*blogging with a point*

Now, I can't really explain why I have a blog. Actually, no wait, I can. I think that the Moai was getting sick of me filling up his blog with my ramblings. But there is no particular point to The Appalling Strangeness. I am not recounting how I live my life (and, to be honest with you, that is a good thing as my life is strikingly dull a lot of the time) and I have no great wisdom that I wish to impart to the world. It really is just a collection of my thoughts as and when they occur to me. The theme, if you like, seems to be my dislike of David Cameron and my hatred of the Blair administration. Coupled with occasional comments on music. And sharing terrible jokes.

This is a very different sort of blog. The story of a life changing journey, of a lonely, homeless person who decided one day that she wanted to share her life with the world. And now the world is listening. If you read the first few posts, the sense of isolation and shame about her problems really is quite heart breaking. This is what I would call *blogging with a point*. She has a story to tell, and it is one worth hearing. I can't claim that I have - but, to be honest with you, given the experiences that this woman has been through, I am quite happy that the Appalling Strangeness is a collection of mad ramblings.

40%, 31% and 19%

BBC News is reporting that the Tories are now leading in the polls on crucial issues. This is the first time that the Conservatives have a real chance of consolidating a poll lead into an general election win. Yes, there is a lot of work still to be done. But the crucial stats that will, no doubt, be raising a smile at Conservative Campaign Headquarters today, are:

"Asked how they might vote in an election with Mr Brown, the man widely expected to be the next Labour leader, pitted against Tory leader David Cameron and Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell, 40% backed the Conservatives, 31% Labour and 19% the Lib Dems."

The standard charge against the Conservative gains in the polls is that it is all down to an anti-Blair vote, but the figures on the BBC news website do not back this up. Under Gordon Brown, the Labour party loses support, going down from 34% to 31%. According to this, the heir apparent to Blair is even more of an electoral liability than Blair himself.

For those who you who have been following this blog it will come as no real surprise that these figures do not raise my opinion of Cameron. For me he remains a grinning Tory version of Blair nine years after Blair was last fashionable. So why would a Brown v. Cameron election put the Tories 9% ahead of a Labour party led by a successful chancellor?

The answer is simple - whilst Brown is the consummate politician, who maintains his power base but avoids scandals like Iraq, Cash for Peerages and Cheriegate, he remains a dark, brooding presence in government. A surly, gruff voiced Scot who seems to take little pleasure in life. He is not media friendly, he is not photogenic. However Cameron is an ex-PR man who relishes the limelight and cannot pass up on any photo opportunity. Brown may be the consummate politician, but Cameron is the consummate election winner.

So whilst I wholeheartedly support a return to a Conservative government in 2009, I do not think these polls are good for British Democracy. Cameron has overtaken Brown in the polls not because he has the best policies or is the best politician. Cameron is ahead in the polls because he plays better in the media.

Further evidence of the dumbing down of British politics.

Despicable

This story from here, via here. The Labour party auctioning a copy of the Hutton report signed by Cherie Blair and Alastair Campbell. To earn £400 for party funds (a lot less than their standard charge for a peerage).

Just to clairfy, the Hutton Report was an enquiry into whether this Labour government pushed a man who was a public servant, father and husband into taking his own life. It was a probe into what caused the death of an innocent man in the aftermath, or fallout, from the Iraq war. Regardless of what you make of the findings, it was a serious report into a terrible tragedy.

To auction a copy of the findings off as a casual joke is just plain sickening, as any right minded person must think. It is crass, ignorant and arrogant. Childish and subhuman.

And it also shows you what Cherie Blair et al think of Kelly and his death. It is a joke to them, a humorous event to be mocked in retrospect. And if that is how they view a civil servant, you can bet that is how they view the electorate as a whole.

Utterly disgusting behaviour from the people who are part of our ruling elite.

GWB v. GDP

David Cameron says that he wants to make people happy. Frankly it is a bold, and suicidal, politician who says that he wants to make people unhappy.

