Maya Angelou at Westpoint.

Now I bet there's a headline you thought you'd never see.

On Wednesday (28/5/14) US President Obama gave a big foreign policy speech in front of the graduating class at the West Point military academy which I've still not seen. I will need to get around to looking at it though mainly because I was under the impression that Obama doesn't have a foreign policy. Instead he seems to view big world events such as the wars in Afghanistan, Syria and beyond simply as threats to the re-election chances of his Democrat Party that need to be avoided. However I gather one of the main thrusts of his speech was a shift away from hard US military power towards soft cultural power.

In the hours prior to Obama's speech it was announced that Maya Angelou had died and Obama's message was almost drowned out by figures of America's political left including the White House's own Twitter account paying gushing tribute. If - like most people - you are not familiar with her work Maya Angelou was a moderately talented American diarist of the mid-twentieth century.

The majority of Angelou's fame though came from the fact that she had an extremely brutal upbringing in America's racially segregated south. This involved her being raped as a child and seeing her rapist killed by her relatives before dropping out of high school to become a drug addict and prostitute. Angelou's style of writing was very good at conveying simple emotion which allowed her to rally America's emotionally repressed white liberal left to "the plight of the negro" helping generate support for the burgeoning civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King during the 1960's. In short Angelou is a perfect example of a soft power tool which is why her books were so heavily promoted and she was allowed to trade on that reputation for the rest of her career.

Although the way Angelou's work was used during the civil rights era was generally quite positive the way it was used in later years - particularly in Africa - actually ended up being quite damaging. This is particularly true when groups such as women and Black people of all nationalities whose suffering she was intended to highlight were encouraged to look to her for inspiration. As a victim of tremendous abuse in order to survive Angelou had to find a way to rationalise that abuse and that led her to almost crave more abuse. So encouraging oppressed people to follow Angelou's example strikes me as encouraging them to tolerate their oppression rather then finding a way to end it. This is obviously hugely attractive to politicians like Hillary Clinton who require a large section of the population to continue being oppressed so they will vote for leaders who claim to understand their suffering.

The thing that really gave me a headache about the turn of events though was that Rihanna revealed herself as someone who has been inspired by Angelou and there are certainly similarities between the lives of these two of life's victims. Mainly though this highlighted to me that the US' soft power efforts that Obama wants to increase currently seem focused on using one of the most famous women in the world to remind everyone that the Americans can behave like complete dicks.


17:10 on 30/5/14 (UK date).

UK Local Elections: Croydon and Tower Hamlets.

Last Thursday (22/5/14) every seat in all of London's local councils was up for election. A week before hand I foolishly suggested that voter's in Croydon might want to use this as an opportunity to register a protest against local crime by voting for minority parties such as the UK Independence Party (UKIP) for traditional Conservative Party voters or the Green Party for traditional Labour Party voters. As a result of this off-the-cuff comment I've been forced to analyse the results of Croydon's election in painful detail. This involved drawing up a list of all the candidates and how many votes they received and comparing them with each other and the total number of votes cast.

On reflection this seems to have been a massive waste of time because electorally Croydon is very dull. Despite all the hyperbole about UKIP breaking the traditional three party status quo elections in Croydon are very much a two horse race with wards either voting strongly for the Conservative Party or strongly for the Labour Party. Across the board the difference between the two parties is 10-15% meaning that swing needed to shift power is too large to be realistic.

The main difference between whether a ward votes Labour or Conservative is a demographic one with the northern wards in which voters are mainly Black or Asian and generally poorer voting Labour while the southern wards where voters are mainly white and generally richer vote Conservative. However rather then race alone the main issue appears to be home ownership. This means that voters of Indian or Pakistani heritage are sort of the wild card element because while their skin colour makes them sensitive to racism they have a strong culture of home and business ownership.

The 7 seats that the Labour Party won to gain overall control of Croydon Council directly reflect this demographic pattern with 3 of the seats being won in the Ashburton ward and 3 being won in the Waddon ward. These both sit on a clearly marked front line between the Labour north and the Conservative south. However the specific thing that has helped Labour to win those seats is the effect of people switching from the Conservative Party to UKIP. If UKIP had not stood in the election the 4-5% of the vote that went to them would have meant that the Conservatives would have retained the wards by 2-3% rather then losing them by 2-3%.

Due to demographics being key to election victory in Croydon and crime seeming to be the main driver of demographic change in Croydon I think it would be very interesting to monitor crime rates in the Ashburton and Waddon wards along with the neighbouring wards of Fairfield, Addiscombe and Shirley in the run-up to the next election.

If I wanted to properly assess the impact of any protest vote I would need to assemble all the data from the previous (2010) council elections, weight it for changes in voter turnout, changes of individual candidates and national trends. I simply don't have the time to do that. However based on an unweighted average there does appear to have been a slight (1-2%) increase in the votes for minority parties such as UKIP and the Green Party at the expense of Labour and the Conservatives. As such is appears that a noticeable number of Croydon voters have taken the opportunity to send an anonymous letter of complaint to the council over the crime problem. Unfortunately that swing to is too small to effect the outcome so Croydon council is likely to just ignore it. However they should be warned that it could become more focused at the 2015 Parliamentary election where there are far fewer seats up for grabs with the Croydon central seat becoming a key battle ground.

The other thing I noticed going through the results was just how badly the Liberal Democrats (LibDems) actually did. In almost every ward they were beaten by the Green Party who are still something of a single issue party who only control one council and have only one MP. This was even true in wards that are dominated by the Conservative Party who seem to have an almost anti-environment agenda. Although I have little love for the LibDems I actually find this worrying because if it is repeated nationally - and it appears to - the LibDems will cease to be a factor in UK politics leaving us with a US-style two party system of either Labour or the Conservatives. The problem is that here in the UK we also have a Monarchy which of late has become very involved in politics. As such we run a risk of having only one set of political policies that are set by the Monarchy but dressed up in either a blue suit of a red suit depending on which way the public mood is swinging. As such I think the LibDems need to hurry up and apologise to UK voters for going into coalition with the Conservatives by sacking Nick Clegg.

Overall the political direction Croydon seems to be heading in is towards Tower Hamlets which has to be the most rotten of Britain's rotten boroughs.

Essentially the problems began in Tower Hamlets when the Labour government changed the national election rules to increase the use of postal/absentee ballots. This almost seemed intended to make it easier to increase election fraud and therefore rig election results. Firstly by removing the requirement that voters turn up at a polling station it made it much easier for people to vote multiple times using fake identities - often of people who had recently died. Secondly with ballots papers being posted too and filled in at people's homes it has removed the secrecy of the ballot. This is a particular problem in Indian and Pakistani households where the male head of the household will simply fill in the ballots of all the women and adult children in the household. There have also been reports of people being forced to bring their ballots papers to their Mosques, Churches and Temples where they are filled in on their behalf.

The thing that Labour didn't count on when they set about undermining democracy in this way is that very soon the people who are carrying out all this electoral fraud decided to start rigging the elections in favour of themselves rather then the Labour Party. So Labour quickly lost control of the elected Mayor and now appear to have also lost control of the council that oversees that Mayor creating something of a private fiefdom which many people are starting to suggest needs to be brought under the direct control of central government so it can be cleaned up.

The problems in Tower Hamlets have been known about for years but at this election the UK has seemed very keen for them to be pushed to the fore. Firstly the BBC ran a national "Panorama" program about the problems and on election day itself police guards were very publicly deployed to polling stations in Tower Hamlets to prevent opposition voters being physically attacked. Finally the vote count in Tower Hamlets was so plagued with problems that it has still not being completed and the Electoral Commission have promised to carry out an investigation. This delay in the Tower Hamlets vote also significantly delayed the declaration of European Parliament results for the entire London region although the two process could quite easily have been separated as they eventually were.

The reason for this focus on Tower Hamlets appears to be threefold;

Firstly it draws focus onto immigration policy. Amongst the British Establishment it has long been alleged that the Labour Party purposefully relaxed immigration controls to ensure a steady stream of poor immigrants into the UK who would vote Labour keeping the Labour Party in power for ever and ever. Of course the hope is that no-one would notice the difference between European Union (EU) immigration and visa controlled immigration from UK Commonwealth nations such as India and Pakistan.

Secondly it draws attention to political corruption particularly amongst people of Indian heritage such as Tower Hamlets Mayor Lutfur Rahman and his "Tower Hamlets First" party. India - the world's largest democracy - has just voted out a Congress Party which has ruled for decades in favour of Narendra Modi's BJP Party who campaigned on economic competence over corruption. This is big news globally not least because the BJP's Hindu nationalist tendencies could lead to an interesting relationship between India and it's mainly Muslim neighbour Pakistan.

