Saturday, 30 April 2011

Hitler's Coalition Government!

So we all know that Hitler is described as one of the most evil people to roam the earth. Yes Hitler was a horrible man, the way he went about everything was horrible and words cannot comprehend the things he did. So how can I say that Adolf Hitler, in my eyes, is an admirable politician and I actually don't think people understand what a political genius he was.

Hitler was a 'minority of minorities' and yet still came to be the most powerful man in the country. In May 1928 he had only 2.8% of the vote and in 15 years, 1938, he managed to become Fuhrer the most powerful man in German Politics. And it should be noted that Hitler only became a German citizen in 1932, meaning it would only take him 6 years from being allowed to run for any form of public office to achieve his ultimate dream. Yes violence was a part of this but I am going to focus less on that and the more on the practical ways which he came to power.

Hitler was a very 'modern' politician of the time and focused on modern technology to get his support base. His use of radio got his message heard throughout the whole of Germany which is something he could not achieve before the Munich Putsch. His slogan for Presidency 'Hitler Above Germany' was a reference to him using an aircraft to travel around Germany, making him appear very statesmen like.

Even though Hitler was eventually sworn in as Chancellor, it was under a coalition and Nazi's only got few ministry positions - any they did get where relatively powerless and constricted by the the likes of Papen, a more conservative character than Hitler.

Hitler, now on the inside was able to influence the President and called for a second election in 1933 as no one party had gained a majority of the votes. Also in this year the Parliament (Reichstag) just happened to burn down. Playing on the public fears of the 'left' the Nazis where quick to blame a communist culprit for the fire. Exploiting the fears of the public, they see the Nazis as an alternative to Communism, which quickly increased their support base.

Hitler was able to pass the Enabling Act in 1933 which allowed the Cabinet to have legislative powers for 4 years, including those to change the constitution. Hitler still did not have the majority in Parliament and in return for their support Hitler orally promised the liberty of the Church. Well you can see the blunder the Centre Party made.

Now Hitler had complete power and slowly began hacking away at the Democratic Institution from within, and when the President died, he simply wiped out the need for a President and created the position of the Fuhrer. This was against any law, including the Enabling Act, but nobody dared to rival Hitler.

As you can see from all this Hitler succeeded in becoming the most powerful man in Germany in only a few short years. Obviously there are a number of other reasons why Hitler was so successful but I just wanted to point out a few short reasons which I find very interesting.

Personally I admire Hitler for what he did, not in a historical sense; but in the political and for the simple scale of what he managed to achieve.

It just makes you wonder if such a course of action could be repeated again today. Fear of the BNP, the current depression, war and other external and emotional factors could see the rise of a figure who could abuse the powers given to him by the state, and those created by himself.

Again I am going to talk about AV, if the YES campaign does succeed, we will see a complete flip in our political system. Does this not allow a chance for someone to exploit the people's lack of knowledge to fix the system? Could it cause for a rise in extremist parties? Will a government need to 'orally' make deals with parties to get laws past? And what if a party in government decides to make itself new powers to reduce the weaknesses of coalition, will they abuse those powers?

All of these; food for thought. Not sure what I believe myself but it is something to look into.

Saturday, 23 April 2011

(Social) Homophobia is Okay

*WARNING Be Prepared To Hate on This Blog*
(but please read it the whole way through before calling me a Homophobe etc etc...

Personally I believe that Homophobia is not that much of a bad thing in society, it is a form of bullying and nothing else. And yes of course I know that bullying is wrong and shouldn't happen blah blah blah but it will happen and we are never going to completely stamp it out.

I am gay and I got bullied.

Bullying was a horrible part of my life, but it really taught me a lot. I was bullied for a number of things, but one of them for being gay; before and after I came out. I have faced my fair share of homophobia in my life, but it has only made me stronger.

But how can I stand and say that homophobia is a terrible thing and that nobody should be allowed to be homophobic whenever I am slightly racist sexist and even homophobic myself. Now do not get me wrong I have colored and gay people as friends heck I even have females as friends but I still make the odd 'get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich' joke now and then.