But it is an interesting point. Given the general rise in mental illness and societal dis-satisfaction in spite of record economic stability, it is perhaps time to acknowledge that GDP is only one indicator of how happy a nation is. As Cameron points out:

"It's time we admitted that there's more to life than money, and it's time we focused not just on GDP, but on GWB - general well-being."

To me that makes sense. Let's look at issues like work/life balance, let's think about how to improve the general working conditions of the nation. But fundamentally we need to think about how we can achieve that better work/life balance. I do not work long hours because I want to, but I do work those hours through choice - due to a (yet unrealised) promise of wealth. The only way to make me work less hours is to offer me an alternative source of income which, I think, it unlikely to happen. Sadly.

And here is where we get to typical Cameron. He has realised that there is a problem with the GWB, but utterly fails to offer any real solutions. In his speech he states he has:

"an ambitious goal to make the British public sector the world leader in progressive employment practice."

Ok, so policy one is to set a good example using the public sector. However, the private sector is not known for following the example of the public sector to say the least.

The article also states:

"A Tory administration would act as an "advocate for progress", talking up good initiatives and drawing attention to bad practice. "

So, a Tory administration would want nice things to happen, would take up other people's ideas if they were any good, and highlight - although crucially not act on - bad examples. In other words, they would only act if someone else comes up with a good idea, and then take the credit for it as they are an "advocate for progress". How terribly Blairite.

I look forward to Cameron changing my work/life balance for the better. Safe to say, though, I am not holding my breath.

Axis of Idiocy

As this article (flagged to me by the Moai) shows, Iran seems to getting tips from Nazi Germany. "Let's make everyone's religion immediately obvious" seems to be the message coming from their ever more extremist government.

"Islamic legislators are unanimous that Islam is incompatible with "gay, wild, provocative colours" such as red, yellow, and light blue, which are supposed to be favoured by Satan."

Satan favours light blue and yellow? That makes him a bit less hard in my opinion. Is the Satan of Iran a bit camp?

"One remaining problem is to decide the age at which girls should wear the uniforms. At present the hijab is mandatory from the age of six. But some of Ahmadinejad's advisers want to reduce that to four."

That two years makes all the difference. And this is what his advisers are talking about? "Well, yes we are a backward country facing terrible hardship and we also have the might of America breathing down our necks owing to your bellicose statements but Mr Ahamadinejad we urge you to consider this crucial document about the dress codes of pre-teen females."

"By September the Majlis is expected to approve an initial budget of US$800-million to help "the poor and the needy" to adopt the new uniforms. All public sector workers, estimated to number 4.5 million, will be in uniform by 2009 at the latest."

Well, there is no problem with the $800 million. I mean, in no way should it be spent on earthquake relief! Still, I suppose at least it means there is less money to spend on nuclear weapons.

It really is a cross between Nazi Germany and an Orwellian nightmare. Everyone wears the same except for the infidels, who are made to wear different clothing so everyone knows that they are unbelievers. And the worst thing is that the Islamic fundamentalism of the Iranian government makes the Christian extremism of George W. Bush and the Republican Right appear democratic and liberal in comparison.

She's Leaving Home, Bye Bye

A South African gold miner loses his leg in a mining accident and is sat in Hospital talking to his mate.
"Well that's me f*cked, who on earth's going to want a one legged gold digger?"
His mate replies "Well, you could try Paul McCartney"

2008

Inspired by this post, I thought I would have a look US Politics rather than the UK for once. And who will be vying to be Leader of the Free World (TM) in 2008:

Hillary Clinton – too hated by the American people for being a loudmouthed, female liberal. She won’t get the nomination and if she did, she wouldn’t win.

John McCain – Tortured for by the Vietcong. A passionate and vocal Senator. He is the most likely Republican candidate as he is a tough character but has also distanced himself from the Bush Administration. I think President John McCain is a real possibility.

Colin Powell – His wife doesn't want him to run and has been very forceful about it. She may well be right - there are still those in America who could take extreme action to prevent a coloured President.

