Virtually Naked

Undressing the Issues


Archive for April, 2011

April 28th, 2011

I may be a republican, but i’m not a Royal Wedding kill joy!

by Sophie Bridger

A few weeks ago, my flatmates raised the possibility of celebrating the Royal Wedding. I was more than slightly alarmed to find myself agreeing with them.

Firstly, I genuinely do not care about the wedding of two people I have never met. Good for them, but it has little to do with me. Not just that, I’d happily do away with the monarchy altogether. I make no secret of being a republican. Not the balaclava- wearing, ‘Eat-the-Rich’ kind of republican, I simply feel that they are nothing more than an expensive constitutional anomaly. The monarchy is an undemocratic relic from another age. Their continuing existence is as irrelevant to modern life as it is unfair to them. Prince William was born into a job he was obliged to take, that entailed enormous amounts of power he will never be allowed to use, and came with massive restriction of his personal liberty. The continuation of the monarchy feels a little like keeping an animal in a cage.

But there’s some deep, primeval part of me that finds the idea of the celebrations very appealing. It resonates very deeply with my notions of being British. It’s not the monarchy itself that I’m keen on, you understand, but the way we celebrate – the combination of kitsch and apathy that is so key to the national identity.

Devout republicans relishing the day off. Victoria Sponges and glasses of Pimms on the lawn, embracing the fact that it’s not raining and finally above 10 degrees Celsius. Neighbours finally learning one another’s names, and most of us getting slightly too merry.

Nostalgic? Slightly. Over-optimistic? Probably. But I’ll be damned if I’ll turn down the opportunity for tea and scones. Like any wedding, this is an excuse for a party.

I may be a republican, but I’m not a killjoy.

Enhanced by Zemanta
April 28th, 2011

It is the media that need to ‘calm down, dear’

by admin

David Cameron is many things, but he is not a sexist.

His ‘calm down, dear’ put down of Angela Eagle at PMQs yesterday was, as Eagle herself put it, ‘part of the rough and tumble of politics’. It wasn’t big, it wasn’t clever, it wasn’t even funny, but it wasn’t sexist.

The real problem with the statement, apart from showing a poor sense of humour from the Prime Minister, is that it that it smacks of boys club banter, and discredits him and our politics. For all his many faults, it is hard to imagine Ed Miliband succumbing to such an outburst. The comment helps Cameron’s enemies build an image of him as the Bullingdon boy who only put a plaster over Tory nastiness. When taken with his Chancellor’s ‘pantomime dame’ comment to Chris Bryant, it looks rather unpleasant indeed.

That said, the comment has been whipped up into a media storm that it did not deserve. It was a silly, patronising, rude comment, and Cameron should have known better, but really it should not have been considered worthy headline news space. The sad fact is Labour’s openly lesbian Shadow Chief Secretary to Treasury has probably been on the receiving end of far worse comments in her parliamentary career.

The media would do well to focus on the real issue, the continuing under representation of women (and members of minority groups) in parliament, and the pettiness of our politics, instead of overplaying one silly comment made in the heat of the moment.

April 27th, 2011

Write for VN!

by admin

I first started blogging during university, as a bit of fun really, then started the site that has become Virtually Naked as a bit of shameless self-promotion. Anyway the site has gone far beyond that now, with 2 or 3 posts and 100-200 unique visitors every day.

While I am immensely proud of that, it is nowhere near the ‘big’ blogs. Most of the sites I like and respect – Lib Dem Voice, Coffee House, Total Politics, are authored by multiple writers (often with a similar outloook,) and that I feel is the next logical step for VN.

I would like to build up a core team of writers, who may not want write everyday to run their own blog, but have opinions and knowledge they would like to publish a couple of times a week. Of course I would also consider one off submissions, but my focus is on creating a VN team. Frankly I think it has got rather dull me just rattling on!

If you are interested please email: editor@virtuallynaked.co.uk

Thanks, and hope to hear from you soon.

Charlotte
Editor

April 26th, 2011

Blair and Brown should go to the ball

by admin
former British PM John Major in the Terme Hote...

Image via Wikipedia

 

It seems quite bizzarre to VN that former Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have not been invited to the Royal Wedding on Friday. Both their surviving predecessors, Baroness Thatcher and Sir John Major,  have been invited, and Major will attend.

The case of Blair seems particularly strange, given the key role he played after the death of William’s mother, Princess Diana. Although perhaps that is the problem… The Labour party are trying to claim it is a partisan snub, but that seems to be clutching at straws. The official reason given is apparently Thatcher are Major are part of the Order of the Garter, and Blair and Brown are not, or something.

