#oneaday Day 569: It's All Kicking Off

"It's all kicking off." A phrase which now represents the recent riots that have been taking place around the UK.

I'm not going to use this as a means of making some sort of political comment on the whole thing, because as a normal human being and a law-abiding citizen, frankly I don't care on the political aspect of it — if there even is one. What I do care about is that people in this country have the capacity to go completely batshit mental and smash the shit out of absolutely everything, then set fire to it just to make sure it's good and properly destroyed.

A piece on the BBC earlier summed up pretty much what I think about the whole thing — a growing culture of consumerism, materialism and a sense of misplaced entitlement among young people is highly likely to blame. Evidence of it is everywhere, and as an ex-teacher I frequently came face to face with the kind of behaviour which, left unchecked, could (and did) escalate into something altogether more sinister.

Parents do need to take more responsibility for their children and be able to tell them "no" rather than pandering to their whims. In the first school I taught in, the most unpleasant child in the class would never turn up to his detentions because, I quote, "Mum says I don't have to do detentions". In the face of such defiance from not only the child but the parents too, what exactly is the educational system expected to do in order to instil a sense of "good citizenship" in these little scruttocks?

It's not all kids, of course, but any time an event like this comes along — particularly one of this magnitude — it's easy to quickly decry all children and teenagers as "feral" and start advocating increasingly Draconian societal measures. That's possibly not the answer, as it would likely lead to even greater social unrest — unrest which the previously "nice" kids might feel compelled to join in on.

What is a problem is the gang culture that is growing and spreading in our towns. When I worked in retail in Southampton, we used to have an almost constant gang presence in the store thanks to the fact that we offered, in effect, free Internet access. Hordes of youths in hoodies, ill-fitting trousers tucked into socks and several tons of cheap "gold" jewellery frequently spent the best part of a day in the store, intimidating staff and customers alike, until we got to a stage where enough was enough and we had to start taking tougher action.

The presence of these individuals was enough to be intimidating, but then you looked at what they were doing online. Most of them made use of the social networking site "Bebo" at the time, and most of them were on there "repping" whatever gang they happened to come from around the city. In some ways, it was sort of hilariously pathetic, as these kids boasted about how hard they were, how excellent their rapping was (spoiler: it wasn't very excellent) and how badly they were going to "murk" their rivals from the next postcode over. But on the other hand, the obsession with guns, violence and materialism coupled with severely short tempers was somewhat sinister — and it made running across these individuals outside a disturbing, unpleasant experience. And they knew it.

The scariest thing about these riots is seeing that the people that I fear are capable of scary shit. Having your fears justified only makes them more scary.

At the time of writing, at least, things do seem to be calming down a bit. I hope this momentary madness passes and the devastated communities affected by the chaos can regroup, rebuild and move on. And that the scumbags responsible are brought to swift and humiliating justice.

#oneaday, Day 242: Original and Best

I p-p-picked up a Penguin earlier (note to Americans: this is a chocolate biscuit, not an actual penguin nor a low-cost paperback reprint of a classic novel) and was dismayed to see a word on the wrapper that seems to be becoming more and more common on the foodstuffs of my childhood: "Original".

To me, the word "Original" written on something implies "Hey! You used to like this. But very soon, we're going to do something that utterly destroys your memories of it, like adding fifteen new flavours completely unnecessarily!" The word "Original" implies that there are soon to be "non-Original" varieties. While I certainly wouldn't be averse to the idea of a chocolate mint or chocolate orange Penguin bar, it does seem somewhat unnecessary given that a number of other chocolate biscuit maufacturers have the whole "flavoured chocolate biscuit" thing pretty well stitched up. Similarly, Penguin have had the whole "chocolate-coated chocolate biscuit with chocolate cream filling" thing working for them for many years now. So why the change?

The ultimate sacrilege of this type I've seen is Rice Krispies. Rice Krispies are Rice Krispies. You can customise them with milk and sugar and those interminably homosexual mascots they have, but they're still Rice Krispies.

