The Final

I feel kind of proud actually. On my update in early/mid February; where I posted my opening speech in the "This House would welcome being governed from the playing fields of Eton," debate; I put Nick Clegg as my customary photo at the speeches side. I am a moderate admirer of Clegg, he seems sensible; even if many of the Liberal Democrat policies simply pander to public opinion(such as the Iraq War, and on the simultaneous embracing of the green economy and rejection of nuclear power). After last weeks elections, which were the first I was able to vote in; he now holds the balance in the forming of a new government. I feel like a political prophet. This has been an interesting development. Most of his discussions have been with Cameron and his lot. Now there is no doubting that Clegg is to the right of his party, but no good can come of this in my opinon. A LibCon alliance may be mathematically desirable, commanding an easy majority as it would; but ideologically destructive. In many cases Liberal Democrat policy is to the left of Labour, a coalition with obvious assholes such as George Osborne would alienate the left of the party. I thought it fitting to put a younger Gordon Brown as my picture here on the day he announced his intentions to step down as party leader. In my opinion, he is by far the most principled and consistent politician of the current three party leaders. Whilst Conservative press (As a side note to this point: out of all newspapers in the UK, ALL of them endorsed the Conservatives apart from the Daily Mirror(Labour) and the Guardian(Liberal Democracts). Well at least as far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong.) tore through and destroyed this man, and with this the fact that he faced the hardest Prime Ministerial term of any man or woman in recent history. Let's face it: the Tories lost. Labour certainly lost, but so did the Conservatives. They received 10m votes this is true, but with all the wind in their sails; they could not oust Labour really and truly. I hope this is a sign of a shifting political demographic, well and truly away from a two-party-pandering system, and to a real representative one. The Liberals need to use this as collateral in any deal they manage to pull.

Well moving on, my last post noted how Davin and I reached the final of the Northern Ireland Schools Debating Competition. This final took place on the 30th April 2010 in the Senate Chamber of the amazing Stormont Parliament Buildings. This building blew me away and it was a real pleasure to get the chance to debate in it. The motion was, "This House would welcome being part of a European Federal State." Davin and I were in our more comfortable position of opposition (having, I felt, seemed a bit squirmish as the proposition in the Semi Finals). Here is more or less what my opening speech said (I am willing to post Davin's speech, but I have no copies of it; plus his own speech was cut completely short by points of information so over half of it was not said.):

Ladies and gentlemen, chairperson, esteemed adjudicators, members of the proposition and of the audience; Davin and I believe that UK involvement in a European Federal State would be monetarily destructive, corrupt in its origins, hostile to national self determination and sovereignty, and adverse to public opinion. We, the opposition, feel that we must first underline that this debate is about the supposed merits of involvement in a Federal Europe for us, and whether or not the UK should abstain from such a federations. The supposed or theoretical implications of such a situation are thus relevant only should they be directly applicable to the UK now, and offer benefits not already available. My argument can be broken down into three headings: firstly, the essentiality of legitimacy, secondly; the confusion surrounding structure and representation, and thirdly; the failings of the Eurozone. Davin will follow on this by depicting the EU as it is now, a network of corruption with a considerable and consistent democratic deficit. Whilst this debate should not focus on the EU, any European Federal State must by definition have been born within the EU, therefore criticisms of this organisation are criticisms of what the birth of a Federal Europe would entail. With this, we WILL show you why UK involvement in a United States of Europe is not ipso facto desirable, and that it should be resisted.
Legitimacy
On legitimacy: the legitimacy of a government is the foundation of its power. An institution is perceived as legitimate if there is approval for it among those subject to its authority. A relevant example of this can be drawn in contemporary America. In the USA there exists fiscal centralisation, ie taxes are given to the federal government and spread across states. By extension, someone paying federal taxes in Philadelphia knows that their tax may spread wealth to the complete other side of the continent. But this is an accepted condition as the American government is supported by the government and is thus legitimate. With this in mind, in the UK now our context is firmly anchored within an electorate which is one of, if not the, most Eurosceptic in the entire supposed European family. This is the fact. Another fact is that the UK electorate will not accept their taxes being spread to a distant Luxembourg. Another fact is that the UK electorate will not accept the ability of a German, a Romanian or a Slovenian to vote in their elections. The proposition have instead joined this auction of hyperbole in glorifying Eurofederalism, and demeaning the pro-European realism Davin and I advocate. The objection to a European Federal State here is that there is no appetite within the UK for it, therefore it is not feasible.
Structure and representation
On structure and representation: there are of course glaring isses within the EU surrounding the unaccountable Commission and the impotent and weak Parliament, now these are two issues Davin will go into in more detail but the basic fact is that there is a basic crisis of EU legitimacy. There is no widely understood or accepted framework of Europe in place. By extension, the heavyweight of change and the abolition of sovereignty that would occur should we be moulded into a Federation need to be met with answers to these questions which I am posing to the proposition: what actual structure would a federal Europe take? How do the proposition justify superseding and complete ignoring public opinion? And how many representatives would the UK have to play the role and do the jobs of the roughly 650 current constituency MPs in the House of Commons? The objection to a European Federal State here lies in the fact that any answers to these questions will be either utopian in tone, or completely unsatisfactory.
The Eurozone
I will now deal with the issue of the monetary and fiscal unionism that would certainly follow should a Federal Europe become a reality with us involved. In the words of Meyer Amschel Rothschild, known as the founding father of Internation Finance, "Give me control of a state's money supply, and I care not who make its laws." The ridiculous claims of prosperity offered by the Euro can indeed now be empirically tested against its actual performance; whereby the credit crunch gave the Euro, its credibility crunch. The propostion are accepting it seems, that the Eurozone's regulation was so frivolously imposed that Greece could simply tell the European Central Bank that their deficit was okay. The proposition are accepting it seems that unemployment has risen year on year since the Euro's inception, but this is okay, as this keeps wages low and private profits high. Never mind it seems, that the Eurozone showed none of this supposed European solidarity, having taken weeks to secure even the ghost of an agreement on Greece. Swiss research group 'Assembly of European Regions' conducted a study on this issue, which concluded that, "European countries which have their own [economic levers] do consistently better than centralised ones." Joining the Eurozone needs to offer some benefits, some advantages. But the fact is, it offers more hindrances and constraints, enforcing a fiscal straightjacket. The objection to a European Federal State here lies in the huge famine of supposed benefits offered by joining this catastrophe.
This is an appeal to reason ladies and gentlemen.
Firstly; a European Federal State would not be legitimate. Any such mass reorganisation of government does indeed need public support.
Secondly, there is no realistic or accepted framework within which the EU can be placed, let alone a European Federal State.
Thirdly, having economic power always comes out on top of having no economic power, which is seemingly what the proposition would rather.
To vote against this motion is a vote for maintaining the credibility of democracy. It is a vote for economic autonomy and against economic despotism. It is a vote for a pro-European realism, instead of utopianism, and tyranny. Ladies and gentlemen, vote against this motion.