When someone gets beaten up due to a 'homophobic attack' I think it should be treated just as equally as any other form of attack Whether you attack someone because they are gay or because they are black or because they kissed your girlfriend it is all the same. They don't like who you are or what you have done, but either way they have attacked you which is wrong, but no attack (of the same physical injury) should be treated any differently just becase it was a 'homophobic attack'

What I am trying to get across is that there is some people out there who will never like me because I am gay, and will condemn who or what I am. But who am I to stand and tell them that they are wrong? That is their personal opinion and if they choose not to like it that is up to them.

Homophobia and Racism etc only exist and are problems in society because we make them problems. Homophobic bullying is no different from bullying someone because you are ginger and until people realize this it will become less of a problem. I use 'thats so gay' all the time in my day to day language but because I say that doesn't make me homophobic just the same as me calling it a 'Blackboard' does not make me racist even if it is politically correct to call it a 'Chalkboard'

When I say all of this I do not for one second believe it is fair to deny someone a job, or housing or any form of public service because of sexual orientation gender or race. BUT if someone has an opinion then they should be allowed to express it. Am I wrong? If so express your opinion on the matter telling me why people should not be allowed to express theirs.

Monday, 18 April 2011

Vote 'NO' on May 5th

This country prides itself in its Democracy where people are all given the same chances and we all have the right to vote. So why should we give this right more to others and less to some? AV will change the Democracy of this country right from the very core of our political system, that core being its citizens voting.This new voting system will allow some people to have their votes counted more than once while your vote will only be counted once. This destroys the principle of “one-man one-vote”, which this, and many other countries, pride themselves in when calling themselves a Democracy.

There are only three countries in the world that use this system, Australia, Fiji and Papa New Guinea. While First Past the Post, our current system is used by 50 countries and is the most widely used system. It seems odd to move from the most used system to one of the least used systems does it not?

Those who claim that the system will make the results more representative cannot prove any of this, neither can those who claim the system will allow extremist parties more chance of getting a seat. However there are quite a number of Political Parties in Britain meaning that it will be harder for a certain candidate to get over 50% of the vote if people spread their second and third choices too widely. Parties such as Green and BNP are still not even guaranteed to get any closer to being elected through this system anyway. Australia uses this system and got its first Green MP in 2010, the same year the UK got it’s first Green MP, and Alliance MP, using our current system. It took Australia 90 years to become more representative using this system. Why fix what isn’t broken?

First Past the Post is an easier and simpler system to use rather than AV; it provides us with strong accountable governments. The current election outcome has been a blip on the radar, while with AV, Coalition Governments will become a more common occurrence. Previous to the coalition government created in 2010 the official Coalition was the National Government during the war which was clearly only there for National Interest. During the twentieth century there have been unofficial coalitions where a party has agreed to pass laws made by the governments as seen in 1978 when Labours majority was eroded during by-elections and relied on Liberal support. This agreement was short of a full coalition and was only there because of by-elections, so it is debateable at how much of a tangent this government actually is.

Supporters of AV will claim that its success will bring more ideas to the table and that this will result in better governing. In my opinion this is a na├»ve view. The amount of ideas will not change, what will change however is where they are debated, the debate will move from the House of Commons to across the Cabinet Table. Too many ideas and opinions on a Cabinet table is not good idea, as it will cause for slow and ineffective governing. Ideas in opposition to the government are needed in opposition to it not within it. I believe that a ‘Coalition Opposition’ rather than ’Coalition Government’ is needed for a better debate and scrutiny of any policy. This in itself makes the government more accountable for its actions as you can easily blame one party for its mistakes; and blame is not blurred by a weak coalition.

First Past the Post is the better option so I am asking you to vote ‘No’ on May 5th. I believe you will be making the better choice, personally I believe there is much strength in having a proportional representation system in place, but I would rather a different system. Say ‘No’ on May 5th and fight for a system better than AV! Say ‘No’ on May 5th and do not let this 2nd or 3rd best system become our only system!