Not any more! They're "Rice Krispies: Original", which again implies that there are soon to be "non-Original" Rice Krispies invading our cereal cupboards. The thing is, non-Original Rice Krispies already exist. They're called Ricicles (sugary Rice Krispies) and Coco Pops (chocolatey Rice Krispies). So are we going to lose these established, recognisable and, to some (who really enjoy cereal, like, a bit too much), beloved brands? Perhaps.

Why does this happen, though? Perhaps it's part of the growing culture we have where Choice is Good. Yes, Choice is Good. But there are some things where we don't really need quite so much of it. Breakfast cereals and chocolate biscuits being two such examples. Mobile phone packages and varieties of bottled water are two more. Electricity tariffs. Types of coffee. Whether I want chillisaucesalad on my kebab. Too much pressure!

The upshot of all this is that people begin expecting choice in everything they do, even when it's completely inappropriate to do so. Look at education; both the Government and parents seem to expect teachers to be able to deliver a personalised, customised experience for every child. There's even an official "programme" for it: Every Child Matters. And yes, they do. But there are 30 children in an average classroom. And one teacher. Perhaps one or two assistants. Have you ever tried to get thirty different people, some of whom already have attention-deficit disorders, to do a selection of different things? It's immensely difficult and nigh on impossible. But it's expected. Because Choice is Good. Personalisation is Good. People should be able to have the experiences they want, when they want them.

So, with that in mind, balls to non-Original Penguins. They're destroying our education system.

Possibly.

#oneaday, Day 101: You're A Bigoted Nazi And I Hate You, You Twat

Election news, and this happened today:

Yes, for those of you who haven't been on the Internet at all today, Gordon Brown made a somewhat embarrassing gaffe when he inadvertently left his microphone on after a televised interview with a voter from Rochdale. Voter in question, one Gillian Duffy, was somewhat outspoken about her opinions, having been a Labour voter all her life, and raised a concern over the number of Eastern European immigrants coming into the country. It wasn't quite a full-on "they're coming over here, stealing our jobs" Daily Mail rant, but Gordon clearly thought it could potentially get into that sort of territory, looking visibly uncomfortable as he attempted to reassure her.

Then, when leaving the scene, his microphone was left switched on, allowing the general public to hear him pronounce the meeting as a "disaster" to his aides. He noted that they "should never have put [him] with that woman" and demanded to know "whose idea was that?"

When questioned on what she said that offended him so, his response was "Oh, everything… she's just a sort of bigoted woman who said she used to be Labour, I mean, it's ridiculous."

Now let's give Gordon a bit of credit here. He's showing himself to be a human. This is something of a rarity. Who hasn't had a good rant at colleagues after dealing with a particularly difficult customer? The difference here, of course, is that the rest of us don't have radio microphones. Nor are we under constant scrutiny from the press and public alike. The most we have to worry about is whether or not our boss is following us on Twitter. (If they are, block them now. Seriously. And don't even think about adding them on Facebook.)

Gordon is under this sort of scrutiny. He was under this sort of scrutiny even when he wasn't on the election campaign trail. Which means that within moments of it happening, news was all over the Internet. It's been said a number of times before that the fact this is the first election where social networking is going to be a big deal. This incident, and the speed with which it spread from Twitter to Facebook and back again many times over, just goes to show how much power the Internet is going to have over the end result of the election. Couple this with the various campaigns in support of underdog Nick Clegg of the LibDems on Facebook and things aren't looking too rosy for our PM.

The worrying thing about this situation is that it's allowing parties with more extreme views such as the BNP to gain more support. Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP, claimed in his controversial (and Marmite-smeared) election broadcast that the BNP is the "fastest growing party in Britain". This may well be an exaggeration (and probably is) but the big issue for a lot of people at this election is immigration. A lot of people feel rather strongly about it, to say the least. A lot of people are becoming more outspoken about their views. And a lot of people are starting to sympathise with the BNP's views. When they see damning evidence that the "main" parties don't appear to be paying attention to the things that matter to them, that's when they start to look elsewhere. And hearing your views dismissed as being "bigoted" by the Prime Minister certainly isn't going to make you feel like voting for a party you've been loyal to your whole life.