Finally Britain seemed to be laying the groundwork for arguments over Ukraine's election that took place on Sunday (24/5/14). Having spent months pumping out anti-Russian rhetoric Britain appears to have made the mistake of starting to believe its own lies. As a result they seemed to be expecting a close election in Ukraine with the neo-Nazis doing well forcing Tymoshenko and Poro­shenko into a run-off vote. Russia would have then been expected to reject the result making all sorts of accusations of electoral fraud and voter intimidation similar to those seen in Tower Hamlets. Of course as it turns out Ukrainians ended up voting heavily in favour of Poro­shenko and heavily against Tymoshenko and the neo-Nazis creating quite a bit of confusion in the process.

16:30 on 28/5/14 (UK date).

Ukraine's Presidential Election.

Back in November 2013 the European Union (EU) made it a condition of membership negotiations that Ukraine freed Yulia Tymoshenko - the leader of the Fatherland Party - from prison. As Tymoshenko was rightfully in prison for her role in a massive embezzlement scheme whilst acting as Ukraine's unelected Prime Minister the purpose of this condition was to give both the EU and Ukraine the opportunity to end negotiations about Ukraine becoming an EU member state.

Perhaps not understanding this or simply being furious that the EU would defy it in this way the US started funding and directing extreme nationalist and fascist groups including the Right Sector and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UIA) to stage violent protests in Ukraine's capital Kiev in order to force Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukoyvch from office. Although these protesters only numbered a few hundred thousand in a nation of 46 million the level of violence they were prepared to use alongside the intense diplomatic pressure the US applied meant that Ukraine's government was eventually overthrown in February 2014 - right in the middle of the 2014 Winter Olympics being held in near-by Sochi, Russia.

On Sunday (25/5/14) the people of Ukraine were given their first say in all this with a Presidential election being held. If you've been believing the US' propaganda line that Yanukoyvch was an unpopular dictator being propped up by Russia who was overthrown by popular protest the results of the Presidential election would have come as a massive shock to you.

Dmitry Yarosh who leads the Right Sector who played a lead role in overthrowing the government received just 1% of the vote. Oleg Tyagnibok who leads the neo-Nazi Svoboda Party who appeal to members of both the UIA and Right Sector also only received just 1% of the vote. Yulia Tymoshenko who leads the Fatherland Party and is supposedly loved by all the Ukrainian people received just 12.9% of the vote.

The winner of the election by a staggering margin (42%/55% total) was Petro Poro­shenko who is one of Ukraine's richest men and has significant business holdings across the country particularly in the eastern Donbass region where Yanukoyvch is from. As such Poroshenko has long been the main financial backer of Yanukoyvch and his Party of Regions frequently acting as a go between Russia's Vladimir Putin and Yanukoyvch who - by all (non-US) accounts - despise each other. In fact it is widely believed that it was Poroshenko rather then Putin who forced Yanukoyvch to step down.

So while I think there is an element of the Ukrainian people realising that neo-Nazi Parties like Svoboda and Right Sector will prevent Ukraine receiving the international financial assistance it so desperately needs it appears that the voters of Ukraine have wholeheartedly rejected February's coup and the junta that has been ruling over them ever since.

This creates a significant problem for Ukraine because perhaps realising their lack of popularity that junta declined to hold a Parliamentary election. As result they continue to in effect run Ukraine despite the public vote with Oleksandr Sych of Svoboda continuing a Vice Prime Minister and Oleh Makhnitskyi also of Svoboda continuing to act as Chief Prosecutor. Arseniy Yatsenyuk of the Fatherland Party seems intent to continue to act as Prime Minister despite having an extremely aggressive approach to and almost hatred of all things Russian. Although he takes most of his orders from the US Yatsenyuk is the architect of the 'anti-terror operation' in the east which today saw Ukrainian fighter jets and helicopter gunships bomb the city of Donetsk.

What would normally happen in a country in transition such as Ukraine is that the newly elected President would immediately appoint a government of national unity that reflects the election results to run the country until a general election can be held. However in Ukraine the issue of how much power the President has over Parliament has been a significant source of tension during and after the overthrow of Yanukoyvch. As such I think that Ukraine needs to immediately hold Parliamentary elections because due to experience I don't think there's much hope of either Svoboda, Right Sector or Fatherland respecting the will of the people and stepping aside voluntarily.

19:20 on 26/5/14 (UK date).

The UK's European Parliament Results.

Having started counting on Thursday (22/5/14) evening and using the simple first past the post method the UK has been the first European Union (EU) nation to declare its results in the election for the European Parliament (EP). These results pretty much reflect the trends shown in the English local council elections that were held alongside the European vote.

The big winner has been the UK Independence Party who saw their share of the vote in an election with a 34.19% turnout increase by 10.99% to 27.49%. They translated this into a gain of 11 Parliamentary seats increasing their total from 13 to 24. A significant part of UKIP's success seems to have come from all directions but they do seem to have attracted voters away from the Conservative Party who saw their share of the vote fall by 3.8% and lost 7 seats bring their total down from 26 to 19. As with the local elections the UKIP/Conservative split has helped the Labour Party whose share of the vote increased by 10% and they gained 7 seats increasing their total from 13 to 20.

The big losers of the election though were the Liberal Democrat (LibDem) Party who crashed to 6th place behind the Green Party who gained 1 seat despite a 0.75% drop in vote share and the Scottish National Party (SNP) who retained their 2 seats and saw their share of the vote increase by 0.34%. The LibDems share of the vote dropped by 6.87% but were hit particularly hard in terms of seats losing 10 seats reducing their total from 11 to just 1. If UKIP gained support from all quarters then the LibDems lost support to all quarters with their left-wing transferring to Labour and their more liberal, environmentally aware supporters switching to the Greens.

Being an election with a low turnout that was only really contested by core supporters this was an unmitigated disaster for the LibDems and it took their leader Nick Clegg some 16 hours after the results began to be announced to comment publicly and even then his main message was to deny that he is going to resign. In fact the result was so poor and Clegg remained hidden for so long you started to think journalists were only trying to speak to him to make sure he hadn't committed suicide.

Of course one of the main complaints that Euro-sceptic parties such as UKIP have is that due to the way the European Parliament works the wishes of voters in one country are immediately diluted by the wishes of voters in all the other countries. As a consequence I can't really say what effect the UK's results will have on the European Parliament and therefore the EU until results start coming in from other member states. A large proportion of those only held their votes on Sunday (25/4/15) and many of them use very complex proportional representation systems where rather than being one count and a couple of smaller re-counts over questionable ballots there can be dozens of rounds of counting each involving smaller recounts. As a result rather then something that I can give you an answer about now it is going to take around a week for a clear picture to emerge.

However one big thing that everyone will be looking at is the progress of France's fascist and Euro-sceptic National Front (NF/FN). Their leader Marine Le Pen has made it quite clear that she intends to form a bloc of like minded parties in the European Parliament which will then be able to propose legislation reflecting their nasty world view and block legislation that challenges it. In fact Le Pen has made no secret of the fact that she intends to use this bloc to disrupt the running of the European Parliament in order to force it to grind to a halt.

Based on exit polls which in France tend to be rather reliable rather then actual results the NF seem very much on course to achieve their aim. Despite having under performed by only winning around 25% of the vote rather than a predicted 28% the NF seem to have been very effective in translating those votes into seats exceeding their maximum target of 20 by 5 leaving them with potentially 25 seats. This means that the NF will be able to meet the 25 seat minimum needed to form a bloc using only their own MP's. However rather than being evidence that France has suddenly become a fascist country the NF's success seems more to reflect the way they have been able to disguise their fascist ideology to the extent that they are able to pick up protest votes amongst people frustrated at France's significant economic problems (unemployment at a 17 year high of 11% etc) that have been brought about in part by the very left-wing economic policies of the Socialist government.

Fortunately in order to form a formal bloc the NF not only need 25 MP's but they also need to have the support of like minded parties from at least 6 other member states. I think that the NF are pretty much guaranteed the support of Italy's Northern League and Greece's Golden Dawn who don't even attempt to disguise their fascism anymore. However UKIP has already indicated that it won't work with the NF due to their anti-Semitic views meaning that UKIP replacing the British National Party (BNP) in the European Parliament looks very much like a step in the right direction. Also more sophisticated far-right parties such as the Danish People's Party (DPP) have indicated that rather then exposing their fascism by joining a formal bloc they intend to disguise it in order join the centre-right bloc as it gives them a better chance of forcing through extremist legislation.

Anyway as Britain's TV election coverage grinds on with nothing to say may I suggest that they spend some time talking about the other elections that accompanied the European vote. After all although not directly connected the General Election in Ukraine is likely to have some impact on EU politics, the government of Belgium has fallen (again) and after the Gerry Adams arrest I think we're all quite interested in how Sinn Fein did in local council elections in the Irish Republic.

15:45 on 26/5/14 (UK date).

The Isla Vista Rampage.