Well, coming as Davin and I have, an extremely long way since the student debt debate: we won the competition and are thus the Northern Ireland Schools Debating champions. A huge honour and a privilege, it was an amazing and tough debate, and an amazing night. Thank you to all who came to show support.

As with the previous debate, the week had not yet finished before the next motion had arrived. The new motion, a far more impressive one, was 'This House would ban the BNP'. Davin and I proposed this motion. This is more or less what I said in my first speech;

Ladies, gentlemen, chairperson, esteemed adjudicators, members of the opposition and of the audience. When dealing with the prospect of banning the British National Party it is first key that we, the proposition, exactly how we understand the term ban. Davin and I would 'ban' the BNP in order that they be prohibited from parliamentary or political activities that involve holding office in European, Council or Westminster seats. We however, are not so naive as to believe that such a ban will result in the dissolution or the disintegration of the so called party, therefore we would offer up key targets for the organisation to meet, such as transparency and real democratic progress, before we would even consider letting them continue their brief unwelcome interference within British politics. As well as this ladies and gentlemen, our government is a democratic one, and a process such as this should be done on a democratic basis, with this in mind, Davin and I would ban the BNP on the back of a plebiscite in line with these ideals. To convince you, that you should vote yes in banning the BNP, I will begin by explaining the historical relevance of political pacifism in the face of Fascist movement, I will then outline illegal activities directly linked to ranks within the BNP, and explain how we cannot allow those who themselves incite and allow violence to be voted into positions of power in this our liberal democracy. Davin will then outline the lies that have been told by the BNP, again and afain, in stark contrast to their actions, thereby dispelling the myth that the BNP is the English right with a human face, or that they are separate, or partitioned, from groups such as Combat 18.

In a 1942 article in address to Indian students, George Orwell wrote, "Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist, this is elementary common sense." Effectively saying that lazy limousine liberalism is anything but an objective middle ground. With this, it is impossible to discuss the relevance of the BNP without making reference to the National Socialist Party of Germany, or the National Fascist Party of Italy. Both of these parties gained leadership within the constraints of democracy at the time, and after about three decades wherein the ideology was put into practice, we now have a situation where Nazism as an ideology is outlawed in Germany, and Fascism is explicitly banned in the Italian constitution. A common position on this issue is that continued BNP publicity will give their abhorrent views mass exposure, and by extension act as a catalyst for a self-made downfall. But ladies and gentlemen, have their ideas not already been disproved? Have their motives not already been exposed? Has their ideology not already fallen victim to all forms of scrutiny? And yet support has grown in proportion to the increase in lies that they have told. The parallels between the basic ideas of Nazism and the BNP are strong; anti-Communism, anti-Semitism, anti-Democracy, racism and bigotry to name the obvious and irrefutable. The truth is, that this ideology of power, and negativity, and oppression, has already been more than quashed in the last century. To vote yes in banning the BNP, you would be putting a further, and vital, extra nail in the Fascist coffin.