Al Gore – Gore is not a natural politician and has already *lost* one Presidential Election but he remains a highly visible, and popular, figure in the Democratic Party and there is a historical precedent for someone to *lose* a presidential election and win eight years later – the late Richard Nixon. President Gore is not likely, but still possible.

Jeb Bush – He is too clever. No, really. When Dubya Bush screws up and does something evil people say “oh, well, he’s not a bad person, he’s just a bit dense. He doesn't understand.” With Jeb is would be a case of “No, wait, this guy does understand. He is just plain evil. He meant to do that. He is evil.”

Joseph Lieberman – Too Jewish. Not for me, for the large sections of the American people. There has never been a Jewish president, and given the loud voices of the Christian Right, it is unlikely to happen in the near future.

Wesley Clark – Not the most charismatic candidate but in the post 9/11 world a Democrat General turned President is a real possibility. Besides, a war hero with limited interpersonal skills but who could be presented as an avuncular figure? Worked very well for Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Howard Dean – The Dean Scream killed and chances of him ever winning the presidency or the nomination, I think.

John Edwards – He is too associated with the failed Kerry bid for the White House and whilst he is a genial, eloquent candidate he also has very little experience of just about anything and comes across as a third rate Kennedy.

John Kerry will not be able to stage a comeback – his was the worst run campaign since McGovern lost to Nixon in 1972 (and McGovern nominated for Vice-President a man who had had electro-shock therapy.)

Joe Biden would be a good choice for the Democrats, and the election may well be McCain against Biden. Biden stands a real chance as McCain tends to speak his mind too much for someone running for President. If Biden surrounded himself with Carville, McCurry and some of the other Clintonistas in the general election, we could see the Democrats return to the White House. But those guys will probably, to start with, support Hillary.

And that is ignoring a genuine wild card… Condi Rice. She says she doesn't want to run, but there are already "Draft Condi" movements. If she is called to serve, so to speak, she may not be able to resist.

"I do not think he has any choice"

And another Blair is under pressure to resign. Judging by that article, there is no way he can survive.

But how on earth did he ever get that position? Did no-one notice that he is an incompetent, gaffe prone idiot who spends most of his time with a vacant, faintly confused look on his face prior to his promotion?

Perhaps he is the living embodiment of the Peter Priniciple.

New Labour, New Failure

An interesting article from the Torygraph.

"Mr Blair said the criminal justice system in England and Wales was "the public service most distant from what reasonable people want"."

Not quite the admission of failure the Torygraph makes it out to be but interesting nonetheless. After nine years of blaming everything that is wrong on eighteen years of Tory misrule, Blair finally seems to have twigged that some of the things wrong with the UK are the responsibility of New Labour.

But this is even more remarkable:

"He sought to provide a personal justification for staying on as Prime Minister by promising to "re-balance" civil liberties so that the demands of the law-abiding majority took precedence over the rights of offenders."

So, the logic is this. After nine years in power, eight years of which were with massive majorities and a barely functioning opposition party, Blair has failed to be "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". He has failed at his job, but this is his reason to stay on. Which is unbelievable. Can you imagine the CEO of a major company turning round to his shareholders and saying "I have failed to provide decent profits, to rectify this failure, I would recommend you keep me on?"

I'm going to try this logic on my boss - "sorry, I haven't achieved anything for nine years. However I am going to stay with the company as, moving forward, I would like to achieve something." Actually, best not. Unlike Mr Blair I don't have a muli-million pound house to retire to, and need to be able to pay the rent.

The End of An Era

The West Wing ends after seven excellent seasons. Meaning this is about the only well-written, well acted and watchable thing on the TV anymore.

What if... Prime Minister John Smith

A counterfactual inspired by this article on BBC news.