Whatever the reason, it doesn’t seem right, and VN believes that the surviving Prime Ministers who served under Queen Elizabeth II should have all been invited.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
April 26th, 2011

Let ‘em AV IT!

by admin

Everytime VN promises not to cover the rather dull AV referendum again until the result something happens that means it can’t be ignored. It is not the pathetic bickering within the cabinet that has caught VN’s attention this time, but this:

That is screen shot from a rather fab new Yes2AV site that is doing the internet rounds at the moment. www.letemavit.com features a rather addictive, old school looking flash game, in which you guide a voter to the ballot box to vote ‘Yes’, and help them avoid  being taken out by David Cameron, Nick Griffin, Lord Howard et al…oh and some ducks, obviously.

The site has gained so much publicity, with people jumping on Sayeeda Warsi and then tweeting their score, that ‘Yes’ supporter Stephen Fry got involved:

 

Conveniently, the site is run and designed by the person that keeps VN ticking along: crunchyserver.com

Anyway, it’s great frustration buster, and will bring back the happy memories of hours playing Super Mario Bros, apparently! So head over and LET ‘EM AV IT!

Enhanced by Zemanta
April 26th, 2011

A layman’s look at super injuctions

by Charlotte Henry

The issue of super injunctions and privacy law has been rumbling on for a while now, since hitting the headlines with the WayneBridge/John Terry fiasco, as well as other footballer’s extra marital affairs. However, it is the less glamourous case of  the BBC’s former Political Editor Anderw Marr that really seems to have put the cat amongst the pigeons. Marr has declared to the Daily Mail that he will no longer seek to prevent publication of details of the affair he had in 2003, ending the injunction that has been in place since 2008, which he says he is now ‘embarrassed’ about.

Earlier this week the Prime Minister, David Cameron, said he was ‘uneasy’ about privacy law being made by the courts not parliament:

“What’s happening here is that the judges are using the European convention on human rights to deliver a sort of privacy law without parliament saying so. … we do need to have a proper sit back and think: is this right, is this the right thing to happen?

The judges are creating a sort of privacy law, whereas what ought to happen in a parliamentary democracy is parliament – which you elect and put there – should decide how much protection do we want for individuals and how much freedom of the press and the rest of it. So I am a little uneasy about what is happening.”

Before I take a closer look at this it is worth pointing out that I have absolutely no legal background at all. My opinion on this issue is just that, opinion, and is from the perspective of a member of the general public who also happens to be engaged in online media and interested in these issues. It is not based on in-depth knowledge of legal theory, as I am sure will become quite apparent when you continue reading!

The Prime Minister is absolutely right that it is our MPs that create law that Judges use their expertise to implement, uphold and enforce. However, Parliament has already accepted the European Convention on Human Rights that he mentions, and it seems to me that the Judges in these cases are simply implementing it in British courts. It would be perfectly legitimate to introduce legislation on this issue should MPs consider there to be loopholes that need tightening or to clarify matters, but it would still have to be guided by the ECHR, because that law has already been passed.

The next issue is of course the matter of principle – should footballers and other celebrities be able to use the law to hide their personal indiscretions from the public?  Frankly I couldn’t be less interested in most celebrity dalliances. I am a football fan, and only care what the players do for an hour and a half on a Saturday afternoon. Similarly I enjoy and admire Andew Marr’s broadcasting, and am frankly not bothered about what he gets up to off-air, (although there is an issue of hypocrisy with Marr as he is a journalist). However, I am inclined to think that  it is for me to decide whether or not I want to read about the infidelity of such people, not them.

Conservative MP Louise Bagahsawe, who’s super injunction joke on Have I got News For You was bleeped and black boxed out by the BBC last week, says she believes that men are buying justice that the women in the cases cannot afford. I actually don’t believe that rich people buying justice is the issue here. Were the subjects not rich and famous there would be no public interest in their affair, and therefore they would not feel the need for such legal action.

In the case of footballers, the main reason for getting a superinjunction is to maintain sponsorship revenue and avoid the abuse of opposition fans, as suffered by Ashely ‘where’s your Cheryl gone’ Cole. Marr says he wanted to give his family space to work through the problems, but the story not breaking in a conventional manner undoubtedly also protected his public reputation, even if lots of people in Westminster new about his affair.

Often a justification for taking out an injunction is preventing hurt to partners and family, but, bluntly, if these well known, powerful men wanted to protect their wives and children from the hurt affairs can cause they wouldn’t have them in the first place.

Ultimately it is for the public to decide which bits of public figures lives are in the public interest. The law has no place in preventing public embarrassment to famous people who have made mistakes.