In terms of violence, of which the BNP are not only inciters of but partakers in, there can be no doubt, that in BNP stronghold areas, violence increases dramatically around election time, and even moreso if a member gets elected. Statistics obtained from the Freedom of Information act have shwon that in research done in 29 police wards across England, there was an average decline in racially motivated or hate motivated attacks. 8 of these wards though, saw sharp increases. All of these wards have elected BNP members since 2006. At a time where hate crime fell, in other words, the BNP ensured its survival. Now the opposition may very well say that no direct link can be proved between the two, but this would not only be a naive position to hold but one in the face of masses of contradictory evidence. How about David Copeland, the BNP member who planted a nail bomb outside a gay bar, successfully managing to lodge a nail deep into a baby's skull, murdering a pregnant woman and a friend close by. This was his response to the deaths, he said, "My aim was political. It was to cause a racial war in this country. There'd be a backlash from the ethnic minorities, then all the white people would go out, and vote BNP." Or BNP election candidate Robert Cottage, found at his home with the largest amount of potentially explosive chemical materials ever found in Britain, (no doubt) beside a box of BNP leaflets. Does it not matter, that Robert Bennett, noted BNP activist and key distributor of leaflets and propaganda in Oldham, was convicted of the rape of two 17 year old girls? I could go on ladies and gentlemen, but the pattern is the same. These are not just certain things that certain BNP members or certain BNP activists do. Central to these acts is the political platform held by the BNP which both grants them legitimacy and permits these activities. This is certainly true when you consider BNP reaction to these events. Consider BNP Director of Publicity, Mark Collett, who, when questioned on the nail bomber, claimed these events to be not just unavoidable, and inevitable, but to be widely accepted. This is of course the same Mark Collett who praised the AIDS virus saying, "Blacks, drug abusers and gays all have it, so I guess it's not a bad disease," and had this to say on ideology, "National Socialism was the answer for Germany, and our own National Socialism is the only answer for England. We will make it happen." These are the people ladies and gentlemen, that the opposition would rather keep within the political spectrum.

The opposition, and increasingly the media, may very well siphon their BNP interpretation through soft, fact free, context free information. We often hear that the BNP is a 'legal, elected party'. Elected, yes, though legality, no, as Orwell would say, this is elementary common sense. Do I even need to point out that we should not allow overt and bigoted anti-Semites, anti-Islamites, anti-Democrats and anti-Liberalists with one hand to climb to political legitimacy, and with the other stir hate based propaganda? Is it not clear, that this party stand against all the common factors used in their defense. They are not for tolerance, yet plead it. They are not for freedom of speech, yet manipulate it. They are not for democracy, yet manoeuvre through it. It is a fact, ladies and gentlemen, that the truth can be divisive on issues such as these, and if this division means that such a party are told that they are not democratic, then we should all breath a sigh of relief. Vote for this motion, and with this show that you too would ban the BNP, unless they change their face, and not just their mask.

Due to continued pleading, petty pleading at that, and incessant begging, Davin has made me type up his speech on this. To reach the wider readership I can only assume...But here is more or less what he said:

Ladies and Gentlemen, esteemed chairperson, members of the opposition. I would like to ask you all to cast your minds back into history. Now keep going until the last time society thought to itself, "Oh yeah, remember that ultra-right-wing-racist party we were going to ban? Well it's a good thing we didn't, because they turned out to be amazing!" Now if you're still searching, it's because such an example does not exist. Such an example does not exist because anytime an organisation of the same ilk as the BNP has been allowed a political platform, be it the Fascists in Italy or the National Socialists in Germany, they have used democracy, to destroy democracy.

We have listened already to an opposition who claim to be defending democracy. Maybe this is why they have found it so difficult to address the fact that we would ban the BNP in a truly democratic way; we would let the people decide on the basis of a plebiscite. Furthermore, our counterpart's dangerous idealism not only glibly brushes off a lesson that history has taught us so many times but also threatens to tear down the principle it seeks to protect. Whether or not good intentions lay behind the opposition's argument is irrelevant, the fact is that they are dangerously flawed.

[Here rebuttals to specific arguments used by the opposition would have been said].

...We have heard today, that in a democracy, a party such as the BNP cannot be banned. However, this is untrue. As Conor has already outlined, by law a party can be banned for misleading its electorate in terms of policy simply to win votes.

In a bid to gain power the BNP has apparently 'changed its face' - although 99% of the party's faces are still white. Nick Griffin publicly claims to have revamped the organisation into a centre-right party who's dogmatic and racist beliefs have been eliminated in favour of a 'real mandate'. By eliminated, good old Nick must have meant, "eliminated from public perception...but we still really hate black people." Vast amounts of evidence have been compiled to show that, despite what is publicly said, the intentions and beliefs of the party elite have not changed. What we have therefore, is a core of backward and often violent party leadership, which is lying to the public as to the nature of their party in order to gain votes.

At the height of Griffin's claims that the BNP were now this cuddly, acceptable party, a senior member of the organisation become disillusioned, saying that, "the party are hiding behind a political name. They have not changed in 20 years, despite what is publicly said. Their mandate is still one of racism, hatred and violence." This man, Andy Sikes, worked with the BBC to compile video evidence, contrasting what the electorate are told, with the true intentions of the BNP.