I'm no fan of the Daily Mail "Britain is FULL!" line and I don't particularly agree with Gillian Duffy's statements. But it's her right as a voter to share those views with the prospective candidates and question them on what their plans to do something about them are. It's part of being an informed voter. This election is actually interesting people for once, so voters have every right to make an informed choice. What Gordon should have done – and in fact, what Gordon has said he was going to do – was engage with the woman's opinions and open a debate. Part of being a politician is dealing with people who hold differing viewpoints to you. These viewpoints might be a little bit different, or they might be completely diametrically opposed to yours. The masters of their art can engage with these viewpoints and disagree with them in such a way which doesn't leave the other person feeling like a complete dick. I can only imagine how mortified Gillian Duffy must have felt when she discovered what had been said about her.

Fortunately, we don't have to imagine. Ever-resourceful and keen to potentially get a shot of someone either getting angry or starting crying, reporters on the scene decided to share the PM's gaffe with Duffy. This was her reaction:

Needless to say, the PM has lost the respect of one voter. Plus the millions of people who have retweeted and shared these videos all day. Plus the millions of people who don't "do" social networking but have watched over the shoulders of partners and spouses. Plus anyone who watched the news today.

Brown's defensiveness and unwillingness to engage with someone who disagreed with his views may well have cost him dear. Whatever you may think of Duffy's comments on the subject of immigration, they're pretty mild when compared with some of the things that BNP supporters come out with. Was calling her "bigoted" really necessary?

#oneaday, Day 95: Round 2! Fight!

The second round of the Leaders' Debate happened tonight on Sky News. This means we had an annoying news ticker running across the bottom of the screen all the way through, accompanied by occasional references to make us wish "God, I wish I was watching this in HD". There is no need for HD in a Leaders' Debate. Unless you really like watching people sweat.

It was what happened afterwards that was quite interesting, though. Sky immediately pronounced David Cameron the "winner" of the debate, according to the YouGov/Sun poll. Now, I'm immediately suspicious about this as the Sun is hardly the most objective point of reference when it comes to politics, particularly around election time. But my suspicions were further confirmed when, looking at various other polls on different websites, results varied enormously. One site put Nick Clegg at a 65% majority. Twitter was overwhelmingly pro-LibDem once again. Another site put the three potential leaders much closer to one another.

Conclusions to draw from this, then? Polls are utterly meaningless if there's more than one asking the same question, because you're going to get vastly different answers according to the audience. One could even question whether the election itself is truly representative of public opinion, given our typically low turnout at the polling station on the big day. And then there's our bizarre "first past the post" system, which means that it's actually extremely difficult for the LibDems to achieve a majority, even if most of the country were to turn yellow overnight. Political reform is high on the agenda for all three parties, and this is one thing I think will be looked at for next time around. Proportional representation is the buzzword. I remember reading about that during A-Level Sociology and while I can't quite recall what it actually means right now (and, it being late, can't quite be bothered to look it up), I'm pretty sure it's rather more fair than the odd system we have right now.

The real winner of the debate, as already mentioned, was Twitter. Twitter, during any sort of "big" event (and I use the term loosely, since last year The Apprentice became a "big" event on Twitter) explodes with discussion and jokes. It's where the "public" thing about Twitter really comes into its own. Anyone and everyone can post, and anyone and everyone can read what everyone else said. Everyone from my humble self to "them off the telly" like Charlie Brooker, Simon Pegg and numerous others were all at it. And while the volume of tweets was so high it was impossible to read them all and stay sane, it provided an interesting snapshot of how people were reacting to everything, on a real-time basis. Gaffes the politicians made were caught immediately – "every time I go to Afghanistan I get blown away" being my particular favourite – and several people took it upon themselves to count how many times they attempted a lame joke (often), a successful joke (rare) or a flirtation with an attractive audience member (a clear victory for Clegg).

The other entertaining thing about today was the front-page article from the Daily Mail accusing Clegg of a "Nazi" slur. The reason for this? This article from 2002 (yes, 2002), in which Clegg, then an MEP, hit out at the misplaced sense of British self-satisfaction, when Germany, having been beaten down from not one but two World Wars, had achieved rather more significant financial and cultural success than we have. I happen to agree with him. Does that mean I'm making Nazi slurs too? The Mail didn't even seem particularly clear on what they were accusing him of. Given that they had to go back eight years to find anything even vaguely controversial to dig up, they're clearly more than a bit desperate.