At around 10pm local time on Friday (23/5/14) Elliot Rodger - the British born son of film director Peter Rodgers - went on a gun and knife rampage in the Isla Vista district of Santa Barbara, California, US around the campus of the Santa Barbara College where he was a student. Rodger killed 6 people before being shot and wounded by the police and then apparently committing suicide. In a lenghty online manifesto that included a series of Youtube videos Rodger proclaimed his rampage as a "Day of Retribution" against what he considered arrogant and entitled women particularly ones with blond hair and blue eyes which match the Nazis ideal of an Aryan master race.

When it overthrew the Ukrainian government in February 2014 the US was shocked to discover that it was actually very isolated internationally with only a handful of nations sharing its zeal to attack Russia for failing to help bring about the overthrow of the Syrian government. As such the US is keen to use the four days of voting in the European Union (EU) election that ends today to discover just how isolated it is. The fate of European fascist and neo-Nazi parties such as Golden Dawn in Greece, the National Front in France, the Freedom Party in Austria, the Party of Freedom in The Netherlands and Flemish Interest in Belgium could well be considered an indicator of how tolerant the EU will be prepared to be of the fascist junta the US has put in place in Ukraine and is today trying to give the veil of a democratic mandate through an election in which opponents of the junta aren't allowed to compete.

Adding to the US sense of shock at its current isolation through things like the 2014 Winter Olympics and the recent Eurovision Song Contest the US has started to discover that while it and the UK like to console themselves by thinking of me as a bit of a joke and a figure of fun a sizable number of people actually do value what I have to say and afford me the level of respect that comes with that.

As such the Isla Vista rampage was an attempt to exert pressure on Europe in order for the US to find out where it stands. As such I'm cast in the Elliot Rodger role which projects a very negative image of myself which people are tempted to either passionately agree or disagree with. For example I think it's obvious that a perceived lack of respect is at the core of Rodger's grudge against society. The issue of him being a 22 year old virgin who has never kissed a girl are supposed to put forward the argument that my negative feelings towards Chris Brown and Drake stem from a jealousy that Rihanna simply doesn't love me rather than an impression that neither of them are particularly nice nor likable men who are capable of improving Rihanna's life. The rumours that Rodger's had been planning the rampage for a year is a reference to my role in the Rihanna operation which stretched all the way from September 2012's Summer Para-Olympics through to November 2013 and seems to still be continuing although at a much lower intensity.

The stunt also had a much more specific target in the form of the 2 week Cannes Film Festival which reached its climax on Saturday (24/5/14) in the immediate aftermath of the rampage. Much like Paris Fashion Week and to some extent the Eurovision Song Contest the Cannes Film Festival brings together the great and the good of Europe's and the World's creative industries particularly in the field of film. Apart from their international cultural influence this group is considered particularly important to the US because if they side with me rather than the US the Americans are going to have a much tougher time convincing  people that its own soft power efforts such as Rihanna and the wider Roc Nation family are in fact World class stars. The grand prize of the Cannes festival - the Palme d'Or - went to the Turkish film "Winter Sleep."

Perhaps more accurately translated as "Hibernation" the film is set in a hotel in the Turkish mountains run by a husband and wife who have a stormy relationship and the wife's sister who is dealing with the fallout of her recent divorce. As winter sets in the hotel becomes a refuge for a variety of people trapped by the weather which exacerbates the tensions between the characters. As such - although I've not seen it - it seems like a film all about oppression and simmering internal tensions. In his acceptance speech the director - Nuri Blige Ceylan - paid tribute to all the young Turks who had died in the past year which seemed like a veiled attack on Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan. Turkey is of course a strong US ally in the war against Syria although Erdogan seems to getting firmly on everybody else's nerves.

Saturday's gun attack at the Jewish museum in Brussels, Belgium in which two Israeli citizens were killed seemed like a very clear demonstration of Belgian support for the US by making it look as though an urgent conversation was going while indicating that Belgium is much more keen on anti-Semitism then it is on the state of Israel although that hardly counts as news.

15:00 on 25/5/14 (UK date).

The Day Democracy Died.

OK that might be a bit of an exaggeration but local council elections in the UK are that dull you need to do something to liven them up.

The headline story of the UK's local elections that were held on Thursday (22/5/14) was the success of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) who increased their number of seats from 0 to 161 and took 17% of the vote. However UKIP did not win control of any councils and still finished third behind the Labour Party and the Conservative Party.

In terms of the difficult task of trying to extrapolate these results to give an indication of what will happen at the 2015 Parliamentary/General Election though I think the big story is actually the Labour Party's dismal performance. As the official opposition and less then a year away from the Parliamentary election Labour were hoping to use these local elections as a way to show their strength as they try to regain power by winning between 400 and 500 council seats with 300 being the bare minimum. Despite the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats (LibDems) losing 538 seats between them Labour only managed to win 338 seats falling well short of their target and actually saw their share of the vote fall by between 10 and 12%. This seems to be a direct result of Labour's very negative and almost thuggish campaign.

The overt part of Labour's campaign focused almost exclusively on protecting public services and opposing cuts to housing/welfare benefits such as the so-called 'Bedroom Tax.' However rather then being driven by some moral sense of social justice this campaign was intended to motivate Labour's tithed voters who are employed in the public service sector and rely on housing benefit to pay rent on their Labour owned housing association properties.

For example in Croydon where I live the centrepiece of Labour's campaign was a pledge to increase the number of street sweepers. For what is essentially unskilled labour street sweeping and refuse collection are incredibly highly paid jobs. So rather then wanting to keep the borough clean and tidy Labour's campaign was actually saying; "We're going to create a couple of cushy jobs but if you want to be considered for one of them you'll have to vote for us." In fact if I had the time and the inclination I could probably trace that campaign pledge back to a specific Church congregation where a prominent member has an unemployable relative.

The main part of Labour's campaign though was a covert one that set out to smear UKIP. The idea being to portray UKIP as some sort of Bogeyman that only the Labour Party could protect the people of Britain from. This actually backfired pretty spectacularly because most people quickly saw through the attempts to label UKIP as racists or fascists and those who failed to see through it were left making jokes on Twitter because they're too young to be allowed to vote. The naivety of young voters of course is likely to be a factor in the upcoming Scottish Independence referendum where the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) traded the option of a substantial devolution in favour of lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 in a straight yes/no vote.

Labour's attacks of UKIP actually backfired so spectacularly that it swung so far around that it ended up helping Labour in a strange way. With every unwarranted and unsubstantiated attack on them UKIP actually became more popular with people who otherwise wouldn't have voted coming out to vote for UKIP and people who would normally have voted Conservative switching to UKIP in order to stand up to Labour's bullying. As a result in many wards there was substantial opposition to Labour but that opposition was split between the Conservatives and UKIP allowing Labour to win almost by default. I'll need to check but I'm pretty sure this is what helped Labour win control of Croydon council.

All this does not bode well for Labour's chances in 2015. Although their replacement was very much chosen in advance by the Monarchy there was a general consensus in 2010 that Labour needed to be given some time off from government because after 13 years they had become tired and that caused them to drift into a type of megalomania where they considered themselves the experts at everything so everybody had better do as they were told. The financial crash obviously proved that to be completely untrue.

So what I would have liked to have seen happen in 2010 was for the Conservative Party to win just enough seats to govern as a minority party. This would have left the LibDems free to float between the Conservatives and Labour forcing the Conservatives to act with a social conscience in order to get though legislation while at the same time forcing Labour to rediscover their liberal/libertarian side in order to get LibDem help to block legislation. That's why I actually voted Conservative in 2010.

Unfortunately it seems as though LibDem leader Nick Clegg would be much happier as a member of the Conservative Party so locked them into a formal coalition. In the meantime Labour swung even further in the wrong direction becoming even more authoritarian pursuing an aggressive Marxist ideology centred on nationalising and controlling markets while increasing welfare programs in order to make voters dependent on the party ensuring a stranglehold on power. As a result I would have great difficulty endorsing them as the next party of government.

The other major problem Labour are going to have in 2015 is that UKIP are going to be much less of a factor. UKIP are primarily a European Union (EU) party so while they need to have a presence within the UK's councils and ideally Parliament they are not going to campaign anywhere near as aggressively as they did in this campaign that was also for the EU Parliament. Also rather then campaigning nationally UKIP are likely to focus their efforts on a handful of key areas in order to maximise their chances of winning a single MP meaning that many of their supporters won't actually have the option of voting for a UKIP candidate.

As a result and along with a higher voter turn out the Conservatives are likely to do much better in 2015 then they did at this local election meaning that we seem on course for yet another hung Parliament with both the Conservatives and Labour falling just short of an overall majority. This means that despite having slumped to the point where pretty much only their mother's vote for them now the LibDems will once again find themselves holding the balance of power. Hopefully they won't screw it up again by forming a formal coalition with the Labour Party.

15:40 on 24/5/14 (UK date).

Local Elections: Croydon.