“John Smith fought the 1997 election knowing that there was no way he could lose, and it was just a question of how large his majority would be. He refused to compromise on some of the key proposals from the modernisers, such as agreeing to Tory spending plans. In the event he won a majority of 101 seats, with Major resigning as soon as the result was announced. Smith entered parliament with a new confidence, and easily managed to match the performance of new Tory leader Michael Portillo at PMQs. He quickly set about implementing his reforming agenda, freezing all tax cuts, implementing a devolution Bill for Scotland and Wales, and ending hereditary peers in the House of Lords as part of his five year plan for reform of the Upper House. However he encountered problems in his first term, with the petrol, crisis paralysing the country and his government’s seeming inability to deal with the Foot and Mouth epidemic. He also failed to reach an accord with the IRA, owing to his refusal to sign up to any deal that allowed terrorists and murderers to be released on to the streets. As a result the IRA unleashed a new terror campaign on the mainland. The Labour party also became increasingly divided over the issue of Europe, with Smith refusing to take Britain into the Euro until the fledgling currency had proved itself. By late 2000 a Tory victory looked unlikely, but many Labour MPs were seriously worried for their seats.

“Then scandal engulfed the Tory party when it was revealed that Michael Portillo had indulged in homosexual activity whilst at university. Portillo tried to play down the issue, saying it was in the distant past and not relevant to his abilities as Leader of the Opposition. There was broad agreement from the opposition parties, but it became clear that many Conservative MPs and grassroots Tory members no longer supported their leader and wanted him to go. Rather than tear the party apart, Portillo resigned. Michael Howard emerged as Leader unopposed – as Theresa May noted, “who would want to run for leader of this party when we have just proved ourselves once again to be the nasty party?” Howard fought a tough campaign in 2001 but it was undeniably geared towards retaining the core Conservative support. The liberals of Middle England, who the Tories so desperately needed to win over, were utterly turned off by the Portillo affair. In the event, Labour lost 5 seats – 1 to the Tories, and 4 to the Liberal Democrats. After a chequered first term, Smith managed to retain a majority of 96.

“Privately, he told close colleagues that he would stand down halfway through the second term. He knew his health was failing, but he still wanted to push forward further reforms of the Lords and also work on the NHS and the School system. He began his five year plan for the latter two areas, and also caused considerable controversy by raising the top rate of tax whilst reducing the bottom rate. He also raised the minimum wage. However many noted that, when faced by the dynamic and aggressive David Davis (who had replaced Howard as Leader of the Opposition after the second Labour landslide) he looked tired and pundits noted that there were definite moves to make the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, the heir apparent for Number 10. Then 9/11 changed the world. Smith committed himself to stand by the US, but privately asked Bush to withdraw US funding for the IRA. Relations between the two were always strained, in spite of Smith’s support for the Afghan war, and broke down completely when Smith refused to back the US invasion of Iraq. Bush publicly announced the US supported a return to Tory rule in the UK. Privately Smith joked that Bush’s support for Davis “would be enough to keep the Yorkshire Cliche from Number 10 for the foreseeable future.”

“Then, in the summer of 2003, Smith suffered a major heart attack. He was critically ill for several days, and took nearly two months to recover. He returned to Number 10, but within a week told the cabinet that he was going to resign. He told them that he wanted a smooth transition to a Brown premiership. In the event, Brown was challenged by the moderniser Alan Milburn but won easily, and Smith duly left Number 10 with just over 6 years as Premier. When asked what his legacy would be at his last press conference as PM he smiled and said “Well, we have a left wing Prime Minister facing a right wing Leader of the Opposition. We have real political debate in this country. Frankly, I couldn’t ask for a better legacy.””

The Spoils of Crime

It is not often that I agree with John Reid, and I don't expect I will do much in the future, but his decision to appeal this is absolutely right.

These people hi-jacked a plane in order to gain asylum in the UK. They committed a crime in so they could get to stay in the UK. So what is the very last thing they should be given? Asylum in the UK. What do we give them? Asylum in the UK.

John Reid states the decision may:

"appear inexplicable or bizarre to the general public".

No, really? Do you reckon, Doctor John? It is like saying to Jeremy Bamber "yeah, we know you killed your family to inherit the family fortune but you know what? Don't worry about it. Off you go and enjoy the money. Yes, you got the money through a terrible crime, but, you know, we don't care about that."