April 25th, 2011

Breaking: Liverpool Lib Dem Councillor defects to Labour

by admin

Liverpool Councillor Gary Millar has left the Liberal Democrats and defected to Labour.  This comes just days after the Lib Dem group leader in the city urged Nick Clegg to pull out the coalition. The timing was clearly deliberately calculated to cause maximum damage to the party, just a couple of weeks before important local elections across the country,

Millar’s defection statement, given exclusively to the Liverpool Daily Post, is reproduced below:

“Twelve months ago I was happy to call myself a Lib Dem, today they make me question my integrity and reputation. Nationally, some policy choices are hurting low income families and call into question my own integrity (eg. tuition fees, police cuts). Closer to home, I believe that the once proud Liverpool group will get over its current turmoil but meanwhile its own integrity is being questioned. Unfortunately I can’t stay a member of a group where any positives are being significantly overshadowed by continual negative perceptions.  Yes, nobody is perfect, but I do believe that civic pride, public trust and mutual respect should be top of our political agenda.” ”In fact, in the past year I believe the integrity of grass roots Liberal Democrats has been adversely affected by some ill thought out decisions. Yes, I acknowledg that their influence in Government has achieved some positives, however this is outweighed by the broken promises and many are hoping and looking for politicians they can trust.  Trust is the key word and I believe the only word in the minds of our voters.” ”Why have a I joined Labour? Well, I now believe that the Liberal Democrat Party is no longer the party I joined.  Plus, since taking control of the city last year I have been very impressed by some of Labour’s successes – particularly with their stance on the business agenda and the apprenticeship scheme.  I have already applauded Labour’s consensual approach to the budget process. I have to say I am very angry that the government has reduced the city’s funding by £91 million in a one size fits all approach to reductions. With Liverpool having some of the most deprived areas in the country, why do we have a bigger reduction than the more affluent Tory towns and cities?  For example, the government needs to continually remind itself that Liverpool needs more businesses (an extra 7,000 just to hit the national average) and more long term jobs. Liverpool’s allocation from the Regional Growth fund of £450million is welcome but only a drop in the ocean for a City which needs and deserves much more. We also need better health services and more health education. Furthermore, we need better schools and we need better housing.

“I am pleased to be joining the Labour team and will play a part in helping achieve the city’s goals and objectives in supporting the business community and help them put in place strategies, plans and actions that attract investment and safeguard and create more long term businesses and jobs.  This is not about politics – it’s about our residents and their future!”

“It will now be said by some in the Lib Dems that I have put my own interests before those of the party. To which I can genuinely say that I have instead put the residents of the city of Liverpool before the party or its politics. I cannot stay a member of a party that has broken some of its election promises and one where I have seen firsthand that puts its own members’ reputation and integrity at risk. Sacrificing the offices of a few councillors for the bigger picture does not remove the fact that several good, hardworking and loyal people are being sacrificed.”

“Therefore, my decision to join the Labour Group has been one of the most difficult I’ve had to make. Since the formation of the Coalition Government I have struggled enormously with some of their decisions. Nick Clegg himself said this weekend that “we can’t defend the indefensible.Personally, I take issue with the handling of tuition fees, the Health Bill, the cancelled Building Schools for the Future programme, proposed cuts in funding the police, the AV Referendum and the huge detrimental impact of local government cuts. I will be criticised for my decision, some will accuse me of naivety and/or opportunism. All I can say is that I am guilty of neither. Whether they believe me or not doesn’t concern me.  It is neither a move for political embarrasment nor one for self advancement.  Politics should be about doing the right thing for our voters, and above all about reputation, trust and integrity.”

1.    Tuition Fees. A newly found understanding of the financial fragility of the country does not wash with an electorate that witnessed the signing of pledges stating that tuition fees would be abolished.  On the doorstep and in my role as Trustee of a student union representing 25,000 students, I often hear the statement “You lied about tuition fees”.  Of course, I can intellectualise and explain the reason for increasing the fees but I can’t defend what appears to our voters to be blatant opportunism to get the student vote.

Since the General Election, statements have been made stating that the Lib Dems had to rethink their stance on tuition fees. But surely with all their research, focus groups and experts they must have realised that the pledge was undeliverable. Is it not better to double check facts and figures and prove that you can deliver something before making a promise to do so? So okay, some will say that we were not previously privy to the extent of the financial deficit.  But that’s missing the point. Surely it’s about perception and public reaction to the basic fundamentals of trust and honesty.  It is obvious that the consequence of breaking a contract is far greater (and more destructive) than doing what some will say is the right thing to do.

