By-election fever

Here we go again - another by-election to potentially decide the fate of the Labour Party.

Is it me or are by-elections a wholly unfair method of trying to challenge a ruling party on a matter of policy?

Don't get me wrong, in no way do I support the new 42 day detention measures, but I support fair and open politics. If Davis wants to challenge the Labour Party on this policy he needs to do it properly.

If he is confident that the nation are behind him, and that he is in fact fighting for their beliefs (69% of the nation are thought to support 42 days) then he would instigate a national campaign. Instead what he is doing is to campaign only in his constituency which has been a Conservative safe seat for years, and he has very little chance on losing.

Low and behold Davis wins and supposidly the Labour Party is shamed.

But this is just a political scam. In my opinion, Davis is only seeking the limelight gained a month ago by those participating in the Crewe and Nantwich by-elections - if he wanted to secure real political outcomes he would take his campaign to a truly national stage. Then (perhaps) Labour might listen.

As it stands, Labour are not even challenging the by-election so the stunt will prove nothing.

I personally am frustrated with personality and showman politics - it's time to get back to the policies.

Silent Stories

Britain's oldest man turns 112 today, and what a fantastic achievement - yet somehow I still can't help but feel a pang of sadness.

Whilst I can only begin to imagine the sights that he has witnessed in his lifetime, he must have so many colourful stories to tell, particularly concerning the two world wars that he has lived through and survived.

But for many of his friends, colleagues and relatives these stories would not have been recorded before their deaths.

I remember as a child the intrigue and wonder that I felt whilst listening to my grandmother tell vivid war stories about her life in occupied Belgium. But for children growing up today, few will get this opportunity to hear personal accounts first hand, and to really relive what happened in their minds.

History books cannot replace these anecdote-ladden stories.

My grandmother is currently recording her memoirs so that one day her great-grand children will enjoy them, just like my generation did. I just hope that more people do the same so that these fantastic stories are not lost - for it is the personal touches that bring the pages of the history book alive.

The Boris Paper

So Boris Johnson is London's new mayor - and boy the Evening Standard is not going to let us forget it!

Having fought Boris' corner ardently in the months preceeding the election- with Gilligan throwing everything he could into the anti-Ken arena - the London paper is certainly proud of its achievements.

Despite never having explicitly supported a candidate it was clear from an early stage in the campaigning that Boris was their man. And now that he has won, he is certainly their man.

A week after the election result was announced the paper is still devoting up to eight pages to the Boris campaign. His every move is meticulously tracked, and the continuous back-slapping over how the paper succeeded in announcing the winner first is almost cringeworthy. Yes London is interested in our new mayor - but we are not that interested.

Never before have I noticed a paper being so openly biased and willing to champion their cause at the cost of delivering important news. It would be a worrying trend if papers begin to feel that it is acceptable to become the campaign rag of one particular candidate in such an explicit way.

I remain intrigued to see how the papers deal with the general election when it finally comes around. Is this a trend that we will start to see more of?

Morbid Curiosities?

Europeans this week have been gripped by the news of the unimaginable cruelty enacted by one man – Josef Fritzl

As further information is released every hour by Austrian police, and pictures of the ‘dungeon’ in which his captives were held are published, the public have become enthralled.

Today alone, three of the BBC Online’s five most read stories are about Fritzl. Everyone wants to try to understand the incomprehensible, but are we in danger of entering into the murky waters of morbid curiosity?

As we have seen before with the disappearance of Maddie McCann, obsessive public demand for answers – often the more gruesome and controversial the better – can lead to the release of details that do nothing to further the story but are purely to satisfy morbid curiosities. This in turn sets a dangerous precedent; the public can develop a taste for such material, and in turn newspapers become desperate to emulate the circulation figures that such stories had previously provided.

The Daily Express’ "very substantial" fine earlier this year for the articles they published concerning Maddie clearly demonstrates the paper’s conscious decision to put sale figures ahead of accurate and responsible journalism.

It is the responsibility of media outlets to ensure that this does not happen, and that all articles further the story with credible information that is not overly vulgar in order to secure readers.

I firmly believe that Josef Fritzl deserves to face justice for the horrendous crimes he has committed, and that the media should honestly report this in full. However from a journalist’s point of view I can see that the more interesting in-depth features will come from interviews with Elizabeth and her children, and many journalists will relentlessly pursue such exclusive interviews despite the family’s need for time to come to terms with what has happened to them.