Whatever happened to trying to deter crime? We are sending a message to the world that you can commit a terrorist act (which hi-jacking definitely is) and in return, you get asylum in the UK. Had the 9/11 hi-jackers failed and been caught in the UK, would they have got asylum?

This sort of decision is utterly inexplicable to any right minded person and, even worse, it acts as a recruitment drive for the ignorant shaved chimps in the BNP.

Can't Stand Me Now?

Judging by this, people can still stand Pete Doherty in spite of the fact that he is a tabloid cliche these days. But rock's greatest icon? No. Two good albums with The Libertines and one ropey one with the terribly named Babyshambles does not constitute being a rock God, particularly when compared to the likes of Bowie, The Stones, The Who etc.

But in one respect he is a rock icon. Because when he plunges off this mortal coil in the near future (which seems inevitable unless he gets help) his life is going to be one of the rock 'n' roll legends, the source for hundreds of books, films and songs. The terrible thing is that is Doherty does want to be remembered as a rock icon, the best thing he can do is die young.

The Da Kelly Code

So, Ruth Kelly, failed Education Secretary and member of the odd Catholic sect Opus Dei, has taken the made-up role of Equality Minister. This is the woman who refuses to say that homosexuality is not a sin. She is meant to be fighting for equality regardless of race, sex or sexuality. Yet she may well believe that homosexuals should burn in hell.

Unbelievable. Regardless of what you think about homosexuality, it is astounding that she got this effectively newly created ministerial role. What next? Charles Clarke as Minister For People With Utterly Normal Ears? David Blunkett as Minister For Cabinet Morality? John Prescott as Minister For Not Eating All The Pies? (The latter role would probably be more work than Prescott would like.)

People should do jobs they are suited to. You cannot be Equality Minister if your religious beliefs are against equality. Simple as that.

But still too complicated for the arse end of the Blair administration.

The Long, Slow, Painful Demise...

...of Tony Blair goes on. But this passage from BBC news particularly struck me:

"Mr Clinton told political and business leaders in Glasgow: "Whatever political problems the government are in, the UK is way better off than it would have been had it not been governed the way it has for the last 10 years.""

Mr Clinton, how would you know what it is like in the UK? You spent the first three and a half years of Blair's time in Number 10 in the White House. You now live in upstate New York, supporting your Senator wife as she gears up for what will almost certainly be an unsuccessful bid to regain access to your old residence. You have no idea what the Blair regime has meant to the people of the United Kingdom.

Also, "way better off"? Perhaps you could spend your post-presidential career learning basic English.

Doctor Who Is Gay (Not)

Obviously, a story about a man who travels either by himself or with attractive girls who he doesn't get down 'n' dirty with is always going to encourage knowing smirks from some and strident protests from others. For my part, I would maintain that the Doctor is more asexual than homosexual or heterosexual. I would also maintain that it is not real, and therefore worrying about his sexuality is a bit of a waste of time.

Just sit back and enjoy the stories, for Christ's sake.

But this makes an interesting point. Yes, there has been an increase in the awareness of homosexuality in Doctor Who, culminating in Captain Jack kissing the Doctor in The Parting of the Ways. But there has been an overall rise in sexuality in Doctor Who. The "dancing" so constantly referred to in The EmptyChild/The Doctor Dances is a clear euphemism for sex. ("The world doesn't end because the Doctor dances.") Davies is aware times have changed since An Unearthly Child and, as long the references are subtle and not in your face, it is OK to address sexuality. However the article makes an interesting point - that there is a gay conspiracy behind the programme.

I don't agree, not least because some of the facts are just plain wrong. Mainly owing to this assertion:

"Only one of the writers in the first series was in fact heterosexual, the magnificently bearded Robert Shearman; his story, 'Dalek', was one of the highest rated in the series, but of all the writers in the first series, he is the only one not to have been asked back."