Some of you may remember Question Time a few months ago in which Nick Griffin claimed to, "never have encouraged, nor incited violence." Yet at a members-only conference Mr Sikes told Mr Griffin that holding a public meeting in one particular anti-BNP area could incite violence. To this Mr Griffin replied, "Great! If we get a riot out of it we'll walk the election." It is part of the BNP's tactic to incite racial violence and then use the hatred created to recruit votes.

In terms of immigrants, the party manifesto states that it is, "not militant in our approach to multiculturalism, but concerned with dealing with the issue in a constitutional way." However this does not sound like the approach of council candidate Dave Midgely, who repeatedly harassed a local Asian restaurant by putting dog faeces through their letterbox. It may be noteworthy as well that over two thirds of the BNP's candidates for the last election had criminal convictions concerning racist activities.

In the past the BNP have also outlined their vague but nonetheless hilarious policy towards Ireland. Saying that they intend to, "end sectarianism by stopping immigration," which is obviously the route of the problem! Yet Mr Sikes met with the man who drafted this elaborate policy, and whilst probing him on the holes in his logic, this senior member admitted that the BNP had no real concern for Northern Ireland, as it, "isn't as infested with non-whites as the rest of the UK." The policy was up largely to boost the organisation's image as a viable party.

Centre to this debate however is race. At the start of this year the BNP launched a series of pamphlets around England which claimed, "we are no longer a racist." Skin heads and pit bull owners aside, the electorate seems to agree. In a recent poll, 60% of voters in BNP stronghold areas stated that they didn't think the BNP was a racist party. This may be because they have never been to a senior BNP meeting, such as the one Andy Sikes helped to film. At one of these meetings MP-in-the-making Stuart Williams was asked what his dream as. He replied, "My dream is to have a transit van with a million bullets. I'd just pull up outside the mosques on Friday afternoon when they're all getting out and slaughter them." Nick Griffin applauded this.

It may seem like common knowledge that the BNP aren't the bastion of the ethnic minority, but sure this is as far as their hostility extends? In terms of parliament, the BNP manifesto warmly states that the organisation looks forward to, "peaceful and progressive competition with the Left." What it doesn't mention, is that countless senior members of the party visit the website 'Redwatch' which lists pictures and home addresses of thousands of Liberal activists. When the BNP's rising star Mark Collett was asked in private what it was about, he described it as a, "hit list of reds who need twatting."

Just like this house, the public deserves to know what they are voting for before they do so. The argument we continue to hear; that it 'doesn't matter what the party thinks because they are still representing people's opinions' is tore to shreds by the fact that what people are being told the party believes, and what it actually believes, are two very different things! I'm sure much of the BNP's following would disintegrate had they been at the party conference where their founder John Tyndall, described Africans, all Africans, as, "festers of voodoo, cannibalism, witchcraft and AIDS."

Until such a time as the organisation ceases the illegal activities Conor discussed, and ceases its blatant misleading of the people, the BNP must be banned. Members of the house, the final nail in this swastika-shaped coffin comes from Nick Griffin himself. In 2007 this now acceptable politician shared a platform with former leader of the Klu Klux Klan David Duke at a rally. As he spoke to the crowd he said, "Do not believe what you hear over the coming years. No matter what we say or do in public to manoeuvre ourselves into power, our aim remains the same. We have not changed our face, we are simply wearing a mask."

An extremely difficult debate as it progressed. Neither of us would have felt cheated had we of lost as it was extremely close. We did win though and now have advanced to the final of the competition.

Before the last debate had time to sink in Davin and I were confronted with our next motion. Unmistakably dry, 'This House believes that funding the 2012 Olympics at the expense of culture, arts, and heritage represents poor value for money.' Adding to this, we for the first time were told to propose the motion, a venture neither of us had ever done before. This gave us more scope of manipulation over the motion, but as it turned out, the motion itself was in and of itself narrow enough to ensure that our power was limited. The debate took place on 2nd March 2010 and here is roughly what I said:

Ladies, gentlemen, esteemed adjudicators, members of the opposition, and of the audience. Davin and I believe with conviction that the inept and muddled funding of the 2012 Olympics will give birth to a situation which will be hugely detrimental, both economically and socially, to our culture, arts and heritage. We, the proposition, define the key terms of the motion as such; we first understand the term 'arts, culture and heritage' to be focusing on the 56 million people in the UK outside of the English capital, and the cultural, artistic and heritages based initiatives which will be directly affected, outside of London. The term 'value for money' is understood to be relating to the social, as well as the economic implications of the Olympic investments. I will begin by shedding light on the economic atrocities that have both preceded and will succeed the games, and explain why outside of London, culture, arts and heritage will suffer financial famine. Davin will then build on this by explaining why the only legacy the games are likely to leave us, is from the burnished glow of politicians' and organisers' collective ego.

Recently, Will Self spoke on the possibility of abstaining from arts, culture and heritage. He suggested removing all aspects of pictures, drawings, music, books, television, film, radio, newspapers, magazines, internet, museums and listed buildings from our lives. I say this ladies and gentlemen because this is the scope of culture, arts and heritage, and to stagnate funding for a number of these and focus on the Olympics we feel, cannot be justified. Of course, in economically frail times such as these financial leadership must be robust. But have we seen such leadership under Tessa Jowell, the Labour MP who is in charge of directing Olympic funding? In 2005 the first Olympic budget was announced, it amounted to £2.3bn to cover all costs, two years later this was revised, the new figure somehow came out at £9.3bn. When questioned on this discrepancy, Jowell had this to say, "How was I supposed to know we had to take into account VAT, security, and a contingency?" This contemptuous response was added to when recently she was reported to have said that she, "wished" London had never gone for the Olympics at all.

