TSVANGIRAI THE INVINCIBLE

Little more than a month after being sworn into power as the new Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, Morgan Tsvangirai and his wife, Susan, met with an unfortunate car accident today, as I'm sure you've probably heard. According to reports, Tsvangirai's car was hit by a truck and rolled over three times on the Harare-Masvingo road, killing his wife instantly and leaving him with head and neck injuries. Tsvangirai is currently in hospital but is apparently not in critical condition.

Needless to say, since this accident doesn't come long after Tsvangirai agreed to a power-sharing deal with Robert Mugabe, it's easy to be a bit suspicious and raise an eyebrow. Every single major news outlet I've looked at seems to be treating this story as little more than a tragic accident – they've even used the old chestnuts that car accidents are commonplace in Zimbabwe, that drink driving is a substantial problem and that the alleged driver of the truck was asleep at the wheel. I mean, sure, the odd fact may have leaked out – like the axel on Tsvangirai's car was faulty (suspicious, hmm?) – but by and large, people aren't treating this accident with the weight of suspicion it deserves.

Robert Mugabe, lest we forget, is a tyrannical despot who was defeated fair and square by Tsvangirai in the last general election. Everybody knows that the only reason Mugabe has clung onto power is because of the fact that he controls the Zimbabwean Army and uses violence to frighten the populace into obedience. What right does Mugabe have to appoint himself President – begrudgingly granting Tsvangirai the role of Prime Minister – even though he has no real democratic basis to do so? If he lost the election, he should surrender his power. Instead of that, Zimbabwe must unfortunately remain in the firm grip of a crazed megalomaniac who won't do anything to compromise his authority. Besides, if you look at the cold honest facts, you'd realize that Mugabe has a history of eliminating his political rivals (or even his allies) whenever the fancy takes him. Before this power-sharing deal was brokered, Morgan Tsvangirai was constantly in and out of jail; he was beaten up and tortured by a Special Forces of Zimbabwe unit; and one of his bodyguards was shot, so poor old Tsvangirai is certainly no stranger to Mugabe's wrath. Why would he even consider sharing power with the same monstrous man who carried out a vicious vendetta against him?

It's also worth mentioning that back in 2001, the Minister of Gender and Employment, Border Gezi, was killed in a car crash... on the Harare-Masvingo road... the very same stretch of road Tsvangirai's accident took place today. Not long after that, the Zimbabwean Defense Minister, Moven Mahachi, also died in a car crash. When you look at all these facts, it's clear we cannot take this recent car crash with Morgan Tsvangirai with a pinch of salt. Especially when you consider that this crash has happened only two days after Tsvangirai delivered his first speech in front of the Zimbabwean parliament. I smell a rat. And don't let that rubbish about Mugabe visiting Tsvangirai in hospital fool you either – I'm sure that's just a convenient PR stunt.

If this car crash was more than an accident, I'm pretty sure that they didn't intend Tsvangirai to survive. This is a man, after all, who once said: "They brutalised my flesh but will never break my spirit." Well, crikey, this man has survived a car crash in which it rolled over three times and killed his wife. If he can survive that, then this man must be bloody Rasputin or something. The man's sodding invincible. However, despite what the mainstream press are currently saying, I'm not willing to accept this was an accident. Tsvangirai has spoken out many times about Mugabe's hideous regime in the past and even Mugabe once said a few years ago that if Tsvangirai were in power it'd be disastrous and destabilising to the country. Is it really so hard to believe that Mugabe would conspire to make Tsvangirai meet with an unfortunate 'accident'?

PRIVATIZE THIS

So, it's official, Channel 4 is in financial strife – a lack of advertising revenue means that it will have a deficit of £150m a year by 2012. Right on cue, the trolls have once again come out from under the bridge arguing that this is just another example of the apparent 'illogic' of public service broadcasting and that all of Channel 4’s problems can only be solved by merging with Channel 5. In essence, they want to privatize Channel 4, just like they have with every other facet of life under the bloody sun.

So, where do the roots of Channel 4's problems lie? Well, obviously, since its inception, Channel 4 has been, in theory, a state-owned, advertisement-funded channel charged with a public service remit which obligated it to cater for minority interests. Therefore, Channel 4 is not entirely different from the BBC – the only difference is that Channel 4 relies upon advertising revenue and the BBC does not. Now, there are those who claim that Channel 4’s arrangement of a public service remit funded by advertising revenue runs rather harmoniously, so this news of Channel 4's financial woes will come as a refreshing wake-up call.