Since Margret Thatcher's government removed almost all power from local councils during the 1980's local council elections in the UK have been such an irrelevance that normally I don't bother with them. However this year I appear to have talked myself into covering Croydon's local election in a painful level of detail. That's because by raising the prospect of a protest vote I thought there would be a possibility of securing a single council seat at best with the real impact coming in the parties that were voted for and the percentage swing amongst the votes cast. That is obviously going to take me ages to work through.

However the early news from Croydon is that the Labour Party have won control of the council by winning 7 seats from the Conservative Party giving them a majority of 40 seats over the Conservative's 30. This is no great surprise because certainly over the last decade Croydon borough has been a major target for the Labour Party as they've tried to force their way out of the south London inner-city in the suburbs. In fact their failure to secure the Croydon Central seat and only just retain the Croydon North seat at the 2010 Parliamentary election was seen as a major blow for the party.

The way that Labour have been trying to seize control over Croydon though has been particularly worrying because it seems centred on using crime to force out traditional Conservative Party voters such as my father and grandmother. Those properties are then brought by housing associations such as the Notting Hill Housing Trust that are owned by Labour Party members who then fill them with people who often find themselves under an obligation to vote for Labour. In short they're creating a sort of new feudalism where rather then being free to cast their vote as they wish voters instead find their employment and housing status entirely dependent of who they cast their vote for. Rather euphemistically Labour seem to be boasting that their success is the result of their ability to send activists round to people's houses in order to get them to vote.

One of the things that will be interesting to look at in a lot of detail is the percentage of votes for Labour in Croydon that were cast using postal ballots. That's because I was somewhat surprised to discover that my grandmother who died in 2012 was still registered as a voter although - perhaps due to her profile - no-one had cast a postal ballot on her behalf.

Of course why the Labour Party are so desperate to win in Croydon is still a bit of a mystery because despite winning control of Croydon council nationally Labour seem to have been kicked in the face. As the official opposition party just one year ahead of a General Election were hoping to use this election as a show of strength aiming to win between 400 and 500 seats. At the time of writing they've only managed to win 88.

10:45 on 23/5/14 (UK date).

It's UKIP Day.

Well actually it's the start of four days of voting across the European Union (EU) for the European Parliament. However I'm hoping it could also mark the beginning of the end of the hysteria surrounding the UK Independence Party (UKIP) that seems to have gripped the UK for as long as anyone can remember. This hysteria is of course largely the result of an anti-UKIP smear campaign by Britain's political and media establishment which has been one of the nastiest and most dishonest campaigns I think I've ever seen in UK politics.

Over the past week a lot of this has been centred on an interview the UKIP leader Nigel Farage gave to the LBC radio station. In that interview Farage said that most people in Britain would be alarmed if a large group of Romanian men suddenly moved into the house next door to them. The interviewer then asked what the difference between that and a German family moving in would be. Farage simply told him that the difference should obvious to everybody.

To me that seems like an entirely fair comment because rather than talking about the nationality of the people Farage was highlight the effect they would have on changing the community. Amongst economic migrants - particularly those working in the construction industry - it is quite common for a work gang to rent out a four roomed, family sized home. They will then turn all four rooms into bedrooms sleeping two or three people at a time meaning that you get twelve people rather then five living in the same house. They will often then work in shifts meaning that people are up and about in the house 24 hours a day. As they also tend to be young men there's also a fair bit of drinking and fighting that goes on. As such a work gang of economic migrants regardless of their nationality will impact a community in a way that a family made up of two adults and two to three children simply wont.

Obviously though that argument has been deemed far too complicated for UK voters so Farage's comments were almost immediately re-written to remove any reference to the ages, gender, worker status or numbers of the people involved and magically became; "UKIP doesn't want Romanians living next door to them." So I actually think the big scandal of that story is the way that Britain's news media knowingly and collectively changed the facts in order to fit their own political agenda.

The other thing that has really irritated me about this campaign is the way that the political left (Labour Party) has tried to mobilise Black and sub-Asian minority voters against UKIP by portraying them as a racist party similar to the British National Party (BNP) or the National Front (NF) who want to kick out all immigrants. UKIP are apologetically an anti-EU party that are heavily focused on migration from within the EU. However immigration from within the EU is almost exclusively white. Black and sub-Asian immigration into the UK comes almost exclusively from the UK Commonwealth made up of former British colonies such as Jamaica, Nigeria and India. What UKIP want to do is withdraw from the EU and re-align the UK with the Commonwealth so they're actually arguing in favour of Black and sub-Asian immigration into the UK over white immigration into the UK. That is why UKIP actually enjoy a lot of support amongst British voters of Indian heritage.

Finally the people running this anti-UKIP campaign don't seem to have any understanding of how EU politics works. Put simply the European Parliament doesn't have dominant parties because with the exception of the short-lived Libertas experiment parties only stand candidates in their home nation rather than across the EU's 28 member states. So instead of dominant parties you get blocks made up of parties that share similar - but rarely the same - values. UKIP are currently trying to join and become leaders of the far-right/anti-EU block. Having UKIP head that block would certainly be preferable to having it led by actual racist and fascist groups such as Greece's Golden Dawn or France's National Front. So by opposing UKIP in the UK people are actually inadvertently helping to strengthen real fascism within the EU.


Anyway if anybody needs me I'll be off voting for the Green Party.

11:35 on 22/5/14 (UK date).

South Africa's General Election.

On May 7th 2014 South Africa held its General Election. Dubbed the "Born Free Election" this was the first time that South Africans born after the end of apartheid were allowed to vote. If this meant that if they voted without first hand experience of apartheid it perhaps also meant that they voted without first hand knowledge of the vision of a prosperous, democratic and equal South Africa that the people who dismantled apartheid hoped to build.

Sadly it seems that vision has stalled somewhat in recent years with South Africa consistently failing to meet its economic growth targets and in 2014 being replaced by Nigeria as the largest economy in Africa. This under-performing growth has increased economic inequality bringing with it increased crime, racial tensions (against immigrants) and the sort of social unrest seen in the recent strikes by nurses and miners including the very violent Marikana strike. It has also fuelled support for political parties such as Julius Malema's Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) who want to introduce radical Zimbabwean style land redistribution and the Afrikaner Freedom Front Plus who want to roll back existing affirmative action and land reform policies and don't yet seem to have come to terms with the end of the apartheid.

The cause of South Africa's current malaise is quite simple. Although it is technically a democracy the overwhelming support of the African National Congress (ANC) means that South Africa functions as a one party state. As always happens in a one party state this has caused the government to become lazy because they know that no matter how badly they do their job they're never going to get punished by the voters. In South Africa this lack of competition also seems to have given the current ANC leadership a taste for corruption as shown in the recent Nkandla scandal, Guptagate and the Thint arms scandal to name but a few.

As such I think that the main objectives of the South African election should have been to reduce the ANC's stranglehold on power and build a coherent opposition to help keep them honest. This would be measured firstly by reducing the ANC's share of the vote to below the 60% that gives them an automatic right to amend the constitution. Secondly it would be measured by increasing the number of opposition MP's in order to help hold the ANC to account and even block some of their more controversial legislation.

In terms of meeting that first objective South Africa more or less completely failed. Although the ANC saw their share of the vote fall from 69% to 62% they remain above the 60% threshold that allows them to amend the constitution. Perhaps more worryingly the majority of the ANC's lost support was lost to the EFF who gained 6% of the vote in their first election but whose radical Marxist agenda doesn't really have a place in the modern world.

In terms of altering the make-up of South Africa's Parliament things were slightly more successful with this main opposition party the Democratic Alliance (DA) increasing their number of MP's from 67 to 89. However with the ANC retaining 249 MP's it seems that any gains the DA made were either the result of better translating support into seats or came at the expense of the other two main opposition parties the Congress of the People (COPE) and the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) who both also suffered at the hands of the EFF.

So on the basis of that result there seems to be little hope of much improvement in South Africa until after the next General Election in 2009. In the meantime though the DA, COPE and the IFP along with some of the smaller parties such as the United Democratic Movement (UDM) should try working together to form an opposition coalition in Parliament and consider formally merging in order to unify their resources at the next election.

The big hope of course is that the Marxist wing of the ANC formally separate from the centre-left wing and join up with the EFF. That seems unlikely to happen though because even the centrist wing of the ANC wouldn't want to reduce their grip on power by becoming a smaller, more effective party.

17:20 on 20/5/14 (UK date).

Local Elections in Croydon.

I've been hesitant in bringing this up because experience tells me that if it fails Croydon's political powers will take it as a huge endorsement even though this will be the extent on my campaign.

On Thursday May 22nd (22/5/14) not only does Croydon join the rest of the Europe Union (EU) in the election for the European Parliament but along with the rest of London it holds local council elections in which all 70 seats will be contested. This provides the residents of Croydon who are worried about the borough's rising crime rate and the police's apparent tolerance of that crime with an opportunity to register a protest by voting out the incumbents. That is to say you simply vote against the people who are already in power in order to remove them from power.