One of the main sources of funding for arts, culture and heritage comes from the Lottery, wherein 28p from each pound is spent on 'good causes'. The Olympic Lottery Distributor is now one of the bodies that receives this money. Aside from this though, the Olympics are already hoovering money from almost every economic orifice; council tax in London, central government taxation, their own specially created lottery, but here we see that it is actually siphoning off the vital source of funding for arts, culture and heritage UK wide at the grass roots. Ladies and gentlemen in 2007 alone this resulted in a 35% budget cut for arts, culture and heritage.

Surely though, there is an Olympic answer? Well, it is the Cultural Olympiad. This pathetic body, set up to celebrate British culture, have hijacked it, and are squeezing it into south-east England. The Scottish National Party's Culture, Media and Sports spokesperson, Peter Wishart, had this to say after Tessa Jowell revealed that out of about 1200 Olympiad projects, 7 were in Scotland, "There has been a blatant attempt to leave Scotland out in the cold when it comes to cultural legacy. It's high time those behind the London Olympics started to live up to their promise that this event would benefit the whole of the UK and not just the south-east of England."

We, the proposition, also want to bring light on the social implications of hosting the Olympics for the homeless. In Vancouver between 2003 and 2009 homeless rates went up by 370% due to the displacement of social housing on Olympic venue sites, not accounting for the street clean up that took place in the latter half of last year. This is not isolated, the 2007 Fair Play for Housing report listing large figures in previous Olympics. Seoul in 1988 displaced 750,000 homeless, whilst Beijing tallied 1.5mn. I say this because ladies and gentlemen, this is part of what you the taxpayer pay for as part of the Olympic package.

Key to this motion though ladies and gentlemen, do the Olympics in and of themselves represent good value for money? Or is £6bn of central government taxation just too steep an investment for a four week display of men and women running in circles and playing in sandpits? To return again to Tessa Jowell, who said the Olympics will, "address some of the key issues our nation faces, health, social inclusion, educational motivation, and fighting crime!" Whilst it is telling that arts, culture and heritage were not mentioned here, is there any truth to these claims? The only real research done on this topic was in Australia, between 1985 and 2002. Indeed in the year after the Sydney Olympics seven Olympic sports did indeed receive a small increase in participation, whilst nine declined. Indeed the report concluded that, "the most substantial sport participation related event...was an increase in live and television spectating." The net result was therefore, less sport, and more TV. The report went on to echo a 2007 report by the Culture, Media and Sport committee which concluded that, "the Olympics are by no means a guaranteed economic investment." To use one example, did Greece's Olympic choice bolster their economy into being able to bear the oncoming harsh economic climate, or did the olympic sized hangover they are still experiencing mean that the Olympics are one of the reasons for it?

In conclusion ladies and gentlemen, value for money, a key term to this motion, is measurable, with the so called three E's of economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. On the branch of economy, under Tessa Jowell it appears obvious that the economic situation is in disarray, victim to false promises and corporate nepotism. On efficiency, the Aquatic centre, to take just one example, has spiralled into a pipedream project. The emblem of soaring costs that it is, shows glaring inefficiencies. On effectiveness, the government have openly admitted that the Olympics alone can have no lasting effect, stating that legacy can only be aspired to with the Olympics as a bit part player in a wider governmental scheme, how can it really deemed effective alone? It cannot. Ladies and gentlemen, vote for this motion, this house is fervent in its belief that funding the Olympics at the expense of culture, arts and heritage represents atrocious value for money.

Without doubt the toughest debate yet, Davin and I won the debate and have now advanced to the semi finals.

The month of January was consumed by A2 modules, getting adjusted back to school and towards the end, another debate. Davin and I were presented with the motion "This house would welcome being governed from the playing fields of Eton" and were positioned in the opposition. Here is a near final draft of what I had wanted to say in my first speech:

Ladies, gentlemen, esteemed adjudicator, members of the proposition and of the audience. Mr Clarke and I vehemently oppose the prospect of being governed from the playing fields of Eton. We, the opposition, understand the motion to be focusing on the prospect of a Conservative election victory come May and evaluate the term 'govern' as the overseeing of this prospective government of continued devolution in Northern Ireland. With this, the values propounded by Mr. Cameron and his entourage of Cameroons is up for scrutiny. Indeed the feeling of desire towards such a prospect reeks of a politically parasitic Anglophilia which we, the opposition, wholly detach ourselves from. I will begin by addressing the issues of our current predicament, the economy, and a possible unwelcome return of sectarian politics. Davin will build on this by dissecting what we are allowed to know of Conservative policy and tell you what these actually mean when the rhetoric is decoded. With this we will show you why neither we, nor you, should welcome being governed from the playing fields of Eton.