In fact, according to The Guardian, most advertisers "flock to more purely entertainment shows" on Channel 4, so the more ambitious programming gets overlooked by advertisers because, I presume, there is no profit to be made from it. This, as far as I can see, is why Channel 4 is struggling. In the words of Mark Lawson, Channel 4's "weakness is not that it has become too populist, but that competition has made its commercial shows more expensive to retain and that a continuing instinct towards shows that still fulfil the original remit means that it still struggles to survive in a harsh market."

The truth of the matter is, if Channel 4 merges with Channel 5, all obligations to its public service remit will wither on the vine, replaced instead by Channel 5's solely-for-profit ethos, stripping bear all of Channel 4's original programming, leaving it devoid of all character and personality. I don't doubt that, at its best, Channel 4 is a groundbreaking TV channel; sure, Big Brother is absolute shit, and as a channel it can be wantonly commercial at times, but at others, it has produced some stunning documentaries ("Dispatches"), dramas ("Shameless") and comedies ("Brass Eye") which no privately owned TV channel would have given time of day.

What this boils down to is a battle between private TV companies (who utilize advertising revenue to broadcast content in the name of generating profit – therefore, Channel 5's TV schedules only reflect the advertisers' target audience and are in no way affiliated to public interest, only existing to create profit) and public service TV channels (who, in theory at least, must provide the public with TV shows which are not motivated entirely by profit, but by public interest). If Channel 4 merges with Channel 5, it will be a truly sad day for British television. I know I've harped on about the value of public service broadcasting in the past, but it doesn't take a blithering fool to realize that PSBs are ultimately more admirable than private TV broadcasting companies.

It's all a question of control. On Channel 4, the TV execs control the advertisers; on Channel 5, the advertisers control the TV execs. This highlights the difference between public media ownership and private media ownership, so this indicates to me that the solution is not to privatize Channel 4, for that would destroy its very essence. I encourage all who read this blog to jump to the defence of public service broadcasting; especially for those who value true TV programming, programming which stems not from a desire to make profit, but from a desire to innovate and create groundbreaking programming which challenges and entertains the viewer in a way that great art should do.

Of course, the BBC has its own problems to deal with, but I did hear whisperings about Channel 4 being in talks to merge with BBC Worldwide (the BBC's commercial arm, i.e. the money the Beeb makes through merchandise, DVD sales, etc.), which, I believe, would keep Channel 4's public service remit intact. But what effect would this have on G.O.L.D. or Dave (who, at least partially, are also funded by BBC Worldwide)? Still, if this proves one thing, it proves that despite people holding up Channel 4 as a shining example of how advertising revenue can go hand in hand with TV programmes which honour the public interest (not private profit), this has clearly proved to be bogus.

The BBC, in my opinion, should remain independent. I’ve heard arguments stating that they should take on advertising to prevent a rise in the BBC license fee, but a glimpse at the financial woes of Channel 4 should prove gloomily prophetic. I honestly don’t think taking on advertising is the answer for public service broadcasting (especially the BBC); after all, in Channel 4’s case, all it has done is cause advertisers to migrate to the more popular and commercial programmes and abandon the more elitist or (let's face it) intellectual content which, ultimately, is more satisfying to the viewer. Let me know your thoughts anyway. The public vs. private debate is always guaranteed to be an interesting one.

TIME TO SLAY DRAGONS?

It's about time somebody had the guts to expose Dragons' Den for the piece of shit TV that it truly is. I've kept conspicuously silent over the huge burst in popularity for this pro-business capitalistic entrepreneurial bollocks, where a gang of ultra-rich smarmy bastards yield their financial superiority over wannabe geeks and hustlers, sneering and griping over which invention is gonna be the best fucking thing since sliced bread. Sure, I can see its gimmicky appeal, and I'm as big a fan of Levi Roots' Reggae Sauce as the next guy, but for goodness sake, let's just wake up and smell the espresso for a minute here, shall we?

This TV show is a bloody conceit and it doesn't take five minutes to conclude that it's driven entirely by the dragons' lust for financial investiture and, ultimately, greed and profit. It's not as guilty as, say, Big Brother or X-Factor at cashing in, but it is guilty for exemplifying everything there is to loathe and detest about our current economic system, with its penchant for soulless commercialism and market demographics. It subliminally taps directly into neoliberal economic ideals – a loyalty to an unregulated free market economy, shamelessly promoting entrepreneurialism and enterprise in business, pro-tax cuts for the ultra-rich to supposedly 'stimulate' economic growth (i.e. handing out money to aspiring inventors, for instance) and a belief in no government interference – which is, ironically, the very ideology of ignorance which has brought the entire global economy to its knees and on the brink of a recession.