The LibDems have balls, I have to give them that. After the Mail's accusation, a political blog and a Lib Dem councillor allegedly seeded the Twitter hashtag #nickcleggsfault, where anyone and everyone would have the opportunity to blame Nick Clegg for something that clearly wasn't his fault. It's a joke that could have so easily backfired, but Twitter, itself overwhelmingly LibDem at present, took it to heart and has spent the whole day "blaming" Clegg for everything from the unpronouncable, unspellable Icelandic volcano that has brought so much irritation to air travellers, to John Romero's Daikatana. (I may have had something to do with that last one.)

This is the first time the election has felt like it "mattered". Thirteen years of Labour has turned a lot of people into cynics, which would explain the nation's poor turnouts at the last few elections. But hopefully, with all the buzz surrounding this one thanks to Twitter, Facebook, blogs and other means of online social networking, this may well be a year we start to see some big changes in British politics. And, as lovely as those beautiful old buildings down in Westminster are, what goes on inside them is in serious need of a big kick in the arse.

It's probably pretty clear from all this that I will be voting yellow all the way. I'm not saying you should, too. But you should at least vote. It would be heartening to know that the nation actually gives a shit about something more important than bloody football for once.

#oneaday, Day 88: The Leaders' Debate

Our potential leaders had their first ever American-style televised debate tonight. And, for the most part, I think it was a resounding success as a format. There was every possibility that it would become car-crash television – ITV's cheap, nasty sets that looked like they were recycled from a 1980s episode of The Krypton Factor didn't help – but it wasn't. I was only half-watching due to being over at a friend's house, but the parts I saw looked pretty interesting.

Sure, the three party leaders continually came out with their favourite soundbites (so predictable were they, in fact, that Dave Turner came up with the Official Drinking Game of the Leaders' Debate right here) but as an opportunity to see the three of them at work in a non-Parliamentary situation it was a good thing. Nick Clegg, in particular, who has been the butt of numerous comedians' jokes for being the "third place" candidate, doomed to obscurity by not being leader of one of the "big two" parties, came across rather well. And opinion polls conducted after the programme aired suggested that well over 40% of viewers felt that Clegg "won" the debate. Of course, there are two more to go yet, and some have suggested that Cameron and Brown were too concerned with getting their claws into each other to consider Clegg a threat this time. Perhaps it will all change next time and be more of a fight for the LibDem leader. But, importantly, this debate showed that he is indeed a contender in the coming fight.

Twitter was fun to watch. The #leadersdebate hashtag had an entertaining mix of jokes but also some decent discussion and commentary, too. A large number of tweets seemed to be very positive towards the LibDems, too, so could this perhaps be taken as an indication that change is a-comin'? Or is it just a sign that most people on Twitter are LibDem supporters? Who knows.

One thing's for sure: this election is actually going to be worth watching for once. Many of our politicians are stuffy, boring, corrupt arseholes and this fact normally switches me off entirely from the whole thing. But this time around, it's going to be quite a fight for the top spot, I think. (He says, from his woefully ill-informed position.) It's certainly not a foregone conclusion by any means, and many people are already talking about the possibility of a hung Parliament. I can't even begin to imagine how they'll get anything done if that happens, but I guess we'll have to wait and see how things go.

And, you know, vote.

#oneaday, Day 79: Morning!

Good morning! 2am today. BED ERROR.

Actually, I have a marginally good reason for it this time – I was waiting up to see if there was a response from a PR representative for an article I was writing. This is something I've not had to do before. I probably didn't need to wait up quite so late as I did (and play a bit of Game Room) but, well what are you going to do? (The PR rep did respond in the end, incidentally.)

So… what to talk about this time? How about the election, seeing as how it's on everyone's lips and Twitter feeds at the moment. Unless you're not British, in which case you probably couldn't give a damn what feckless idiot steps up to the plate to run our country further into the ground.