True, to my knowledge Robert Shearman is not gay. And he was not asked back. But also first series writers Paul Cornell and Steven Moffat are not gay - in fact I think the latter two are married. And whilst Cornell was not asked back for the second series (he will be back for a two episode story in the third season though), Moffat was. And he too will be back for the third series.

It irritates me that people have to take the success of something and complain about it. The new series has some flaws, but generally is hugely entertaining and deserving of the massive success it currently enjoys. Let's just be happy rather than harping on the bad points.

But I love the article. I love it because I have been a Doctor Who follower since I was a kid. And most of that time the show has been a TV memory, a cheap laugh for stand-up comedians. Now, people are talking about it. Now people are debating it, loving it, hating it. And it is back in Prime Time, and getting better and better...

Don't believe me? Well these guys are back next week...

Hain Apologies...

...to Blaenau Gwent just in time for the by-election.

Had Peter Law lived, I doubt this apology would be forthcoming.

Shameless, utterly shameless.

Brown Nosing Of The Very Worst Kind

Here.

A Good Week For Cameron? Are You Sure?

As I predicted a few weeks back, in spite of it being a fundamentally Local Election, there was going to be a national winner and a national loser on May 5th. And lo and behold, when I woke up with quite a sore head on the 5th (4th May was my birthday) I saw a beaming Cameron on the Breakfast News, revelling in the Tory gains in the local elections.

And whilst I am not a massive Cameron fan, I have to say that the results were very good for the Conservatives. 40% is good for any party, but for Labour to be pushed into third place behind the Liberal Democrats must be particularly gratifying. But let's break it down a bit:

1. Labour had a terrible week on the lead up to May 4th. Absolutely awful. Three ministers managed to appear incompetent and dishonest, and managed to do it all on the same day. Whatever happened it was going to be a bad on Thursday for Labour, and the result - given the scandals - could have been worse.

2. The Conservatives failed to expand in the North. Yes, they won back London and areas in the South East - including the crucial Ealing Council. But if Cameron is going to build a national election winning coalition, he needs to break the North/South divide. Even with 40% of the vote, he failed to do that.

3. This was a protest vote in a local election. Labour did very well in local elections in the late 1980's, but did not win power until 1997. There is a big leap between voting for the opposition locally, and voting for them nationally.

4. An extention of (3.), but the election results were against Blair, not for the Tories or for Cameron. Yes, it was the anti-Tory vote rather than the pro Labour vote that gave Blair his 1997 landslide. But the vote is more against Blair than Labour, and Blair won't be in power at the next election (he won't be in power in September of you ask me). And as Major in 1992 proved, a change in leader of the ruling party can be enough to "renew" (TM Gordon Brown) a government. Cameron needs people to want to vote for him and the Tories, not just against Blair and Labour.

So Cameron did well, but it was not an outright victory. And if he is to become PM, there is a long way to go.

The Home of the Brave

I have found this very uplifting - Zacarias Moussaoui is given life in prison rather than a needle in the arm.

Now, I though that Moussaoui was going to get what he wanted - I thought he was going to be made a martyr. True, he may have known about 9/11, but he is not himself a murderer. He allowed others to die, but he did not hi-jack the planes or kill the victims of September 11th, 2001. He should be silenced in prison for the rest of his life, but he was not a killer and therefore should not die what for what he said.

However I had no doubts that he would be given the death penalty. I thought that the ongoing, and to some extent perfectly understandable, rage after 9/11 meant anyone on trial for it, regardless of exactly what part they played, would die as part of the same bloodlust that has given us the War on Iraq and the hostility towards Iran. I thought Moussaoui would be another example of America lashing out with lethal force at anyone possibly connected with Islamic fundamentalism and the attacks of 2001.

Instead, the jury reacted in the way it should do. It reviewed the evidence, and decided that Moussaoui was a fantasist who was probably too erratic to be considered by Al Qaeda for the attacks on New York, Washington and United 93. He deserves to be punished for his part in 9/11, but the actions of the jury that Moussaoui is not as culpable as Atta et al.