What makes Dragons' Den even more detestful is its unabashedly successful attempts at deluding its audience into thinking: 'Hey, one day, you might be able to invent some kind of gadget that will make you rich beyond your wildest dreams.' It's designed to appeal to those of a lower social background on a level which encourages them to become miniature Del Boys, taking to the street like a white Jay-Z and attempting to hustle some dosh in the hope that you become a millionaire next year. It's as if the only ultimate goal for every working class human being is to end up in an ivory tower like Scrooge McDuck with a bank vault of gold you can swim in on a daily basis. I can totally imagine Harry Enfield's Loadsamoney appearing on Dragons' Den actually – that would completely convey the sentiment I am trying to express.

Are people forgetting that these ultra-rich bastards exemplify everything there is to hate about modern capitalist enterprise, with their parasitic desire to create monopolies off the back of their enormous profits by making small businessmen and inventors whore themselves on national TV? People like Theo Paphitis and Duncan Bannatyne are beyond fucking reprieve – the weighty pressure of living and breathing falls entirely upon the McJob drones who have to work extra hours on a minimum wage to survive (inevitably creating a cycle of misery for everybody at the bottom of the social ladder) and it's all because these rich bastards see no reason why their wealth should be of any consequence other than investiture and, ultimately, profit. Sure, you can redistribute your own wealth to aspiring little squirts in the name of financial investment, but will you raise a finger for the unfortunate people who don't wanna grow up to be Gordon Geckos and sell their souls to the moneygod? In this sense, Dragons' Den is a true example of capitalist villainy, in a very real sense, and it feeds off societal ignorance.

To illustrate my point literally, allow me to enlighten you about the fallacy that is Dragons' Den. According to folklore and myth, dragons were enormous reptilian monsters with the ability to fly, soaring to great heights and frightening the peasantry with their tendency to breathe fire and set fire to their homes. St. George slayed one of these dragons, thereby securing his status as the patron saint of England. Is this becoming clearer yet? Dragons, let's face it, are there to be killed. They are monsters and they deserve no pedestals; if anything, they should be living in fucking caves. However, in the modern age, what happens? They give the dragons a TV show, don't they? God, to get metaphorical about it, wasn't it a serpent that got us kicked out of the garden of Eden in the first place? So by associating themselves with dragons, these ultra-rich bastards are becoming the effective exponents of sin, greed and temptation and are no more than harlots and moneylenders who deserve to be thrown out on the street with the rest of the trash and cast asunder.

It was moneylending (i.e. credit), after all, which has effectively caused this economic downturn, and all because the 'hard money' is only lent to businessmen in the name of investiture and not to those who have a genuine need of it. As economic growth increased, it became harder for poorer people at the bottom to pay back the 'soft money' (or credit) which they had borrowed. To make the problem worse, the banks had blurred the dinstinction between money and credit, and so, Houston, we have a problem. The ultra-rich think their wealth is a license to be ignorant of the gap upon which they feed like leeches, sucking the lifeblood out of hardworking individuals who are just simply trying to get by, desperately trying not to succumb to the dog eat dog values which pervade modern society and encourage us to exploit and debase one another.

What's worse is people start idolizing these dragons as people they should aspire to be. They end up sticking on reptilian scales onto their garments, consuming extra spicy Reggae Sauce in the hope it makes them breathe fire and take the business world by storm. I mean, is Theo Paphitis likely to be our next patron saint off the back of this show? I don't fucking think so. It's time for some knight in shining armour to come alone and slay these bastards and get us back on the straight and narrow. This TV show is just a vehicle for business people to peddle their evil-minded greed-riddled value system upon us, without a thought for more ethical or altruistic concerns, and completely ill-timed in light of recent economic events.

P.S. Don't get me started on Alan Sugar and The Apprentice. I can't stand that bloke trying to sound like a fucking commoner – he's about as common as a cowpat on the bottom of my shoe, in my view. Sure, he may have been working class once upon a time, but he was probably one of those enterprising swines who would sell his own grandmother to a funeral director after her first stroke. No amount of sacking various acne-riddled business studies students with schoolboy crushes on Maggie Thatcher can disguise the fact that The Apprentice and Dragons' Den are both shows which no sympathiser of anti-capitalism can watch without wanting to put your foot through the TV in disgust. There, I finally said it. Happy now?