So in the Bensham Manor ward where I live you would vote against Alison Butler, Donna Gray and Raj Rajendran who all represent the Labour Party.

In the near by Thornton Heath ward you would vote against Louisa Woodley, Matthew Kyeremeh and Pat Clouder who all represent the Labour Party.

In the Ashburton ward you would vote against Adam Kellett, Avril Slipper and Eddy Aram who all represent the Conservative Party.

In the Fairfield ward you would vote against David Fitze, Susan Winborn and Vidhi Mohan who all represent the Conservative Party.

You can check who are the incumbent councillors in your ward here; http://www.croydon.gov.uk/democracy/elected/allcouncillors/

Obviously simply switching Conservative controlled wards to Labour control and vice versa simply wouldn't work and this form of protest works best everyone votes for a single candidate to gain maximum impact. That of course creates the obvious question of who to vote for? As the Liberal Democrats aren't represented at all within Croydon council they would be the obvious choice but they are very much part of the political mainstream and actually make up part of the national government. As such I think it would send a stronger message if everyone voted for minority parties.

So if people were considering voting for the Conservative Party I think they should vote for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) instead and people who were considering voting for the Labour Party should vote for the Green Party instead.

14:00 on 16/5/14 (UK date).

The 2014 Eurovision Song Contest: The Stand Outs.

As I've mentioned in my previous posts on this year's Eurovision Song Contest I simply won't have the time to cover all entrants in detail. However aside from the top three finishers and the acts that were knocked out in the semi-finals here are some of the entries that I think particularly stood out;

Iceland: Their song "No Prejudice" by Pollapunk featured an incredibly simple pop-punk arrangement alongside ridiculously childish lyrics such as; "Let’s do away with prejudice, don’t discriminate, tolerance is bliss." However if you read up on the band you would discover that they are all pre-school/Kindergarten teachers and the band was formed as part of their graduate thesis on the way that bright colours, simple tunes and memorable lyrics can be used to educate very young children.

The Eurovision Song Contest is essentially a competition in the tools of soft-power. This is entirely centred around using words, music and visual effects to influence public opinion often by educating people about specific issues. As such Iceland was attempting to raise the technical issues of soft-power whilst at the same time pointing out that although the UK likes to boast about its prowess in this area Iceland are also very knowledgeable having produced world famous children's TV shows such as "LazyTown." Through Iceland's efforts and the general staging of the competition including flying boxes (Tardis') in the opening sequences there seemed to be a particular interest in a recent deal between Britain's BBC and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) to sell the Koreans BBC shows such as "The Teletubbies" and "Doctor Who" although I think it's extremely unlikely that the episodes of Doctor Who in particular will actually be broadcast in the DPRK.

Iceland's entry was supported by a video that was shot in the same childlike cartoon style. It featured a big, fat comic book villain who would zap people with his ray-gun to change their bright, rainbow coloured clothes into drab blacks and greys. The reference to the rainbow flag of gay-rights meant that this was a clear reference to the efforts to improve gay-rights in Russia during the 2014 Winter Olympics. However it appeared remarkably similar to the hideous "Gay Mountain" short film that Britain's Channel 4 broadcast throughout the Sochi games. As such Iceland seemed to be reminding everyone that when dealing with Britain's highly reactionary liberal elites it is important to talk as though you are dealing with a toddler.

Hungary: Performed by a US born and raised black, male singer - András Kállay-Saunders - who managed to resemble both Chris Brown and Drake Hungary's entry "Running" was overtly about domestic violence. As such it seemed a clear protest against the US' treatment of Rihanna because the true story Kallay-Saunders kept referencing was of a girl being abused in America. However what the Hungarians were actually doing was using other nations protests over the US' treatment of Rihanna as a metaphor for the political situation in Hungary which has seen a sharp rise in anti-semitism and neo-Nazi political parties such as Jobbik. The fact that Kallay-Saunders is black helped to highlight the racist nature of these Domestic groups who are prone to Violence.

Added to that Hungary's stage performance featured a 16 year old girl playing the role of the domestic violence victim whilst also playing the piano. This girl spent most of that performance hiding underneath that piano from a male dancer. This was very reminiscent of the perspex box in Azerbaijan's 2013 entry so served as another little hint to the contests large gay fanbase as part of the gay-rights trend.

Finally Hungary's was actually quite a good song featuring a drum and bass/dubstep beat. This contributed to the eastern high culture versus western low culture trend by pointing out that no-one's really objecting to hip hop/rap as a genre of music just the really poor examples of that genre that keep getting pushed to the top of the charts as if somehow we're supposed to be fooled into thinking that they're any good.

San Marino: With lyrics such as; "Maybe there's a pearl in the shell" and "When it's time, To open the heart of love" San Marino's entry was all about Rihanna. However the reason why it got through to the final while the similar Baltic entries failed is that it elevated the discussion. Throughout the US has argued that it needs to maintain such a high level of control over Rihanna through things like the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) audit because Rihanna is a bit of a disaster area who needs to be educated before she can take control of her own life. Through Rihanna's handling of the Berdon LLP case and well Berdon LLP case itself it does become increasingly difficult to counter that argument. As part of this discussion much has been made of the fact that Rihanna never finished High School failing to obtain even the most basic qualifications.

San Marino's Valentina Monetta also never finished high school in the conventional sense but went on to receive a very rich and varied education within the creative arts. As such San Marino seemed to be saying that maybe Rihanna still has some potential left but in order to realise that potential she needs a different education from the one the US are providing. Sadly this was probably the nicest thing said about Rihanna all week.

Added to that San Marino have a long history of trying and failing to make it into the final meaning that they've built up quite a lot of sympathy. Finally though the general tone of San Marino's entry was; "We're a tiny principality in northern Italy, Ukraine means that European politics have caught fire and we've only had eight weeks to prepare!!! We're not actually that bothered either way." This is sentiment that seemed to resonate with other contestants.

20:10 on 11/5/14 (UK date).

Edited at around 14:25 on 12/5/14 (UK date) to add;

Italy: Centred around Emma - a female singer with dyed and cropped blond hair - who liked striking the infamous tongue out pose whilst wearing an Alexander Wang Principle 1.2.6 campaign style beanie hat Italy's entry made clear, sarcastic references to both Miley Cyrus and Rihanna. However its main target was Lady Gaga.

Very much a gay icon Lady Gaga is currently on her "ARTPOP" tour and likes to portray herself as the pinnacle of modern high art, cultural and fashion. The problem is that people who actually work at the pinnacle of high art, culture and fashion disagree with Lady Gaga's work being seen as mediocre at best and overly prone to being weird for the sake of being weird. As such the Italians seemed to be highlighting the way that the gay community can be easily fooled and blinded to the wider picture by simple appeals to their vanity. This is of course central to the gay-rights trend at the heart of this years contest.

Through the Roman god inspired stage show and lyrics extolling the virtues of an unspecified Italian city the song "La Mia Città (My City)" seemed to be reminding people - particularly the Roc Nation/Live Nation family - that Italy is considered an artistic, fashion and cultural power house which is why those Americans are forced to visit when they need help. After all it is sometimes said that Jay Z and Beyonce in particular "live like Greek gods" by people who are not paying them a compliment. As such this was clearly Italy embracing European high culture over American low culture.

This message was actually reinforced at last Monday's (5/5/14) Vogue magazine's Met Ball in New York which is considered the pinnacle of the US fashion calender. The theme of the event was a Black & White ball. The Eurovision Song Contest was held at the B&W Hallerne (Hall) in Copenhagen. So while the Roc Nation family (Beyonce, Kim Kardashian, Rihanna etc) all rushed to the Met Ball thinking that their star power would overwhelm the song contest they were actually being reminded that the creative and talented people they rely on to provide them with the clothes and favourable write-ups that make them 'fashion icons' could easily withdraw that assistance. Or as Beyonce sometimes like to pout; "I can have another you by tomorrow / I could have another you in a minute."

Macedonia: With her spiky hair, tattoos and somewhat butch demeanour Macedonia's Tijana is the sort of women you find yourself questioning whether she is gay or straight when you first meet her. If you were to assume that she is gay - as Eurovision's gay fanbase tend to do - you would be wrong. As such she makes a large contribution to gay-rights trend by highlighting that gay-rights activists can be prone to rushing to judgement before they're in possession of all the facts.

This theme was continued by the video in support of the song "To the Sky" which began with images of flames rising from the ground. Azerbaijan is known as "The Land of Fire" because there is so much oil and natural gas there sometimes it seeps to the surface and catches fire of its own accord. The problems that were encountered in the gay-rights element of the Sochi games were of course foreshadowed by the reaction to Azerbaijan's 2013 entry. The video then goes on to feature men in US-style military flight suits which was a reference to the special status that Azerbaijan currently enjoys because its location means it would provide an essential base for US military action against Iran. The video also features Tijana writhing around in a bath tub apparently in the nude only with very obvious flesh-coloured underwear preserving her modesty. This is reminiscent of the video for "Bad Romance" by Lady Gaga whom the Italians were very focused on and - to a lesser extent - Rihanna's "Stay" video. By joining in with the aggressive pushing of the bounds of taste and decency Macedonia was having a laugh at the US' attempts to send us all into a moral panic over Miley Cyrus' revealing stage costumes and Rihanna's topless photographs.