Ladies and gentlemen, Davin and I do not want to appear politically apologetic for the Labour government, but too often is it the case that the opinion of the people is formed purely from the recent negative come election time. We are all so disilusioned that the positives are shaded over and forgotton. But it is important to give credence, when it is due, to where Labour have succeeded. Such as the lowering of crime levels by a third, the drastically improving education system, more students than oever, the disability discrimination act, devolution here in Northern Ireland, civil partnerships, record levels of child benefit, the minimum wage, the first ever climate change act, to name but a few from a Gordon Brown speech in '09. Our disillusionment overshadows these major steps. The Labour government though, it cannot be denied, have faced the global economic crash, the expenses scandal, the fumblingly poor handling of Gulf warfare, and a debatably sluggish response to green issues. We hear this in every speech from Dave Cameron, they are in fact, his main electoral push. What we don't hear though, is whether there was Tory disapproval of Labour's laissez faire economic approach during boom years. What we don't hear though, is of the continued support of the Conservatives for Gulf warfare. What we don't hear though, is that the party of Green scepticism, is the Conservative party. My point being ladies and gentlemen, is that we don't hear solutions, only criticisms. Because of this, the Conservatives appear both empty of oppositional ideas and organisationally hollow. David Cameron's youth, intelligence, Etonian plausibility, and career drivin politics seem starkly devoid of political or personal substance for which to even justify the possiblity of an electoral victory.

Focusing on the economy, it is oft debated that Labour have driven us and the world into a bleak and dark economic dystopia, wherein they secretly plot to drive us deeper into it through evil public spending. With that in mind you would assume that the Conservatives have a consistent and coherent ecomic policy, lauded by economists of all stripes as the saviour of the free market. This is simply not true. Davin will speak in detail about more intricate economic plausibilities under the Cameroons but the key point being made is that the deficit needs to be cut, and cut soon, whether or not the 0.1%GDP growth really is enough to dignify the stagnation of public funding, in order to reduce this deficit. David Cameron does not care, it seems, that this model is firmly rejected by most if not all major world economies and in fact China, who did the polar opposite and pumped continuous funds into the economy, came out of their recession quickest and strongest. They are now arguably the world's strongest economy alongside the USA. On this important question of consistency, I will describe a brief Tory timeline. In 2005, when George Osborne first become Shadow Chancellor, he endorsed flat taxes, which was dropped because even it was too right wing a policy. At a conference in '06, the Tories said there was simply no scope for tax cuts, and Mr. Cameron endorsed Labour's new spending plans. At the very next conference, tax cuts became the Tory defining policy, and Cameron denounced these same spending plans. Last summer the Tories tonally implied swingeing public spending cuts, but only last week Cameron squirmishly said that 'only a start' could be made to said cuts during year one of an Etonite parliament. The only pattern here ladies and gentlemen, is the distinct lack of one. If this sycophantic Toryism is what it means to be governed from the playing fields of Eton, it is no basis by which to agree with the motion in question.

On the issue of sectarian politics, how can the proposition stand on this podium and glibly indicate, with the sort of atrabilious and arrogant reciprocal self-righteousness which sadly is commonplace for their assumed position, that our newest Eton-bred embodiment, Dave, could produce progress? The truth lies starkly anti-thetical to this claim. Having already made an electoral alliance with the UUP, the Conservatives have shacked up with the DUP. Cameron has not denied accusations of wanting to create a pan-unionist front if the event of a hung parliament requires it. This is obviously, unless your political naivity is matched only by your refusal of political objectivity, a move of power grabbing pragmatism, rooted in the detached pathological competitiveness of his Eton days. We, the opposition, deem this as a possible external imposition of sectarian partisan politics, which we do not have time for, unlike the proposition.

Ladies and gentlemen, we can't go on like this. We can't go on making a scapegoat out of our current government who have, since 1997, brought us here in the North of Ireland as close as we have been to political independance than would have seemed plausible only a generation ago. We can't go on placing sole blame for our economic woes on a government whose opposition raised no qualms themselves. Most of all though, we can't go on looking to David Cameron as a plausible solution. We may be very sorry come May if the proposition get what they propose. Ladies and gentlemen, vote against this motion, this house would not welcome being governed from the playing fields of Eton.

Davin and I won the debate and somehow have now advanced to the quarter finals of the competition.

Outing oneself.

Today saw the Christmas holidays end and a brief return to school before we were all eventually allowed home due to the weather. Today also saw me in effect, 'joining' The Out Campaign; wherein participants simply brand themselves with an ironic scarlet 'A' on a badge for example. I placed mine on my school blazer. It's a harmless enough device, it's subtle, it's not really an advertisement, and my logic behind was simply this, "If I am branded as a *insert tag* due to this school blazer(there is a Biblical quote on it), then surely there is nothing wrong or crass in wearing a badge to earmark my disagreement with the labeling brought by this blazer." [Of course I could just not wear the blazer, but that would 1) miss the point, it's a school uniform, and 2) be very very cold]. I also made it a point to not, in effect, shove it in people's faces, or walk up and declare the meaning of my new accessory. Though I was not going to attempt to hide it. I will also briefly give some background to the scarlet A idea. It is in fact taken from American novelist Nathaniel Hawthorne. In his book The Scarlet Letter, a woman is forced to wear a scarlet 'A' across her chest for life to represent the adultery she has committed. So in effect the 'A' symbol is a sign of religious oppression, not simply as the declaration of the lack of belief in the supernatural. Which I think is a wonderful meaning to have. I also recommend this book to anyone as it is fantastic.