THE BNP (ENEMIES IN OUR MIDST)

This map is entirely based upon data cribbed from the leaked BNP membership list. I haven't seen the actual list myself, but the map alone is quite harrowing, don’t you think? Those red dots, after all, are in some places the same shade of red you'd find on a swastika flag, shimmering in the wind like an eyesore. When looking at this map, you can almost sense the face of bigotry staring back at you, with steely dark eyes like those of that moustachioed German bloke piercing into your conscience. What's disheartening is how much redness on the map blights Middle England, undoubtedly unveiling the ghastly façade bubbling under the surface of middle class life. But suburbia too, let's face it, harbours the kind of stultifying disillusionment which leads many along an embittered path. Some turn to drugs, or alcohol, or violence, and others, like the glittering array of amoeba on the BNP membership list, gravitate towards far-right political activity. Needless to say, it's inexcusable no matter what the situation, but it concerns me nonetheless, especially since some of those red places on the map are a hub for black or Asian communities, particularly in the more integrated quarters of multicultural London, or even the Midlands, for that matter.

Despite this, I think I should note that as of the last General Election in 2005, the British National Party received only 192,746 votes, a mere 0.3% of the U.K. population. So it has to be mentioned that the map itself is not an accurate reflection of the population of the country as a whole, just a reflection of a minority of bigoted wankers, so we can be thankful for that. However, it does mean that the BNP are officially the eighth largest political party in the U.K. So, what does that say about the faults of the British electoral system, if the 8th largest political party in the U.K. only receives votes from 0.3% of the whole U.K. population? To put things into perspective, at seventh place, we had the Democratic Unionist Party with 0.3%, at sixth, the Greens with 0.4%, at fifth place, the Scottish National Party with 0.6%, at fourth, UKIP with 0.9%, at third place, the Lib Dems with 9%, at second place, the Tories with 14% and, finally, in first place, it was Labour, winning the election with 15% of the country's votes(!). I mean, approximately 38.6% of registered voters didn't even bother to vote – and that doesn't even take into account the non-registered ones – so that's probably why Labour's 15% 'majority' looks very slim indeed.

People seem to make a huge fuss about the fact that only 61.4% of the registered electorate turned out to vote at the last election, but what about the unregistered ones? From the figures I've uncovered, it looks like there's a significantly large proportion of unregistered voters out there, especially if Labour can be sworn into government with only 15% of the country's support. Unless, of course, my figures are wrong, in which case my whole argument falls apart like a stale cookie, but I can only hope the information is correct. For those who'd like to quibble, my source was http://www.ukpoliticalinfo.net/. But all I will say is that Labour won the election with a total of 35.2% of votes from registered voters, but if you take into account the actual amount of votes cast (9.5 million approx) and the population of the U.K. as a whole (60 million approx) then there is a clear discrepancy there. The website seems to indicate that the electorate consists of 44.1 million registered voters - so I can only assume this means that not only did 17 million registered voters refuse to vote, but an additional 16 million non-registered citizens didn't take part either, meaning that in total 33 million people in the U.K. did not vote in the last general election. This is HUGE - that's just over HALF of the U.K. population, unless I've made massive mistake, of course, but I don't think I have. Obviously, my point is, that old quote by Edmund Burke ("All it takes for evil to triumph in the world is for good men to do nothing") rings truer than ever, especially if a large apathetic proportion of the country refuse to vote and a small minority of those who do (0.3.%) grant the BNP an effective license to peddle their racist bile. If nothing else, that's a big reason to vote, in my view, to consign these racist thugs passing themselves off as politicians to the dustbin of history, where they belong.