In her biography much is made of the fact that Tijana comes from a very musical family with a music professor father and an opera singer mother. Tijana herself graduated from music college and became a classical cellist who has played with the Macedonian national orchestra and the international orchestra in Leipzig, Germany. Apart from being a slight and complimentary reference to Marvel Comics "Agents of Shield" series this highlights Macedonia's achievements in high culture while touching on the issue of Rihanna's education.

So although they technically didn't make it into the final I think they were robbed and Macedonia can feel rightly proud of their entry which apart from being technically accomplished seemed very much aware of the wider trends at this years contest. So much so that if I'd covered them on Thursday (8/5/14) it would have spoilt everything.

Poland: By far the most eye catching entry of the year was by Polish born hip hop/rap producer Donatan and featured hip hop style beats alongside lyrics about Polish/Slavic identity alongside traditional costumes. As such it addressed the high culture versus low culture debate by saying that because Poland has a strong national identity of its own it is happy to see both influences blended together. This was reflected in the fact that the song used both Polish and English (American) lyrics. However it also seemed to feature a warning that if people like Jay Z, Chris Brown or Drake were to try pulling their fake gangster cr*p in that part of the world they'd better bring a lot of security with them.

With lyrics such as; "We're Slavic girls, we know how to use our charming beauty," "Vodka is better than whisky and gin, The best in us whatever you want" and "No better than our Slavic girls" along with an overtly sexual presentation including a video that is racier than some porn films I've seen Poland's entry was keen to portray Slavic women as party girls or the "Hoes" featured in hip hop/rap videos. As such it was making a very large contribution to the trend of the sexual objectification of eastern European women and its role in sex trafficking.

However to me this all seemed intended to disguise a much darker purpose to the entry. A very significant figure in Slavic/Russian politics is Vladimir the Great who was the 10th Century King of what was then known as "Kievan-Rus" which was made up of parts of Russia, Ukraine and Poland. Vladimir's great achievement was converting the Pagan Slavs of Kievan-Rus to what is now Russian Orthodox Christianity and he himself was baptised a Christian in Crimea. For this achievement and fighting some wars alongside Scandinavian (Viking) Kings Vladimir the Great was made a Saint and took the name Saint Basil II in honour of Saint Basil the Great. Although it is officially named after Saint Basil the third who came later the large, onion domed Cathedral in Moscow that everyone mistakes for the Kremlin is actually Saint Basil's Cathedral. Current Russian President Vladimir Putin's "Strong Russia" identity is very much built around the Russian Orthodox Church and has seen Saints including Vladimir the Great venerated once again. In fact when signing the documents allowing Crimea to re-join Russia Putin spoke at length about Vladimir the Great.

So by reminding Slavs of their hot Slavic blood, their Slavic genes and their Pagan history alongside an uptempo, energetic tune accompanied by the type of sexual imagery that gets the testosterone pumping Poland appeared to be inciting western Slavs in Ukraine on which groups like Right Sector, Svoboda and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UIA) form a lot of their identity to go and fight eastern Slavs in Ukraine. That's because although they're generally all Slavs there is a lot of tension between western and eastern Slavs in the way that there is a lot of tension amongst Northern Ireland's Christians. Also a lot of the anti-Kiev groups in the east have shown signs of re-connecting with their rival Cossack heritage.

As such I think there are not only very serious questions about whether Poland should have been disqualified from the Eurovision Song Contest for very clearly violating the founding principle of "promoting tolerance" but also whether they should be allowed to participate in future European Union (EU) discussions on Ukraine. That's because Poland's song contest entry very much reflects Poland's wider, rabid approach to Ukraine where they seem intent on inflaming the situation - presumably in an effort to provoke a war between NATO and Russia 

Anyway at 16:30 on 12/5/14 (UK date) all this talk of Polish and Ukrainian aggression has caused my computer to slow right down. So I'll be back after dinner with the UK's entry and bit of tidying up. Hopefully then I will finally be finished.

Edited at around 18:50 on 12/5/14 (UK date) to add;

The United Kingdom (UK): Certainly since the 2012 Summer Olympics in London the UK has trumpeted itself as the World leader in cultural soft-power. However it has a long history of sending utter cr*p to the Eurovision Song Contest. In 2013 it brought Bonnie Tyler out of retirement to push the issue of my then recently deceased Welsh grandmother onto the agenda. In 2012 I'm pretty sure Britain exhumed Engelbert Humperdinck in the hope he would attract votes from elderly eastern European women. As such in song contest circles the UK is viewed as highly arrogant considering their best soft-power efforts to be far too good to be wasted on such a silly contest.

The UK's 2014 entry "Children of the Universe" was intended to tackle this head on with great efforts being made to present the singer - Molly Smitten-Downes - as a credible popstar within the UK. So for example much was made of the fact she'd won best Urban/Pop act at the Live and Unsigned contest, 'Best Song' at the Best of British Unsigned Music Awards and was participating in the BBC's "Introducing" program when she was picked to compete in Eurovision. It was also made quite clear that Molly had collaborated with the well known "DJ Sash!"and had supported Beyonce on some of the UK dates of her 2013 tour. However one suspects that she was only handed these honours because she had already been selected as the UK's entry into the song contest. Her first name "Molly" is a slang term for the illegal drug "MDMA/Ecstasy" which seems to have been referenced a lot in mainstream pop-music recently perhaps most noticeably by Rihanna in "Diamonds." As such Smitten-Downes was chosen in a large part to bring up the issues of drug use and Rihanna - two issues that should have overlapped extensively during Rihanna's 2013 tour.

Apart from being a slight reference to the BBC TV show "Doctor Who" the "Universe" that appeared constantly throughout the song was a reference to the notion of "Divine Right" under which Monarchs rule or "Manifest Destiny" which is similar concept adopted by the first Protestant settlers of the US. Essentially it means that they are anointed by God to succeed in whatever they do. As their success is pre-determined they obviously don't have to ask themselves the question of whether they've succeeded or failed. Apart from the belief that they had secret, insider knowledge it was in this context that the UK was referencing Rihanna because despite all the evidence to the contrary both the UK and the US still appear to believe that their Rihanna operation was 100% successful and they should carry on with it. The fact that the UK had clearly started the groundwork for the 2014 song contest as far back as 2012 helped to reinforce this point because why would they need to question how things went during the Sochi games because obviously they succeeded at that too.

Lyrics like; "We're shining like diamonds" and "I'll never walk alone" were intended as references to other recent UK soft-power efforts in the form of the Rihanna operation and the attempts to link the Hillsborough Inquest to Northern Irish politics respectively. The chorus where the lyric; "Power to the people" was just repeated over and over again was supposed to be the UK boasting that it was so good at soft-power it could control people across the World and get them marching to its tune. By contrast lyrics such as; "We're children of the universe" and "Just Children" were intended to promote discussion about whether anyone else shared the UK's amazing confidence in it's own abilities.

Although I may have slightly influenced the public voting by Tweeting a link to the song "Heaven Knows" by US band "The Pretty Reckless" which seems to have unintentionally heavily influenced the UK's entry it seemed that everyone at Eurovision had already made up their mind about the UK by that point. So for example while we were waiting for the public voting to take place and all the votes to be counted and merged the Danish TV hosts made a great spectacle of presenting Molly with a Rihanna-style birthday cake even though it wasn't her birthday. This felt very much like Eurovision telling the UK to p*ss off.

Denmark: As hosts the Danes not only had to enter a song but also had to put on all the production surrounding the broadcast. They performed this task exceptionally well with most the opening sequences being so grand they often made the first act on stage look a bit rubbish by comparison. However the Danish entry did seem a bit thin because no-one wants the hassle of staging the contest two years in a row.

Their song "Cliche Love Song" was performed by Basim who is of Moroccan origin. This was to highlight that the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) includes nations such as Morocco. It was also a contribution to the sex trafficking theme by highlighting that amongst southern European states there is a growing problem of women being trafficked into western Europe from sub-Saharan Africa as well as eastern Europe. This is something that Willow Smith took a swing at and missed by being photograph on a bed with a much older white man. The fact that Boko Haram and the campaigners who support them have been able to so neatly position themselves within this debate is why people know that they are being backed by certain European nations. Especially ones who are heavily involved in the oil industry despite having little or no oil of their own.