2.    Health Bill.  My next problem is with the Health Bill and the likely failure of grass-roots Lib Dems attempts to alter what appears to be a Tory interns theoretical and ideological research paper pulled off the vanity press shelf. Unless we see Andrew Lansley having a major rethink following his pause, ponder and engage exercise then we will probably only see a few changes and a new health service that is based on postcodes and profits. If this happens it will demonstrate how much the parliamentarians are out of touch with their voters.

3.    Police.  Then there is the problem of policing. Before the election the Lib Dems called for more police. Now we are looking at 880 fewer police in Merseyside.  How can a Lib Dem face residents and say “trust us”, when they are demonstrating that promises already made may yet again be worthless. Yet again I hear “Another broken promise from the Lib Dems.”

Enhanced by Zemanta
April 21st, 2011

Nick Clegg might just have played a blinder in the AV referendum

by admin
LONDON, ENGLAND - OCTOBER 13:  Nick Clegg, the...

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

The common political theory is that Nick Clegg spent all his political capital on the AV referendum, took power in exchange for a ‘miserable little compromise’, and that losing could well brake the Lib Dem bird’s left wing, grounding the party for good. However, if you take step back from the hyperbole and bile that now surrounds the Deputy Prime Minister, a different reality emerges.

By taking a back seat, Clegg has allowed the media narrative to change subtly from focusing on the  differences within the coalition that everyone knew about already, to the referendum being the first Cameron vs Miliband battle. Much of the coverage of the ‘Yes’ campaign has involved Miliband. For example, when the debate got personal this week, the split image on the front of the Times was of him and the Prime Minister, with Clegg nowhere to be seen as he wasn’t at the ‘Yes’ event. (That same paper described Miliband as the ‘figurehead of the campaign’(£) in a critical leader article.)

Should the nation vote ‘No’, the perception within the public that Ed Miliband is a loser and David Cameron is winner will be reinforced. While of course a ‘No’ vote will be a big problem for Clegg too, it no longer quite seems like it is his referendum anymore.

A ‘Yes’ vote means while Miliband will be able to claim some victory, half his party will be very annoyed as they will have lost, and Clegg can come out and say he has changed British democracy forever by  first forcing the referendum as part of the coalition deal,  and then helping win it by following polling advice and keeping a relatively low profile, (however much VN disagrees with it). Plus his party’s grassroots will be able to see a long term obsession ambition achieved in government.

The Lib Dem Leader did come out fighting in today’s Telegraph at an IPPR event, as he has every right to do, but those things get more attention from the politico chattering classes, who have mainly made up their mind already, than the  general electorate.

The next two weeks will be key, but Nick Clegg might just have played this referendum perfectly.

Enhanced by Zemanta
April 20th, 2011

The Lib Dems no longer have interns…they have volunteers

by admin

Just a couple of weeks after Nick Clegg’s positive moves on ending unpaid internships, it seems like his MPs are for once listening to him. Stephen Williams and Mike Hancock are now advertising for volunteers instead:

Aside from the issue of working for Mike Hancock, clearly these roles are exactly the same as what would have been ‘interns’ a fortnight or so ago. A quick look at the job descriptions reveals that the successful applicants will be required to do quite a lot for their ‘training and reasonable expenses’….almost like a proper job.

Positions like this cut politics off from vast swathes of society, and MPs need to realise that political passion doesn’t pay the rent.

Enhanced by Zemanta
April 19th, 2011

Admitting to wanting to sabotage a Yes vote is entirely self-defeating

by admin

The campaign leading up to the AV referendum has been dull. Really dull. However come May 6th, it might not actually be over. Some Conservative MPs have made public their threat to sabotage the boundary review, which is the other part of the electoral reform that includes the referendum on, and the possible implementation of, the Alternative Vote. This would be done by forcing an election before the boundary view is completed in 2013, and meaning the election would have to be conducted under First Past the Post, and the Parliamentary Constituencies and Voting bill falling.

Supporters of fairer votes have long known that it won’t really be all over until MPs have passed through the the ‘aye’ lobby, the bill was created in such a way to make sure both coalition parties’ desired electoral reforms would be implemented. It is though surprising that the threat of sabotage has been made so public, and in particular with the emphasis on low turnout. What better way to encourage Yes voters out? What better way to keep the No vote, who probably wpn’t an end to the coalition, at home?

Most of those involved in the plot would like nothing more than to have an excuse, any excuse, to bring down the government and get rid of those pesky Lib Dems. There were even rumours a few months ago that some Tory backbenchers were going to vote against the tuition fees rise in order to try and break the government. However, the likelihood of the Prime Minister and his whips allowing such a rebellion to succeed is minute, and Labour would be split so many ways that Tory rebels couldn’t guarantee enough numbers.

By encouraging their own supporters to stay at home, Conservative backbenchers may end up getting the result they fear.

Enhanced by Zemanta