Anyway, I digress, back to the leaked BNP membership issue: The main shock, of course, is the social standing of a lot of those disclosed in this document. The guilty suspects include 1 currently employed Police Officer, 1 currently employed NHS Doctor and 17 former or retired Policemen (including one detective, one inspector, and one who claims to be a "human rights lecturer"!). Also, there's 15 people currently employed as full or part-time teachers, or with teacher qualifications, including secondary school teachers in subjects like Maths, English, and Physics, and 12 former or retired teachers. And, unsurprisingly, 18 current servicemen for the Army and the RAF are registered BNP members, along with 114 ex-servicemen for the Army, Navy, RAF, Intelligence, and the Ministry of Defence Police. So, it looks pretty ugly, does it not? The MoD is harbouring Nazis? Could you imagine James Bond sneaking into a polling booth and putting an 'X' next to Nick Griffin's name? I know he was MI5, but hmm, still quite a concern. I have no idea what I think about sacking the guilty parties. I obviously feel that racial prejudice of the kind spouted by the BNP is unforgivable, so I feel uncomfortable with the notion that many of those BNP members were partaking in public services like the NHS or teaching in secondary schools. But isn't this just part of a democracy? Freedom of speech? That's no excuse for racism, of course, but the truth is democracy does have a dark underbelly and we can't just bleach it clean and pretend it isn't there.

These people exist and, frankly, though it is a shock that many of these BNP voters possess honourable professions, is there any real reason to sack them just because of their political affiliation? In truth, I couldn't care either way. If they want to indulge in right-wing nonsense then, by all means, they can do so, it's a free country, after all. But it still makes one cringe, to think that maybe my old primary school teacher was a closet BNP supporter, staring at my Sikh, Hindu or Muslim classmates, barely containing their disgust for them. Is that the kind of country we want to be living in? I think not. I imagine they will be sacked, but would this furore have been just as huge if it'd had been a leaked membership document for the Communist Party of Great Britain? There's a level of hysteria reserved for far right politics unmatched by that of the far left, so I imagine communists are relatively safe, but is that not a bit ridiculous? The idea that one person on the political divide (the right) risks losing their job if they sympathise with the BNP, whereas nobody bats an eyelid if they'd have belonged to the other end of the political spectrum (the left). I sense a bit of hypocrisy here, but nonetheless, the BNP is despicable, so hopefully this whole leaked document will lose them support and guarantee them a poor turnout at the next election – after all, who'll vote for them now they know they might lose their jobs if they do so?

What's even scarier is that I looked at the stats on http://www.bnpnearme.co.uk/ (which has a more detailed map than the one I've posted here, along with good overall statistics), and I found out that in my home constituency of North Thanet there are 27 BNP supporters living in the local area. I also knew from prior research that in the 2001 local elections, 395 in Thanet voted for Thomas Holmes, a National Front MP, but thankfully, nobody on the far-right has stood for election in my area since then. All the same, despite the small numbers, it just goes to show that fascism can exist on your own bloody doorstep, whether you like it or not. Ultimately, putting racist and Nazi stuff aside for a moment, we do have another reason NOT to vote for the BNP – after all the leaks and losses of personal data we've seen under New Labour, at least we know that the BNP wouldn't be any more competent. The last thing we want is them in power, but with only 0.3% of the population bothering to vote them, I don't think we have anything to worry about. Not for the foreseeable future at least, anyway.

BUNCH OF LEFTIES CRYING WOLFIE

For somebody such as myself who considers himself a leftist, I can't help but criticize. But it's not just those on the opposite end of the political spectrum I'm eager to confront; in fact, rather depressingly, I'm often at loggerheads with some of my fellow lefties. Now, that's not to say I disagree with some of their views, but there are aspects of the left-wing persuasion which I find a bit distasteful. I mean, for one thing, laziness has often been an accusation hurled at left-wingers. If ever a Labour Party government comes into disrepute, you can bet your bottom dollar that the Tories will jump upon it to put the boot into the welfare system, claiming that it encourages lazy people to sponge off the state and refuse to work for a living.

Any whiff of socialism is often treated as a license for those who advocate a lugubrious lifestyle (e.g. not lifting a finger to earn a decent wage). It's not hard to see why – after all, one of the key criticisms of the capitalist system is that it believes in state-imposed collectivism. State-imposed collectivism is the notion that government should enforce and instil its citizens to get off their arses and work, despite any protestations they might have. Many on the left would like our country to alter its ethos to one of voluntary regional collectivism, meaning that people have a right to oppose working if they don't wish to, and should not be forced to work against their will. The trouble is, under capitalism (a system which, let's face it, considers work integral to acquiring power and respect within society), voluntary regional collectivism is impossible to implement because, ultimately, if you don't work, you'll be living below the poverty line and, let's face it, you won't be making life very easy for yourself.