The overall tone of the Danish entry was Bruno Mars or more specifically his half-time show at the most recent Superbowl. This was a somewhat lazy contribution to the gay-rights theme because the US were the main driving force behind the Sochi failure and the Superbowl half-time show was a large part of the US effort. It was in the few hours after the Eurovision Song Contest had ended that Micheal Sam was drafted making him the first openly gay player in the NFL. This was intended to bring up the US' approach to gay-rights in Sochi which seemed centred on the US screaming about how much more tolerant then Russia it was with someone new coming out as gay seemingly every single day.

Mainly though the Danish reference to the Superbowl was to point out that the Eurovision Song Contest is the second most watched event in the World just behind the Superbowl. However with many people only watching the Superbowl for the half-time shows and the adverts you could argue that the song contest is by far the culturally superior event and with China broadcasting the Eurovision Song Contest for the first time it could well overtake the Superbowl as the World's biggest spectacle.


I know I say it every year but I need to finish off by saying how impressed I was by the very high standard of this years contest because there didn't seem to be any duds at all. Even with the Albanian and Georgian entries which I singled out it was more a case of them being the least best entries rather then the worst.

If anything I'm slightly worried that the standard might have become too high because while I have a certain aptitude for this and time to do research a lot of the people who watch the song contest do so casually because it is on in the Saturday evening prime-time slot. With such a high standard there is a very real risk that a lot of what is going on will simply go over most people's heads causing them to lose interest. For example Poland's entry topped the public vote in the UK but the UK panel who'd looked at it in more detail and taken advice from the foreign intelligence service rated it 25th out of 26 making it quite clear that the UK does not want to be seen endorsing that sort of behaviour.

As such it might be time to either lower the standard or change the voting system with the panels being given greater weighting then the public vote. After all the difference between democracy and mob rule is that under democracy we choose people to specialise in complex issues on our behalf rather then trying to decide on every complex issue ourselves. 


20:15 on 12/5/14 (UK date).

The 2014 Eurovision Song Contest: The Grand Final.

Saturday (10/5/14) evening saw the grand final of the 2014 Eurovision Song Contest held in Copenhagen, Denmark. It was won by Austria with The Netherlands and Sweden finishing in second and third position respectively. However before I start talking about the winning entries I should start by discussing the main trends at this year's competition. Not least because I'm actually writing this up offline several hours before the start of the final.

Kim Kardashian: Or perhaps more accurately the mystery of my relationship with Kim Kardashian and specifically that time she crashed my Twitter timeline during the 2014 Winter para-Olympic opening ceremony. I must confess that having heard all the jokes about the sex tape, the 72 day marriage, being famous for no apparent reason when I was introduced to Kim Kardashian (via Twitter) I was fully expecting to not like her at all. So imagine my annoyance in discovering that I do actually quite like Kim Kardashian. Not in any way that Kanye West needs to be jealous off but we do seem to have a few things in common such as our ages and well I'm essentially just a gossipy housewife at the heart. Plus I think that motherhood really seems to suit Kim Kardashian.

Obviously to understand Kim Kardashian's feelings about me you will need to speak to her. However I am aware that Kim Kardashian is of Armenian heritage and as a world famous Armenian is expected to know a lot about Armenian culture and history including the slaughter of 1.5million Armenians by troops from the Ottoman-Turk Empire in Van in 1915. Whether or not those killings can be described as a "genocide" is still hotly contested within international politics. However due to this knowledge of Europe and its sometimes bloody history I think it is fair to say that Kim Kardashian understands the stakes of the current situation in Ukraine in a way that most Americans simply do not.

As a result of this trend it seemed compulsory that every dark haired female (and one male) contestant had to resemble Kim Kardashian in some way, shape or form. Curiously Armenia was one of the few nations not to join in with this trend seeming to make great efforts to avoid dark haired women in both of their stage performances.

Eastern High Culture Versus Western Low Culture: This was a topic that was raised during the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia and has been expanded on at Eurovision. As a result many former Soviet states such as Moldova, Albania and Slovenia to name but a few entered songs that represented a strong understanding of classical music and opera either through the style of the songs themselves or in the artist's background. This is in direct contrast to previous years where the former Soviet states have entered really trashy pop/dance songs presumably in the belief that it what people in the west like.

By far the best contribution to this discussion though came from France with their song "Moustache" by "TWIN TWIN." Although seemingly silly at first glance Moustache actually has quite a serious message about a man who has all the consumerist status symbols that a man could want but would happily trade it all for the ability to grow a moustache. As such it seems to be suggesting that the man is only chasing all these consumer fashions and trends to cover up the fact that he is not a proper man with a moustache being a symbol of masculine identity.

Obviously under Communism consumer capitalism was banned meaning that when the Soviet Union collapsed people in the former Soviet States embraced it in a big way with Levi jeans and McDonalds burgers becoming huge status symbols. This race to embrace American trash culture also seems to have been reflected in former Soviet States previous Eurovision entries and the growing popularity of sub-par hip hop/rap music of the type peddled by Chris Brown and Drake. However as the former Soviet States grow in confidence they seem happier to embrace the high culture of the Soviet years as evidenced by this year's entries. As such the French seemed to be posing the question of whether it is a lack of national identity in these former Soviet states that is driving their obsession with American consumerism.

So although some might criticise France's entry for being overtly political against contest rules I think it just about gets away with it because it is talking about a broad social trend rather then a specific political issue. Plus it was that good you have absolutely no trouble believing the list of famous and talented people that TWIN TWIN claim to have worked with.

The Sexual Objectification of Women: Or more specifically the sexual objectification of eastern European women and the role it plays in prostitution in western Europe and pan-European sex trafficking.

Membership of the European Union (EU) particularly the Schengen Agreement allows for the free movement of people across national borders with no questions being asked. This is obviously great news for anyone who wants to go and live in another EU nation for the cultural experience or simply to find better paid work. However it is also great news for organised crime gangs who kidnap young women in eastern European nations and then sell them into prostitution in western Europe. After all few people have the time to ask whether their whore is a Slavic girl from Poland which is an EU member state or a Slavic girl from Ukraine which is not an EU member state. In short the film "Taken" only really differs from reality because in reality there is rarely a movie star hero to sweep in and save the day.

It is issues such as these which means that I find the efforts of western liberal elites to suppress parties such as UKIP who are trying to have a grown up conversation about EU immigration policy including its negative aspects really annoying. After all even amongst my - shall we say - more shadowy associates there is an understanding that you keep as far away as possible from people traffickers because there is simply very little they will not do. Obviously this negative aspect of immigration is something that nations who oppose the policy of free movement of people for more selfish, economic reasons are keen to focus on. However even within the Schengen Agreement there are many things that can be done to tackle this problem with legalised prostitution with a system of licensing and inspection being the most obvious solution.

This trend was touched on through the battle of the sexes of Lithuania's entry and the overt and intentional misogyny of Belerus' "Cheesecake." It was then expanded on by Poland's somewhat pornographic "We Are Slavic" and Russia's Tolmachevy Twins. This featured two, very young blond girls who are veterans of the borderline paedophilic Junior Eurovision Song Contest holding up what appeared to be giant glass dildos as they were tied up - ass to ass - by their hair. It was Switzerland though who really crowned this discussion with the video for their entry "Hunter of Stars" portraying the singer Seblater as the ever helpful hotel concierge that everybody loves because he brings them 'extra pillows'. The fact that the Swiss song managed to hide some extremely dark lyrics behind such a happy and cheerful tune really helped to highlight how we all seem happy to ignore this hidden problem.

Gay-Rights: Or more specifically the collective failure of Europe's gay-rights activists to take advantage of the Sochi Winter Olympics to further the cause of gay-rights in Russia.

Although I think governmental mischief and wider geo-political issues played a significant role in this failure I found the way the gay-rights issue was handled in Sochi to be hugely disappointing. That is because it seemed as though the Russian hosts had gone to great lengths to make sure that all the issues behind homophobia in Russia were neatly lined up for more enlightened, western gay-rights activists to help knock down. Unfortunately the international gay community seemed to collectively choke at the opportunity and simply imploded.

This failure was somewhat foreshadowed at the 2013 song contest by the reaction to Azerbaijan's entry. That featured a man dancing on top of a perspex box containing another man dressed all in black who was acting as his shadow. Eurovision's large gay viewership immediately took this as a metaphor for the man's hidden homosexuality and started hyperventilating. However the real issue being addressed was much wider and much more serious then gay-rights and was re-visited more clearly in Azerbaijan's 2014 entry. If you've worked out what that issue is I'm sure you'll appreciate why it still isn't appropriate for me in my role as "The Big, Booming Voice of god" to shout about it.

As a result many of this year's Eurovision's entries featured subtle little references to Azerbaijan's 2013 entry in an effort to remind gay-rights activists that they perhaps need to calm down a bit because while important gay-rights are important they are not the be all and end all of life on earth. With lyrics about waking up amid the rubble and  being forced to walk across broken glass before rising from the ashes like a Phoenix one of the leading voices in this criticism was Austria's Conchita Wurst which has to be one of the most gloriously gay Eurovision entries ever.