It's going to be a strange election this time around. The government we've had in for the last God-knows-how long ("Labour", for the non-British readers out there, a party traditionally associated with socialism but which has seen something of a drift towards the middle as time has gone on) has disillusioned rather a lot of people. The fact our leader is one of the most uncharismatic, doublespeak-speaking arses in British politics at the moment (not to mention the fact that we didn't elect him) has, amongst other things, pissed off a lot of people who are ready for a change.

But the alternatives… we have the Conservative party (traditionally the "other side" to Labour, but which has again drifted rather towards the middle as time has passed) fronted by Captain Middle Class, also known as David Cameron. To give him credit where it's due, Cameron is a better public speaker than Gordon Brown, but he is unashamedly and completely middle-class which I can't help feeling is going to count against him. While there are a lot of middle-class people in this country, there are also a lot of working class people who think he's nothing but a posh git. Hell, there are plenty of middle-class people who think he's a posh git, too. Smarmy, overly-Photoshopped advertising campaigns haven't helped, either.

Then there's the Liberal Democrats, aka "the ones that never get in". Traditionally, people have voted LibDem when they don't like the other two. There's going to be a lot of that this time around, with Labour having disillusioned a lot of people with the failures of the last thirteen years and the Conservatives alienating entire socioeconomic groups by being incredibly white and middle class. It, sadly, wouldn't be surprising to see more radical parties like the BNP (aka "the racist ones") get more of a foothold in Parliament.

Of course, I'm stating all this without any great understanding of the whole proceedings. This is just my opinion. But early buzz seems to suggest that we may well end up with a "hung Parliament" this time around, with no party holding a clear majority. I have no idea what that means for the country. It might actually make this election interesting for once, though.

Pity none of our politicians have the charisma of Obama. Whatever you may think of the President's policies, you can't argue with the fact that the man knows how to speak to a crowd.

#oneaday, Day 58: Bullshit Bingo

The school I work at (until this coming Friday, fact fans) recently had its updated OfSTED report published. For the uninitiated (and/or American) amongst you, this is the report on how "good" (sarcastic air quotes mine, not theirs) the school is. At the last inspection, shortly before I arrived at the school in November, the school was judged to be "inadequate" and in need of "special measures" for various reasons that I won't bore you with now. The most recent report claimed that we were making "satisfactory" progress towards making the "required improvements" put forth in the "action plan".

The crowning glory of the report, though, was the phrase "stem the tide of falling underachievement", something which apparently we are doing. Now, I don't know quite how many negatives are in that statement but I'm sure there's the wrong number. Surely "falling underachievement" is a good thing, so you wouldn't want to "stem the tide" of it? Perhaps they meant "stem the tide of falling achievement", but that doesn't sound quite right either. And I'm pretty sure it's not "stem the tide of achievement", since that is how the school got into this mess in the first place, albeit not intentionally.

There's only one response to things like this: "BULLSHIT!"

It astonishes me quite how much people get away with peddling this nonsensical use of language under the pretence of it being "formal". Those of you who follow me on Twitter may remember what I did to the company that supposedly "manages" the estate of apartment blocks that I live on. I went through their letter and corrected it in red pen, then posted it back to them. The results are here, if you missed it first time:

I think I was quite generous with a D-.

Then, of course, you get anyone who talks about social media "professionally", or at least likes to think they do. They use words like "monetization strategy" and "leverage" to mean "how they are going to make money" and "use". What is wrong with "how they make money" and "use"? We've been using language like that for years. Why does the technological age suddenly have to bring in a bunch of new and meaningless jargon? And, while we're on, since when did the word "product" – without a trailing "s" – become a plural?

Politics are no better. Listen to our less-than-illustrious boring fart of a leader Gordon Brown speak and all you'll hear is string after string of meaningless waffle – so utterly devoid of actual content that by the time he reaches the end of his speech you've completely forgotten what the question was and you'll agree with him just to shut him up. The Tories aren't any better. Listen to Cameron in all his shiny-headed glory and all you get is repetitive catchphrases, empty promises and a slightly larger urge to slit your wrists than when you started. If I had to pick one of them to listen to, I'd pick Cameron, but it's a close-run thing, and with either of them I'd be chewing down on the cyanide capsules if I didn't have other things to distract me with.