On the other hand, some claim the welfare system is, at least in theory, an example of voluntary regional collectivism in action; in that many choose to receive benefits instead of getting a job. But ultimately, by and large, unless you adhere to capitalism's principles, you will be frowned upon in the eyes of society for taking such a dishonourable course of action (i.e. stealing tax-payers money). I personally don't think being left-wing is about being lazy and I, for one, don't like welfare spongers. This whole perception of lazy attitudes amongst left-wingers is probably best illustrated by the late-1970s BBC sitcom, Citizen Smith, written by Only Fools and Horses' writer John Sullivan. The sitcom was basically about a young Marxist urban revolutionary called Wolfie Smith, full of dreams of emulating Che Guevara and sparking a socialist revolution in London, while in reality he was merely an unemployed petty criminal whose plans often failed due to laziness and disorganisation. Now, when he wrote it, John Sullivan was obviously trying to comment satirically upon the inherent flaws within the socialist movement. I also remember from a documentary that Sullivan's own political views erred on the socialist side, so he undoubtedly recognized the failures of the left-wing movement, despite being sympathetic to their cause.

Ultimately, what I'm trying to say is, despite being left-wing myself, I am critical of those of a left-wing persuasion who merely think their political views give them a license to drop out of society altogether. Society has to be made up of people who are willing to fight for the communities they live in, eager to work to improve the way the system works. Ergo, on that count, the welfare system itself is fundamentally flawed – for too long, it's enabled individuals to take advantage of what used to be a safety net for people who were made redundant, essentially turning it into a living expense for the bone idle. Of course, I'm not suggesting that everybody on welfare is a leftie, I am merely using the benefit scrounger as a perfect illustration of what those on the left would call an embodiment of the voluntary regional collectivist ideal (i.e. an individual who has chosen not to participate in the capitalist money-go-round, for whatever reason).

So what's the solution? Well, maybe MPs should think about being stricter with those who are perfectly able to work (i.e. maybe slowly reducing the amount of their benefit schemes until they are gradually forced into employment). Now, evidently, this means many other left-wingers will probably wag their fingers at me and accuse me of being a state-imposed collectivist, so some will think I'm being a tad too authoritarian. But in my own opinion, despite whether you consider yourself left-wing or not, there are some things which are not exclusively political, such as self esteem, for instance. Self esteem comes from fulfilling a sense of purpose and that purpose is often met by doing a job well done – therefore, whether we end up living in a socialist system or a capitalist one, work is necessary, no matter what. The key concern is whether people these days care enough about a sense of community to summon the energy to actually care, let alone work.

To conclude then, I don't think it should be permissible that there be those in society who are allowed to scrounge money from the state, sit back on their laurels and expect their leftist views to justify their actions (or lack of them). That's not to say we should all conform to what capitalism expects us to do – as a democratic socialist, I feel that the ultimate goal for society must start by reforming capitalism, reconfiguring the economy under socialist principles, then working towards creating a better and more equal society. Naturally, that may be utopian, and it can't be denied that it'll be hard work to achieve, but it can only be achieved through hard work itself, right? If left-wingers are given the option to opt out of capitalism to merely become benefit scroungers, isn't that defeating the object of even trying to mount a fight for liberation? Sure, they may be exercising their right to voluntary regional collectivism (i.e. choosing not to volunteer in capitalist enterprise), but isn't that effectively allowing spongers to indulge in their own sense of apathy, rather than empowering them to actually work towards changing the system?

The cumulative effect of this dilemma is that those who actually do work and pay tax inevitably get fed up with being taken advantage of and end up seeking solace in right-wing politics, voting for the Tories for instance, merely because they expect everyone in society to toe the capitalist line. It's a decidedly hard area to navigate as a leftie, so I hope I've explored these ideas lucidly enough. My general feeling is that left-wingers such as myself should not be workshy, and the obvious criticism levied against us is that liberals are idle, so how exactly can this problem be remedied? Does an iron fist need to be clamped down upon the lazy to force them into work, or does that have echoes of Stalinism? Is it even possible to inspire those of a leftist persuasion to engage in capitalism as a means to an end, a necessary evil, or would that be compromising their principles? I personally think we have no choice to at least try, which is better than not trying at all, but by all means, let me know what you think too. That's what a democracy's all about.