Although I don't think it quite justifies being elevated to the status of a full trend there also seemed to be an undercurrent of discussion about Eurovision's taste and decency rules covering how overtly sexual an act can be, how much flesh a performer can flash and whether or not they can use swear words. Rather then being a response to the US' efforts to cause hysteria over this issue through Miley Cyrus and Rihanna this is almost a constant discussion at Eurovision. That's because the contest has to appeal to viewers in Islamic nations such as Jordan where a women with her hair uncovered is considered risque alongside more puritan nations such as Britain where the sight of a heaving bosom could cause a national panic and more liberal European nations such as France and Italy who couldn't really care less if performers turned up fully nude.

As a result many of the videos supporting entries featured lots of female leg and thigh being flashed and several featured women supposedly nude whilst writhing around in bathtubs while Poland's entry rather speaks for itself. The video for Italy's entry "La Mia Citta" even featured the singer Emma wearing an Alexander Wang Principle 1.2.6 campaign style beanie hat emblazoned with the word "Fuck." This aggressive boundary pushing seemed to be Eurovision having a collective laugh about US attempts to drive us all wild with the scandal of Miley Cyrus' stage costumes or Rihanna being photographed topless. Also it seemed to be making the point that it is quite difficult to bring up issues relating to sexuality, prostitution and sex trafficking without making sexual references and the Eurovision rules are certainly a lot tighter then those applied to the modern pop-industry. However those rules are deliberately tight in order to inspire creativity, make people work harder keeping dross like Taylor Momsen out.

Anyway it was around track 13 that I decided that I really needed a drink to take the edge off. After a further 13 songs some 'interesting' half-time entertainment while the voting took place and then the nail-biting announcement of the results I think it is probably best that I go to bed before writing more. However I can't resist saying a few words about our new queen of Eurovision;

Austria: Although I don't know him that well I strongly suspect that Tom Neuwirth - the man behind "Conchita Wurst" is a homosexual. However that does not mean that he thinks he is a woman or is either a transvestite or a transsexual. Instead he is a drag act which means that by wearing women's clothes when he performs he is simply putting on a costume and assuming a character in order to entertain. Basically he is just a type of clown.

Your first clue that Neuwirth doesn't expect to be taken seriously as a women when he appears as Conchita Wurst should be that he has not only gone to the trouble of growing a beard but he keeps that beard whilst in character. As such Conchita Wurst is the archetypal "Bearded Lady" from circus freak-shows throughout the world. This is a little nod to the fact that Eurovision is widely considered as the worlds greatest freak-show. In fact every year there is the unofficial presentation of the "What The F*ck?! (WTF) award. This dates back to the early days of the song contest when the world was a much less interconnected place and the contest was very much a one day affair at which nations would turn up to make their bold cultural statement in their native language only for absolutely no-one else to have any idea what they were going on about. However in more recent years nations have deliberately targeted this award in order to boost their international profile by standing out as the most strange and memorable entry.

Through her physical appearance Conchita Wurst obviously played into the Kim Kardashian theme and particularly through an introductory video (postcard) which portrayed her sorting through magnificent gowns like some sort of fashion expert. However Austria's references to Kim Kardashian were very light hearted and playful in an effort to engage other nations in discussion about what Austria saw as something pretty obvious and help guide those nations in the right direction. So where every other nation was falling over themselves to award Austria maximum points Austria awarded maximum points to Armenia. Obviously holding the 2015 contest in Armenia on almost the exact date of the 100th anniversary of the Van massacre would have placed a lot of pressure on Turkey.

Obviously the main thrust of Austria's entry was the gay-rights issue and not only was this done through the lyrics but the song was very much in the style of the big ballads used as theme songs for James Bond movies. James Bond is of course the world famous British secret agent so this seemed to be a reference to the role that spy agency mischief and wider geo-politics played in screwing up the gay-rights element of the Sochi Winter Olympics.

Edited at around 14:00 on 11/5/14 (UK date) to add; Obviously I finished mid-paragraph last night.

The Netherlands: Their entry "Calm After the Storm" by The Common Linnets was all about helping to bring their traditional ally Britain back into the European fold by pushing Miley Cyrus onto the agenda whilst she was in the UK at the start of the European leg of her tour. As such much was made of the fact that the band had spent a lot of time in Miley Cyrus' hometown of Nashville, US honing their craft. The "white lines" supposedly representing road markings that were projected onto the stage during the performance were intended to represent cocaine in an effort to fuel entirely false rumours that Miley Cyrus' recent health has been caused by excessive cocaine use although even that rumour has been struggling to find traction. Even the title of the song was supposed to suggest that for Europe Miley Cyrus is the calm following the storm of last years Rihanna tour although I'm pretty sure this has got to be the first time Miley Cyrus has been described as a calming influence.

Through her appearance the Common Linnets female vocalist - Ilse DeLange - appears to have made great efforts to resemble UK pop-singer Duffy who was reasonably famous in the last decade particularly for her debut song "Mercy." As such the Dutch were challenging to Israeli accusation that old Europe's Protestant Monarchies - of which the Dutch House of Orange are central players - lack mercy whilst at the same time enquiring as to what Moldova meant with their song "Wild Soul."

The somewhat sneaky trick the Dutch played was to wrap this rather unpopular political agenda up in actually a rather good song which although unlikely to become a sales hit certainly seems capable of finding space on radio play-lists across Europe. As such this brought up the contest's voting system which - apart from exceptional circumstances - gives 50% of a nation's vote to panels made up people from within the music/entertainment industry and 50% to the public through televoting.

Although they are under some obligation to recognise artistic achievement these panels don't really have to explain why they've voted the way that they did and are certainly allowed to base a large part of their decisions on the vague notion of their "general impression of an act" which means they are able to award votes based on the political agenda of an act and how a national team has performed on the gauntlet of red carpets, fan meet and greets and press interviews that take place throughout the week long contest. The public on the other hand tend to simply vote for the song that sounds the best to them based on the performance in the final. While I've not done a full statistical analysis of the results based on a quick glance it appears that the Dutch tended to be marked down by the panels but were elevated by the public votes.

On this issue of the voting system in a bit of a scandal the Georgian panel votes were excluded due to unspecified irregularities meaning that only their public votes were counted. Although I don't know the exact details the message from this appears to be that the Georgian authorities are still not trusted by people in Europe.

Sweden: Their entry "Undo" by Sanna Nielsen very much reflected Sweden's fears that it is becoming increasingly isolated within European politics. Although they have managed to do it incredibly discreetly and subtly Sweden have taken a very hawkish position on every major issue such as Syria, Ukraine and the US and the UK's Rihanna operation. With lyrics such as; "Silent I just stood there silent" and "Trouble baby I’m in trouble" Sweden is suggesting that for far too long it has simply gone with the flow and is questioning whether it is time for them to break away from the Protestant Monarchy minority made up the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium and the US and join up with the majority view in European politics. However through lyrics such as; "Gotta make a change, And make some noise" Sweden's seems to be indicating that it intends to continue on its current path particularly when it comes to Ukraine.


As for why the song did so well it is a big ballad and Eurovision voters do love big ballads. Also there is something of a Scandinavian mafia in Eurovision voting with the longstanding joke being that if you live in Norway, Denmark or Iceland you are - by law - only allowed to vote for Sweden. Finally by being placed in the top three Sweden's entry will receive a lot more attention and therefore discussion than if it had placed fifth or even fourth.






So there are the top three finishes from the 2014 Eurovision Song Contest. Obviously I can't write up every single entry in this level of detail or I'd still be doing it by the time the 2015 contest begins. However later to day or perhaps more likely tomorrow I will write up some of the more stand-out entries. In the meantime feel free to enjoy how this post originally ended as shown below.




15:40 on 11/5/14 (UK date).
 

Yep I'm clearly too far gone to complete that point or any of the many other points that Conchita Wurst so beautifully encapsulated. However before I go I should point out that "Vladimir the Great" was the 10th Century King of Kievan-Rus (modern Ukraine) who converted the Pagan Slavs to Russian Orthodox Christianity. He was himself baptised a Christian in Crimea and current Russian President Vladimir Putin referenced Vladimir the Great in the speech marking Crimea's re-entry to Russia. As such Poland's attempt to remind Ukrainians of their "[western] Slavic Blood" seemed very much like an incitement to ethnic cleansing and seems to have had some impact in Mariupol on Friday (9/5/14). As such I feel forced to say;

Poland. "No Ethnic Cleansing" isn't even the first rule of Eurovision. Do you know why it's not the first rule of Eurovision?! It's because it's so f*cking obvious no-one thought we would need an actual f*cking written rule!!"

Mind the you the way the Poles managed to disguise that in many different clothes should give you a clue as to why here in the lazy and entitled UK we are absolutely terrified of Polish immigration.

00:00 on 11/5/14 (UK date).