The jury showed that they were willing to let emotion - and the desire to avenge 9/11 with an execution - be balanced with the need to defend democracy and justice. So after years of pessimism caused by the Iraq invasion and the talk of the Axis of Evil, perhaps the world can feel more optimistic about what the US will do next. If the US as a whole follows the example of the jury in Moussaoui trial, then we could see the War on Terror becoming less about blindly lashing out at the Middle East, and more about combatting those responsible for 9/11 and, more importantly, those plotting future attacks.

Chairman Mao...

...was asked what he thought would have happened if in 1963 Khruschev had been assassinated instead of Kennedy. He replied: "Well, I'll tell you one thing. Artistotle Onassis wouldn't have married Mrs Khruschev."

From Prime Minister Portillo and other things that never happened.

Fallout

Over the weekend I went to the gallery in the Oxo Tower on the South Bank of the Thames. They have a striking and heartbreaking collection of photos of those affected by the Chernobyl disaster and other nuclear disasters/mistakes in Russia. Children with mental retardation and multiple cancers. Older people who have recovered from cancer, only to be struck down by it again - and knowing they will only get the treatment until one of their major organs fails. Whole villages of people desperate, but too ill and poor, to move on.

It is, I think, impossible to view this collection and not be affected by it. The gut reaction is to turn against nuclear power, and Greenpeace were at the gallery, tacitly asking others to sign a petition to get Blair to promise the he will not build other nuclear power plants in the UK. But the question remains - with oil and coal supplies dwindling, and the NIMBY campaigns stopping the likes of wind and solar energy, is there anyway we can turn our backs on nuclear power?

Because reading between the lines of the locales depicted in the exhibition, and what happened at Chernobyl, it is less about nuclear power itself being the problem, but rather carelessness and negligence on the part of those involved in the Nuclear power stations. Take Mayak, for example. As the link shows, Mayak pumped radioactive waste into a local river. That does not imply that nuclear power itself, is wrong, but rather that human ignorance and negligence is the problem. Nuclear power is fine as long as those responsible for the plants know what they are doing. The problem arises when they don't.

Also you can compare nuclear power to air travel - generally it is perfectly safe, but when it goes wrong, it goes catastrophically wrong. A nuclear plant goes up, you have a holocaust. A plane goes down, and no-one survives. But people still use air travel, because they sum up the risk and decide it is worth it. The same applies to nuclear power. If there are real, usable alternatives then fine, let's not use it. But whilst there aren't real alternative solutions, we have to take the risk.

But as with any risks we also need to minimise the chance of things going wrong. And if you look at the nuclear industry in Russia, far too much focus is on making money, and far too little on the local people.

Winning by default

It goes without saying that is has been a terrible week for Labour, and it now appears as if Blair is keeping Clarke, and most probably Prescott, in power for reasons of political expediency rather than any feeling that either is any good at their jobs.

Which surely should help "Dave" Cameron. As William Rees-Mogg states in The Times, the Cameron strategy seems to be working very well - he is perfectly placed to benefit from the New Labour meltdown. Unless Blair or Brown manages to pull the party together, and if Cameron continues to make the best of his political opportunism, then he could start to make some headway towards the goal of Number 10 in 2009.

But this hides what is perhaps the real story. Cameron needs to do well in these local elections. There are growing mumblings of discontent within the Conservative party about where he has taken the Tories, and for the first time a senior Tory (ignoring the occasional ramblings of Tebbit) has made his objections public. This is worrying - less than 1 year into his time as leader, people are starting to complain about Cameron. And success at the local elections is by no means in the bag - it is difficult to see how a dissatisfied Labour voter in Dagenham who is concerned about house prices, crime and immigration is going to connect with an old Etonian frolicking with huskies to highlight global environmental policies.

However for me, it all comes down to something much more fundamental. Even if Cameron does cement his position with success on May 4th and from there launches a successful campaign that ends with him becoming Prime Minister, what is the point? There appears to be no substance to the man, and he does not appear to have any policies. All we would get from a Cameron administration is an extension of the Blair years.

All Cameron has managed to do so far is restrict further the potential choices for the electorate.