THE DYING TENDENCY OF BEING ORDINARY

It's often claimed that things in society haven't changed much, but I would argue they have. It's often overlooked, but the battle for human freedom and personal individuality was theoretically won the minute we decided to surrender our souls to consumerism, allowing target demographics to act as a mirror to reflect our deepest needs and desires. This big change has seen a rise in the acceptance of pluralism, diversity and otherness and previously coercive attempts to repress or restrict people's desires have been quite rightly rejected. Additionally, most attempts to police a sense of moral decency or restraint have been dispensed with in favour of an amoral system governed by unfettered laissez faire attitudes to the economy (i.e. the invisible hand of the market).

So, in this respect, though personal identity and self-expression have been emphasized very heavily in this supposed 'brave new world', what exactly does this mean? Does buying lots of stuff at shopping centres truly define us as human beings? Does this bargain hunt mentality on the high street indicate that seeking out a personal identity through materialism is more important than a greater social cause? Does all this spendthriftery mean we are truly free from the forces of oppression, and if so, does it mask the fact that the cons outweigh the the pros? I mean, if you look back through history, it can easily be seen that most great art or modes of expression have been created out of great oppression, i.e. homosexuals, racial or ethnic groups, religious groups, class difference, etc.

We are therefore told that the great transformation of society in recent times is that whereas previously other social or ethnic groups were painted or demonized as 'the other', the ordinary folk who stood there as pots calling the kettles black have now been discredited as narrow-minded and, therefore, creatively redundant. As a result, we are now living in a world where we've supposedly moved away from a society of oppression - a new historical era in which we embrace minorities of all kinds, on the grounds that they are more culturally relevant or viable than other alternatives (i.e. this is the underlying reason why postcolonialist literature continually wins the Booker Prize). So, by and large, originality is mainly considered to be a fringe activity, beyond the preconceptions of the masses, and best left to those outside of consensus values or attitudes to purvey.

This all means that, with regards to art and self-expression, the reins of the cultural zeitgeist have been handed over to those who stand at the vanguard of minority opinion, creating art which seeks to reflect the faults and anxieties of those who hold a majority opinion. It's quite confrontational really, all this modern art business (e.g. like dadaism or surrealism, the art of nonsense, to confound and challenge people's expectations). So, does this mean that ordinariness - that is, the consensus or majority opinion itself - is now being oppressed in the midst of all this acceptance for minority culture or avant-gardist art? Has being ordinary been rendered a crime in itself? Some argue that there is no such thing being ordinary. If so, then why are people so keen in being unordinary?

Society these days is effectively a carnival of people who dress outrageously and behave provocatively, all in the name of emulating that which they consume at shopping malls. They spout Mighty Boosh jokes to confound people, or style their hair like Noel Fielding, spew verbiage like Russell Brand, for no other reason than to be outlandish in the spirit of dada. In effect, through embracing forms of expression to deliberately bemuse and flabbergast others, people are abandoning the idea of a sense of solidarity or community. They no longer feel that they can completely relate to or find common ground with anyone else, and thus, being unordinary is their last resort - a desperate attempt to be heard or paid attention to, in a world they perceive is too ignorant to care.

So, though our society may have dispensed with oppression after finally accepting that originality and creativity lies in the realm of the bohemian or the unorthodox, we have inadvertently ushered in a new world where nonconformity is, for many people, a way of life. In my opinion, you can only cease to conform to something which actually exists. If the very thing you refuse to conform to ceases to exist, then you are deluding yourself to such an extent that the way you express yourself becomes completely ungenuine and dishonest. Obviously, I am not arguing for a return to a world of minority oppression or social control, and I certainly would not claim that oppression is admirable or necessary to inspire creativity.

Oppression is a great blot on the history of humankind, but I am keen to acknowledge that this wanton acceptance of minority subcultures or nonsensical art forms as more creatively fruitful than other forms has had a damaging effect on society at large. It has led to a world of diversity and pluralism where those who wish to dissent are given a smorgasbord of social or minority groups (each with varying degrees of 'otherness' or 'difference') and can choose which one they relate to more than others. The trouble with this is, wherever there are groups, however small, people can easily conform to the expectations of said group and don't think and act on their own personal perceptions. I believe it's labelled pluralistic ignorance. People embrace identity politics and social groupings, letting the behaviour of these groups dictate their own prejudices, even though they may potentially find them objectionable.