I like plain speaking. The last few jobs I've applied for I've taken this approach and communicated with the potential employers or clients as an actual human being. I'm not "passionate" about things that I'm not really passionate about. I'm not "confident and enthusiastic". I'm not "a team player". I'm not… you know, all the other idiotic things that people only ever write when applying for a job and eventually get found out as being a liar. I'm Pete. I'm a human. I speak English. I don't speak jargon.

One A Day, Day 3: Why Teaching Sucks

Those of you who follow me on Twitter or know me in general will be aware that my loathing for the teaching profession is well-documented. That, of course, didn't stop me making an ill-advised move back into it after successfully escaping for two years. But I wonder how many of you know why?

Let me tell you.

Teaching sucks. There are many reasons for this – the chief among which is that in many, many schools the possibility of actually undertaking the activity for which the profession is named – you know, "teaching" – is rendered impossible. This happens in lots of ways.

First of all, there is the declining standard of behaviour in the classroom. I have a Year 4 class – 8 and 9 year olds. These kids are already well-versed in backchat to teachers, violence towards each other, swearing, refusing to do work and taking advantage of supposed "special needs" to their own advantage. (This isn't, of course, to put down those kids that do have genuine difficulties learning things, but rather to put down those kids who use their supposed "condition" as an excuse to behave like a twat.)

When asking for support with children like this from senior staff, the inevitable response to the poor teacher is "you need to develop some strategies". Well, fine. Give me some. Some that work. Oh, wait, none actually do work? Right. Let's do some nonsense with traffic lights that they'll ignore then.

"Keep at it. Be consistent," they'll say. And fine, fair enough, you should be consistent in your rewards and punishments. But I am distinctly old-fashioned in the opinion that I feel children should know their place. It is not their place to question their teacher. It is not their place to refuse to do work. It is not their place to get up out of their seat and wander around the classroom. I remember the "naughty children" in my class at primary school well (largely because they were also the ones who would bully the meeker kids such as myself), and while they were silly and could be outright nasty at playtime, in the classroom there was never any wandering around or backchat. Now, it's not an exaggeration to say it's a daily occurrence.

Second among the reasons that teaching is impossible is everyone's favourite friend, bureaucracy. By the end of a single day, my desk will be covered with useless pieces of paper – notes, memos, charts, tables, percentages, requests for information. All of it is meaningless, and I don't know where it all comes from. Why do we need to know so much information? Why is the school I'm teaching at considered a "failing" school because of some of these figures? Yes, many pupils are making slow progress but that's because, frankly, many of them came in pretty low, don't get much support at home and don't have the slightest clue how to behave in the classroom, even when this is pointed out by their teacher. The fact that these children are learning anything at all should be considered a success.

Another stupid thing: the excessively celebratory nature of most schools these days. It reaches a level where it is utterly meaningless. Celebration of achievement is an important part of motivation, but when children are getting certificates in assembly for "sitting quietly all day" or "always being cheerful", I think we may be taking things a little far. (That travesty of an "awards" ceremony happens on a weekly basis, by the way.)

The theory runs that children respond better to praise and encouragement than punishments. Well, I am yet to see any evidence of that in the three schools I have taught in, amongst children aged anywhere between 8 and 16. Children respond to things that are "unpleasant" for them. They don't want to miss out on fun things, and they definitely don't want to look stupid in front of their friends. So why don't we have a weekly "anti-celebration assembly" where the naughtiest children of the week are brought up to the front of the school and admonished by the headmaster? Parents could be invited. It'd be fun.

The answer to that is, of course, that it's not politically correct to be negative. There's even a "golden ratio". There should be three times as much praise as there should be punishment. I don't know who came up with that statistic, but they probably had a clipboard.

Then there's the Tories' bright idea to bring in "superteachers". This is never going to work, because the profession has such a high turnover anyway – mostly for the reasons outlined above along with the stress and the health problems that causes – that limiting access to it smacks of stupidity. In fact, this article from the Daily Mash sums it up beautifully.