My point with writing this is not really so as to defend myself, as I don't feel I have done anything to defend myself against, but more so as to give comparisons where they are fitting, and present the logic of why it is not provocative or trouble-seeking to wear such an accessory. Note, I would not be doing this if I did not feel, if not hostility, then certainly an uneasy feeling in response to the badge. I got that feeling that people were saying, "What's the fucking point." I submit though, that they are missing the point by asking such a question.

So, is there anything wrong with wearing things that will label yourself to others with a glance? Does this portray an ego-centric solipsism wherein said person simply wants to garner attention and stir the pot with regards this labeling? There is no doubting, that this can be the case. Wearing a Celtic top in certain parts of Belfast is, more often than not, a commitment to a particular Christian sect, a political affiliation, and seemingly lastly, an affirmation of support to the particular Glasgow team. Is there anything fundamentally wrong with this provocative clothe wearing then? For me, I believe it depends on the case. Should this person be actually able to argue/present the case for reasons why 1)they are a part of this Christian sect or 2)they agree with a certain political goal, then why shouldn't they be allowed to wear it? (I am not listing 'argue reasons why you support the team' as a needed accessory, as it is both linked with the other two, and is off the point). Whatever risks are involved, are ones that they will be more than aware of, so should this be the case, let them wear it. It only affects those who let them affect it. Similarly, wearing a crucifix around your neck is a form of branding, the same rules apply here. Wearing a badge with Obama on it saying, "Change," is a form of branding, the same rules apply here. Wearing a Che Guevara top is more a form of branding than people realise, the same rules apply here. As can be seen, there are a plethora of examples. It applies to such a huge variety of our discourse; religion, politics, social issues, football(or any sport) and so on. Either you allow them all or you allow none. That is to say, if one person can wear a crucifix, then where does the logic follow that a badge is an attention seeking thing to wear? It seems, that the fact that I(and in fact a couple of my good friends, shout to out Ciáran here, who has a badge of his own, I don't think anyone will disagree with me here when I say simply, that Ciáran is a buck) am in the minority in the grander scale, that I am simply being contrarian and an attention seeker for adopting an accessory. I will make clear again the idea that it is subtle, and my idea is that I will only discuss it if asked.

Contradictory though it may seem, I felt the desire to lay out this brief particular piece of writing.

Godspeed You! Black Emperor - Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven, Review

This is one of those albums that I have always wanted to write something about. Released in the latter part of 2000, it for me is without doubt the best album I have ever heard. Subjective a point though that may be, I struggle to see some of the recent lists of favourite/best albums of the noughties that do not even give this group a look in.

For those of you who may not know the band(I will call them GYBE), they are one of the most prominent and critically acclaimed post rock bands in history. Post rock certainly gets a lot of stick for itself, accusations of pretense and over-complicating their style, or even trying too hard to be different, are all commonplace. GYBE have an orchestral feel, added to by virtue of their large number(roughly nine band members) and the inclusion of a type of free jazz, and without doubt hints of chamber music. This classical approach, twisted with long compositions, rock instrumentation, (at times) psychedelic approach, intricate and intelligent progression, stripped up and stripped down variations, and most importantly, fine musicianship, for me make this record incontestable and unmatched, certainly in the post-rock circuit. I will briefly mention a two other post rock bands that come to my head to try and solidify my point. God is an Astronaut are certainly my favourite of all the contemporary offerings, and in some ways can even be labelled 'generic' post rock for their lack of experimentation within the boundaries of the genre, but despite this rather crude accusation they still remain(for me) one of the best groups doing it for the moment, their first and most recent albums standing out by a country mile each for me. (As a side note, look them up on YouTube, the best example I can give is 'Fragile' - a song by them, they play video pieces when they play live I suppose, to kind of fill the lyricless void, and it does a lot more than that).

Whilst they are a brilliant band, God is an Astronaut have not been able to reach the sort of musical, orchestral peaks that GYBE on their third offering. I will ensure brevity only referencing one more example, Mogwai(I wanted to talk about Meanwhile, Back in Communist Russia... but I only have one of their albums as of yet). Now, this band is a great pioneer of attempting to push this post rock genre into any sort of mainstream. I will only say that Mogwai have failed to reproduce the same sort of material that they offered on their debut, and on Rock Action, on a consistent basis. Which means an awful lot in a genre where many often accuse the proponents of lengthy, boring, bland instrumental pieces.