In years to come the family may put themselves forward for interviewing, but at present, the pursuit of such exclusive information by media outlets is purely to satisfy morbid curiosities.

Hoisting up the sense of national pride

I commented on this blog on 24 March that the government was to encourage the flying of the Union Flag from state buildings in a bid to encourage a sense of national pride.

It was therefore only one logical step that brought us to where we are today, with the government revealing that the St. George's Cross will fly over 10 Downing Street tomorrow to celebrate the English patron saint's day.

In my original posting I was supportive of the decision taken by the government to re-claim the Union Flag back from far right political groups, and today it seems that the government's desire to increase a sense of national pride is working - whether this is due to any extra flag flying however is unclear.

Early reports suggest that St. George's Day tomorrow could be one of the most celebrated in our history, making it a potentially bigger event than the Irish St. Patrick's Day was this year. Pubs around the country have ordered bunting in bulk like they haven't done since the Queen's Jubilee, and extra barrels of beer are being rolled in to cater for the expected rush.

I wait with baited breath to see the results tomorrow; all we need now is for the day to become a national holiday, like The Scottish and the Irish have for their saint days.

Rent a Dog

Forget the fact that a dog is not just for Christmas but for life, that principle is simply archaic - now you can rent a dog for a matter of hours, for the membership fee of £279 a month.

The American-based dog renting company called Flexpetz has today launched its services in Britain, opening its first branch in London. It may sound like a convenient and exciting new opportunity for many busy city workers who perhaps lack the time to care for their own pet but, coming from a family who has always had dogs, the idea of this new venture makes me flinch.

I don't claim to be a vocal campaigner for the rights of animals but the idea of renting dogs on a temporary basis sits very awkwardly with me. Should we really be encouraging our desires for personal convenience and the fact that we want to have the fun without the associated responsibility, over the welfare of the dogs?

Dogs build up a very strong bond with their owners, who they accept as members of their pack. If this owner is to change every day, and perhaps a number of times a day, it is highly likely that the dog will become increasingly disorientated and irrational in its behaviour. It is simply not in the dog's best interests to live this lifestyle.

Just because Londoners (and Americans already using the service on offer in cities like Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco) need this sense of immediacy and convenience in their lives does not mean that the dog should also be subjected to it. The people using these services claim to love dogs and the company that they offer, but by using a dog in this way they will only be harming its welbeing in the long term.

Veterinary adviser David McDowell said: "Most dogs need the security of a proper routine with one owner and without this they could become stressed and unhappy."

Perhaps those desperate to rent a dog and spend time in their company should instead volunteer at the local RSPCA branch or animal centre, saving themselves £279 and helping dogs really in need of support and love. But then again, the hours might not be flexible enough...

The cat fight for London

The upcoming Mayoral election has whipped up quite a flurry in media circles, with journalists specifically assigned to the campaign trails, and election inspired burgers (courtesy of Gormet Burger Kitchen) being sent to the newsroom.

I have to say that if burgers alone were to make the decision for me, Ken would have my vote in the bag. But I'm not sure how reliable a burger can be in deciding the next Mayor of London.

Wanting to see each candidate pitched against one another, in order to better understand the difference between their policies, and what each could offer me as a Londoner, I watched the debate between three men hosted on BBC1 last night.

But rather than make anything clearer in my mind I simply became disillusioned. After 15 minutes of finger waggling, raised voices, and snide comments I had no idea what any of the three men stood for - I was just sure that none of them had in any way stolen my vote.

I have watched Prime Minister's Question Time on a number of occasions, and have been always been astounded by the depths to which politicians will stoop in order to ridicule their opponent and gain the upper hand. But it is precisely this behaviour that concerns me about politics in Britain, and last night was a prime example. The three men spent so long attacking one another, both personally and professionally, that none of them succeeded in winning the audience and ultimately securing any waivering votes.

The Mayoral election race has turned into a dirty cat fight in which each candidate appears to be pushing similar policies (greenifying London, cutting crime, and improving transport) and seems more interested in what the other candidates are doing rather than what the voters are thinking.
Maybe burgers might have to help in the decision making process afterall.