others. I always support a free market and a free people. There are two ways to balance this through some sense of social justice. One is government and the other is religion. As a conservative who believes in small government religion appears to be the most sensible option as it’s based in individual conscience. The idea each individual questions what they do rather than having someone else doing that for them. Take that away and all that is left is the market and government as well as an unfulfilled and broken society.
What is the purpose of the above paragraph? It might sound on first reading like an extract from a trashy novel or some sort of alternative advertising campaign. Both of these are wrong. Its purpose is to show that if a society rids itself of religious belief completely it is left with people who believe in very little at all. Not that this opinion is held to be popular with UK society as a whole in 21st century Britain
Since I have spent most of my life outside the majority, I always like to argue against the popular opinions of the day wherever possible. This is not just to be controversial but because I believe many of the concepts we take as fact in the 21st century can be construed as misguided at best and plain wrong at worst. One of these is the rise of atheism and with it the degrading of the Christian culture and religious belief within the UK.
If you get rid of a cultural aspect within a country then a gap is left and something will always come to fill it. This is modernisation. So if religion, through a factual certainty based on atheism, is to be purged what replaces it? Two theories spring to mind both of which are on the increase in modern society. One refers back to the quote at the top of the page and can be seen as increased consumerism and materialism in our modern age. You only need to go to any out of town superstore on a weekend to see the car parks full of people flocking in to try and buy things on the cheap which is what generally these stores offer. There is nothing wrong with this idea in a free society but it's beyond argument to recognise that the less people hold religious belief the more they adhere to a life dedicated, perhaps subconsciously, but dedicated none the less to the collection of material goods. By material goods I don't just mean essential things needed to live but luxuries which most of the time people go to these sorts of places to buy. A significant proportion of these luxuries actually replace other luxuries that people own. As a believer in the free market this in the correct context is not a problem but with religious belief in place, it acts as a strong counter balance in place based on a sense of duty to do something as a person that goes beyond the belief in the collection of goods for oneself and to help the wider community and world.
The other area that in my opinion grows in secular societies is addictions. This can be to alcohol, drugs or gambling amongst other things. How does this develop from the lack of religious faith? Mainly, because an addiction traps the user into a routine. This can be drinking daily or meeting regularly with a drug dealer. This routine is a cancerous one which is incredibly difficult to get out of. Religion provides a solid counterbalance to this. It too provides a routine of regular worship, attendance and most importantly belief. Often this belief rejects outright consumption of substances like drink and drugs in the first place and even when it doesn't it offers support networks for those who do find themselves trapped in the menace of addiction. Away from government, religious groups do provide this sort of social safety net but if you reject religion then you ignore the great public service many of these groups do not just in the sense of social protection but in areas such as public education.
The main rejection of religion seems to be on the idea of control. Of course principles are contained within it but it is never compulsory. The bad side effects of it come from the abuse of it by people. They abuse religion and not the other way around. This is either for profit (perhaps related to the idea of material gain discussed elsewhere in this post) or violence, for example cult Islamic fascism that we see today. Religious texts do never condone some of the shameful behaviour that goes on by people acting under the name of religion from pedophile priests to gross material gain for themselves and nobody else. People who support the separation of church and state miss the point. It's not that religion needs to get out of politics but that politics has become too involved in religion.
Whilst I don’t believe that to be a good person you have to be religious a theoretical argument shows that a religious background provides a stronger argument. This is because a religious person would see the earth as a mere test for the next world where their behaviour is to be judged to see if they are fit to have a prosperous afterlife. This is where the idea of conscience develops from as a belief that there is a presence beyond us which can evaluate what we do whilst those who purely believe in a secular system will realise that only they will know all of their own actions.
In conclusion, any society is a combination of freedom and duty to others. I always support a free market and a free people. There are two ways to balance this through some sense of social justice. One is government and the other is religion. As a conservative who believes in small government religion appears to be the most sensible option as it’s based in individual conscience. The idea each individual questions what they do rather than having someone else doing that for them. Take that away and all that is left is the market and government as well as an unfulfilled and broken society.
Monday 11 June 2007
Welcome
Thanks very much for taking the time to take a look at this blog. I'm the sort of person who comes to these fads usually later on than most people, so knowing and reading a lot of blogs written by friends I decided to take the plunge and start one myself.
For those who don't know me, my name is Richard Davies and the purpose and thus title of this blog is to try and take a different look at the major issues our country and the world faces in the 21st century. I intend to use it not just to talk about politics directly but also issues of culture in a wider outlook. Personally speaking I would say I couldn’t pigeon hole myself into one particular political theory but I do have a lot of time for neo-conservatism although as a member of the UK Conservative Party it's difficult to relate this to Britain in 2007. I have lived most of my life in Stoke before moving to university in Norwich as well as spending some time living in America. Within the party I am a member in both Stone in Staffordshire and also Norwich South. I was the president of the Conservative Society at the UEA this year and am proud that under my leadership membership increased by 200% as well as the society been left in a better financial position as well as holding more events which was key to encouraging interest.
I will also sometimes copy posts into the blog of UEA Conservatives run by my good friend Paul Wells. That can be found at http://ueaconservatives.blogspot.com/
For those who don't know me, my name is Richard Davies and the purpose and thus title of this blog is to try and take a different look at the major issues our country and the world faces in the 21st century. I intend to use it not just to talk about politics directly but also issues of culture in a wider outlook. Personally speaking I would say I couldn’t pigeon hole myself into one particular political theory but I do have a lot of time for neo-conservatism although as a member of the UK Conservative Party it's difficult to relate this to Britain in 2007. I have lived most of my life in Stoke before moving to university in Norwich as well as spending some time living in America. Within the party I am a member in both Stone in Staffordshire and also Norwich South. I was the president of the Conservative Society at the UEA this year and am proud that under my leadership membership increased by 200% as well as the society been left in a better financial position as well as holding more events which was key to encouraging interest.
I will also sometimes copy posts into the blog of UEA Conservatives run by my good friend Paul Wells. That can be found at http://ueaconservatives.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)