You can either hear this album, and hear a lot of white noise, clumsily included speeches, loose progression that springs up and down out of nowhere, and conclude your pre-garnered suppositions of the genre. Though it does take a sort of commitment to listen to this band. The first seven minutes of the second track 'Static' seem to be just rumbling along with no clear direction, until an incredible monologue is delivered. The meaning of which we cannot be sure, GYBE are not the type of band to give any clues, "There will be terror under this day of night, there will be a song of jubilee waiting for your King, there will be nothing you will be looking for in this world, except for your God. This is all a dream, a dream in death. "

Now I will not attempt to play simply on the sound scope I am so impressed with in this album. It is true that GYBE fill a lot of void with monologues which include ranting leftish rhetoric about, "the way things used to be," or about rebelling against authority. It, for me, is a loose, inaccurate, almost sloppy political calling. But to focus on it too much would be to miss the point I believe. If I am to sum up the musical offering of this I will string a pretentious sounding sentence together like this; this work is painfully beautiful, I know of no other band who can combine fascinating, chaotic, buzzing, shoe gaze inspired crescendos, combine these with lulled and haunting melodies with a sonic scope that was beyond its time, and most importantly, build a bridge between the two for an entire album. This album is absolutely essential for all, as it approaches its ten year anniversary.

RATING: 10/10

Book Recommendation: All Quiet on the Western Front

It seems to have become the custom for me to guiltily apply time to this, customarily beginning with an apology to my admittedly singular audience(sup Dan), and add a list of things which prevented any sort of writing. Though it seems all those who are not committed to blogging follow this selfsame pattern, and who am I to buck a trend.

Going to do something I had not considered doing before, and that is, as the title suggestively pre-empts, recommend a book. The book is called All Quiet on the Western Front by a German man named Erich Maria Remarque. It is a novel of sorts, I do not think justice is done by calling it so, as it is a type of loose, real-life chronicling of the then 19 year old author during his experiences during the Great War of the early 20th Century. Him and a group of schoolmates have been convinced of the virtuousness of the war and signed up before conscription was enforced by their teacher(Kantorek is the teacher who convinced them, conscription was not enforced by their teacher..) - he convinced them with tales of the glory of war, the majesty in defending one's country and Kaiser, and so on. Of course, in a state of warfare, these are not the emotions that any thinking person can honestly maintain, neither subjectively nor objectively. It seems that in trench warfare, adolescent arbitrary patriotism and political idealism may initially convince, but should that same person take a step back, the reality hits hard - as is clear at certain points when the German soldiers give thoughts to their fellow teen French and Russian enemies, and how wars are fought in agreements(or rather, disagreements) by men so far detached from them that the ones to whom they are pointing their guns, and vice versa, are only so by virtue of this same type of pressure to love one's country and be prepared to die for grass and a particular arrangement of colours on a flag. "For us lads of eighteen they ought to have been mediators and guides to the world of maturity . . . to the future . . . in our hearts we trusted them. The idea of authority, which they represented, was associated in our minds with a greater insight and a more humane wisdom. But the first death we saw shattered this belief. We had to recognize that our generation was more to be trusted than theirs. . . . The first bombardment showed us our mistake, and under it the world as they had taught it to us broke in pieces." It is a beautifully written book, indeed Remarque was a sort of amateur poet and playwright in his teenage years pre-WW1, and his references to classical literature and philosophy at various points are a touching way in which this adolescent mindset of reading everything he could get his hands on has had a severe impact on both his outlook and the way he develops language.

Gorish images are not simply alluded to in passing amidst a sea of dialogue and exploration of war or trench conditions, they make some of the most exciting and horrifying sequences in the book. "Why do they never tell us that you are poor devils like us, that your mothers are just as anxious as ours, and that we have the same fear of death, and the same dying and the same agony—Forgive me, comrade; how could you be my enemy?" - Sequences such as this may seem cliché when I cherry-pick-quote them, but for two reasons they are not. The first being Remarque's fine ability to harness his language in an alluring and seductive manner, and the second being that Remarque was one of the first people who wrote a novel concerning global conflict, he in fact is one of the founders of such language. The title is a much-referenced phrase in contemporary society, but is so because of this book.

To go slightly beyond the literal events of the book, it is also a book of mental struggle. When Remarque writes, "We are none of us more than twenty years old. But young? That is long ago. We are old folk." He may seem naive, but that is one thing which he is certainly not. Paul Bäumer(what Remarque named the protagonist) goes through a sequence of events which I can only say make you fear for his life despite the fact that you're only on page 40 and know you have well over half of the book to go. Such are his lucid and compelling descriptions of the situations, somehow making you ambivalently want him to engage in more combat so as to read his depictions of them, but simultaneously wanting him to escape from the hellish reality. He surmises that whether he makes it out of the war does not really matter, the older soldiers have a lives to return to, and the younger children at home know nothing of it, his generation are caught in a flux, an abyss, that will consume them either during the war, or for the rest of their lives after it. It is a heartfelt and honest conclusion made in a book of which I have still given away nothing of its plot nor its events. "Let the months and years come, they can take nothing from me, they can take nothing more. I am so alone, and so without hope that I can confront them without fear. The life that has borne me through these years is still in my hands and my eyes. Whether I have subdued it, I know not. But so long as it is there it will seek its own way out, heedless of the will that is within me."

I find it impossible to rate a book in the same way you can an album, but I implore you(sup Dan) to seek and find this book if you have not already enjoyed it. A compelling and essential read, if I can be terse enough to assume the authority to say such a thing.