UK Uncut doing it right…Annoying Glenn Beck

When Glenn Beck is ranting about you, you know you’re doing something right. It’s almost as good as being hated by the Daily Mail. Keep up the good work, UK Uncut, US Uncut and Canada Uncut. The more right-wing nutters we annoy, the better.

Yes, Glenn, Get informed. The Uncut message is simple and compelling, and you should be afraid of it.

While I was checking this story I had to search for Glenn Beck on Google (A horrible task, but someone’s gotta do it.) and I found an article in the Christian Post about Beck meeting Billy Graham. Here’s a revealing quote:

In last year’s Gallop poll, Beck tied with Billy Graham for the top ten “most admired man.” Nonetheless, some evangelicals remain wary of Beck’s Mormon faith and motives.

…..

On his radio show last March, Beck outraged liberal Christians by telling people to leave churches promoting “social justice,” arguing that it was “the rallying cry on both the communist…and…fascist front.”

In response, Sojourner president Jim Wallis demanded Christians to boycott Beck’s TV and radio programs. Afterwards, Beck called Wallis “an apologist communist for atrocities in Cambodia,” in apparent retaliation.

“Most admired man” – really? And calling social justice “communist” and “fascist” too? Pretty revealing when you put those labels on caring for people. Americans seriously need to sort this out if they want to restore any kind of reputation else where.

A head in the sand

I am lucky enough to have an MP that is very communicative. He not only responds quickly to letters, but he also treats email as real communication, and *gasp* even responds to constituents on Twitter. When my wife was being kept from working by an inexplicably delayed CRB check, he intervened and the certificate was here within two days.

Unfortunately the luck ends there. He seems to be blind to any evidence of what the governments ruthless cuts will do to people.  This conversation followed my suggestion that he read the One Month Before Heartbreak blog which is full of real people writing about how the the proposed changes to the benefit system will affect them. Full text after the screenshots.

The full text of that conversation
My original tweet: I urge @peterjluff – and everyone else – to look at http://j.mp/gQRnKz where there are stories of many people that will suffer due to cuts.
I was retweeted (message passed on to followers) by Nemesis Republic:
RT @latentexistence: I urge @peterjluff – and everyone else – to look at http://j.mp/gQRnKz stories of many peoplewill suffer due to cuts
Peter Luff replied to her:
@PeterJLuff: @NemesisRepublic But the alternative (letting country continue slide to bankruptcy with biggest deficit of any major country) is much worse
Apricot muffins commented:
@PeterJLuff I find this statement reprehensible. The disabled among us deserve every protection their country can give them, deficit or not
Which led to this response by Peter Luff:
@apricotmuffins And they will get that protection; what I find reprehensible are the scare stories

And there you have it. Talking about real disabled people in fear for their incomes, their care, their wheelchairs, is a scare story. Talking about our defecit, which isn’t anywhere near the problem that we have been told it is, is not.

In case you thought this is misinterpreting his views, here is another example.

The text of that:

Me: @PeterJLuff I’m afraid I just see savage cuts that are hurting the poor and vulnerable. Where is the social responsibility?
Peter Luff: @latentexistence Well I guess I won’t persuade you, but I see something completely different, with the vulnerable protected.

—-Addendum—-

It transpires that Peter Luff is the patron of the local ME support group. As an invisible disease, ME is one of the most difficult diseases to get help for. I intend to ask Mr Luff how he can reconcile his view that the vulnerable are supported with his experiences with this group.

Broken government: where next?

Millie Kidson asks on her blog where we will go when the coallition government ends. (Suggested reading before you continue here.)

This question has been perplexing me too. I was a member of the Liberal Democrat party for a few years and I had intended not only to get involved in the local party, but also potentially to stand for election at some later date. That isn’t going to happen with the LibDems now. The LibDems were never really a good fit for me anyway, my membership was a compromise since I fit in to that lower left square on the Political Compass that no party except the Greens seem anywhere near.

I dislike the party whip system where legislation is decided strictly on party lines. I dislike having one party in a majority that can force through stupid law after stupid law. What I would like is a parliament where new legislation has to convince a majority of MPs, not a party leader. Basically, I want a hung parliament. Forever. A lot less legislation would make it through but what little did emerge ought to be good because it has won the support of a majority of MPs. Many will argue that this would cripple the government but I don’t think so. I think it would force MPs to come up with decent laws instead of knee jerk reactions.

The ideal situation as far as I am concerned is for Proportional Representation to be brought in and for government to be composed of a variety of different party and independant MPs to produce the situation that I described above. Unfortunately that isn’t going to happen. What we are being offered is AV which is a poor relation to PR, although better than First Past the Post which is what we have at the moment. With AV the makeup of parliament will change slightly, but not that much. I think if the coallition were to fail and an election be held now or even after AV, it would be a straight fight between Labour and the Conservatives. The LibDems have squandered their support and won’t be back for a long time. I couldn’t in a million years bring myself to vote Conservative, so I guess we’re left with Labour or Green.

I think I would quite like to support the Green party, their policies on social responsibility and on spending are quite in line with mine. (See the Political Compass again to see where you stand.) but just like the LibDems in the past, they lack the critical amount of support to give even a possibility of getting into power, and so people stay away from them. The traditional “wasted vote.”

So where can those that want caring social policies, help for those that need it, support from the rich and the big business, go? I predict that the bulk of the anti-cuts movement will never vote Conservative, will never forgive the LibDems, and most will not think that the Greens have a chance, so they won’t have. Most are likely to vote for Labour or not vote at all. I think that’s a shame. We need to fight for full Proportional Representation, and then we need a complete mix up of views in power to provide us with a balanced and rational government.

Serious questions for people that vote conservative

I would be very interested in what conservative voters think on these questions. I know some good people that are conservative, and I am struggling to understand the thinking.
  1. What do you think are society’s obligations to the poor, the sick and the disadvantaged?
  2. Do you think that current cuts will impact the above? If yes, is it unavoidable? If no, why not?
  3. At what point is the cut off point beyond which a person should not get any help?
  4. Do you believe that state has any role in this help, or should it all be personal generosity?
  5. What do you think should happen if personal generosity does not cover required help?

Anyone that does not feel comfortable answering in a comment is welcome to contact me by email if you know my address or via the contact page shown on the top right.