The result is that society becomes more fragmented and shattered, full of lots of rivalling groups who each compete with one another to confirm that their nonconformist way of living is more vindicated than the others. I won't discuss these specific groups, obviously, for fear of being labelled a hatemonger, but my motives are not hateful in the slightest. I'd merely like to see society return to an idea of solidarity; a community of individuals who believe in a common good; embracing a sincere attempt to make make their lives better for everybody, rather than spitefully undermining each other's causes like squabbling children. As it happens, at the moment, all we have is a self-serving sense of individuality, defined and stimulated by the market-driven consumer economy, stultified by petty distractions like identity politics which only serve to destroy a belief in a greater cause for living.

The biggest fight we have ahead of us is the fight against selfishness. Currently, the world considers selfishness (and, by association, desire) to be economically beneficial, therefore, they are quite happy to see society degenerate into self-serving yet fragmented minority groups of diametrically opposed subcultures, rather than see us unite into a force which could potentially challenge this accepted wisdom. So, though the battle for freedom and personal individuality might have been won, the war itself is far from over. I, in particular, would argue that we can only declare this fight officially over once we rid ourselves of our reliance upon senseless materialism to express oneselves, and refuse to feel obligated to be unordinary just because the artistic elite (i.e. the Saatchi Gallery) and pop culture thinks it's cool to do so.

Just be yourselves, for God's sake. That's the key. You should be judged only by how you talk and act, not by how you dress or what you buy. Let's get people to stop trying to build up some kind of fashionable personas for themselves (someone whose belongings say more about themselves than their words or actions). More importantly, the time has come for us to stop seeing brands, designer labels, or outward appearances as barriers that prevent us from getting to know one another. We're all human, at the end of the day. We don't need all this consumerist bullshit distorting the way we communicate with each other and live our lives. Some people don't like hearing this inconvenient truth though, so if you excuse me for a moment, I'll just go and bury my head in the sand, just like everybody else does.

LICENCE TO BILL

Ah, the wonders of modern technology. I'm currently blogging from an Internet terminal from Bluegreen Resort in Orlando, Florida, isn't that nice? I decided to write a quick article about something I read on the BBC News website about Noel Edmonds deciding to boycott the TV license fee on the grounds that they behave "aggressively" with those who refuse to pay it. Public service broadcasting is something I've learned about during my Media Studies degree, and I have to say that I think PSB is brilliant. Just look up Jürgen Habermas's theory of the public sphere and try to apply it to advertisement funded channels (such as Sky, for instance) and see where it gets you.

The BBC is in my view the closest TV broadcasting medium we have to a democratic ideal. After all, they act on behalf of those who pay the license fee, not as consumers, but as citizens (which, in a sense, is a lot more humbling than just being considered a walking pound sign). What I find suspicious about Noel Edmonds's motives is the fact that he has a TV show on Sky which he is trying to promote. If you dig deeper, you'll discover that Murdoch is no fan of the BBC (nor public service broadcasting in general), mainly because there's a lot more money in advertisement funded TV channels than otherwise.

But why is that such a good thing? The BBC act on behalf of U.K. citizens, unhindered by any loyalty to outside financial interferences. Sky acts on behalf of itself, and the companies which invest in it via advertising. This leads me to believe that Noel Edmonds is effectively a tool for Murdoch's propaganda machine to discredit the BBC and the ideal of public service broadcasting. He is a spanner to throw into the BBC's spokes, but we cannot let it derail it. Since I am currently in the U.S.A, I can safely say that TV here is complete bollocks, mainly because most of the TV channels are funded by advertising. This means it's full up with mindless pap, whereas the BBC is, in theory at least, above this.

All this proves to me is that Noel Edmonds is just a stooge. He was a stooge when he worked for the BBC, now he's a stooge for Sky. All Murdoch and Sky TV wants is to hand TV companies over to the big business conglomerates that peddle and fuel the global media. The BBC currently works outside the box, and we can't honestly let Noel Bloody Edmonds, the Frankenstein-like creator of Mr. Blobby, set all the dominoes falling (by encouraging others to not pay their license fee) and allow those free marketing swines to hijack the TV networks like they have in the good ol' U.S.A.

I suppose I can just see the negatives in the way American TV bosses do business, far more than I can the positives. The BBC is an honorable institution - sure, they may cave into commercial pressures, but I still think that PSB is a fairer and more democratic media service than any other alternative. If advertisers cut into this pie, all credibility will be gone, and the BBC will no longer be able to claim that it is acting on behalf of the license payer as a citizen. We are human beings, not just consumers, and TV networks like Sky don't really care about this notion, otherwise they wouldn't be encouraging Noel to bark up this tree. It's time to get him muzzled.