Those who find success and fulfilment in the teaching profession are either very brave, very resilient or very stupid. Whatever it is, they have my eternal respect, because I'm not one of them. At the first opportunity to arise, I will be out of that door, never to return.

And this time I mean it!

We're Doing It Wrong

Facebook readers! Read the full post with videos here!

My hatred and loathing for my home country of the UK has been well documented both on these pages, on Twitter and in various other places that I've deposited little pockets of mental detritus around the Web. The reasons for this are manifold, of course, but the recent US elections highlighted one of the reasons that I don't feel proud to be British, English, United Kingdomish, whatever you want to call me.

Congratulations, by the way, America. You made the right choice by electing Obama as President-elect, the first black President the US has ever seen (a fact the BBC were fond of reminding us roughly every ten seconds during their coverage). You have elected a leader who is intelligent, articulate and inspirational – a leader who certainly gives the impression that he can make a difference and who inspires trust in the things he says. His acceptance speech made me want to shed a tear and made me feel proud and patriotic… towards America.

I'm sure pretty much everyone has seen this by now, but here we go again:

The man is a fantastic public speaker, it can't be denied – even if you don't agree with everything he says, or doubt he'll be able to get the job done, or whatever… there's no denying that he knows how to instill confidence and pride in a crowd.

We get this:

This is Gordon Brown. He is our Prime Minister. Our unelected Prime Minister, I might add, who sat waiting for Blair to resign like a rabid dog waiting to pounce on a hunk of meat before jumping in and continuing the mess his predecessor had created.

There are many things I object to about Gordon Brown and his government. The biggest thing that struck me about the US election is that I actually cared about the outcome. I cared about the candidates. I was keen for Obama to win because I supported him as a person, I supported what he stood for and I found him an inspirational candidate. I felt uneasy about McCain and particularly about the Evil Ice Bitch that stood with him with her strangely plastic face. Conversely, I've watched several UK elections over the years and not one of them has inspired the same kind of pride, patriotism and edge-of-the-seat excitement that the US elections did. This is largely to do with the fact that our politicians are boring and uninspiring, as clearly demonstrated above.

Couple this with the fact that they seem to make consistently stupid decisions, particularly when it comes to things like criminal rights, education and the like, and I can say with some confidence that I have roughly 0% confidence and trust in our government… and the trouble is that the "other sides" don't inspire much confidence either. David Cameron is a posh public-school boy who is widely regarded as "out of touch" with much of society. I will likely vote for him in the next election purely because I've seen what a hash Gordon Brown and the Labour Party have made in the last few years, but I know that it's unlikely there will be any great change. Our "third option", the Liberal Democrats, may as well not exist because they consistently gain so little votes in the elections that their presence is merely an annoyance to the "big two" parties.

Our MPs are fond of that particularly odious brand of management-speak and obfuscation of what they actually mean through dumb buzz-words. (I realise "obfuscation" may qualify as one of those words, but I like it.) None of them will ever answer a direct question. I realise that this is nothing new, but it does little to inspire confidence. Obama has, conversely, in the speeches I have witnessed so far, been relatively plain-speaking and comes across as honest. Time will tell if he can live up to his promises, but at least I'm feeling pretty good about him at the moment.

I don't see any change forthcoming in the UK. Each new generation of politicians in this country is more boring, dull, morose and out-of-touch than the last. Each new generation is doing more and more damage to the country in the name of being "progressive" and encouraging "diversity" when in fact all they are doing is removing rights from people who deserve them and providing them to people who don't, like criminals and poorly-behaved children in schools. As a result, the country is becoming apathetic, with little to no respect for authority. There's no chance of any kind of "revolution" forthcoming because the country is so weary and exhausted by the constant beatdowns and the amount of effort it takes to get a straight answer out of a politician.

I realise this all sounds a bit Daily Mail-ish and for that I apologise. But I wanted to share my thoughts, post-election. I am filled with pride and "patriotism" (for want of a better word) towards America at the moment, but it only highlights the fact that we're doing it wrong here.