newsjunction.co.uk

The system of “pay’n'perks” enjoyed by MP’s is a disgrace, that goes without saying, but I’m rather alarmed at the idea of Parliament employing MP’s secretaries and staff directly and centrally rather than MP’s doing so themselves.

Besides the fact that these staff will suddenly no longer have a “real boss” who they are accountable to - and all the usual poor quality we expect from public sector staff - they will also be employees of the State. Who is their master, and who will they seek to impress?

The whole idea is dangerous, What if a staffer was secretly linked to another party? MP’s will be in constant fear, trusting no one.

UKPollingReport feature a prediction of the European Parliament election results.

The same team produced a similar prediction for the 2004 elections, which predicted that the UK result would be CON 32, LAB 27, LD 12, SNP 2 and PC 2, with the Greens and UKIP loosing all their seats. Hopelessly wrong. Real result: CON 27, LAB 19, UKIP 12, LD 12, GREEN 2, SNP 2, PC 1.

Now they are taking into account all sorts of things - the latest opinion polls, the last national election, who is in government, how close the last national election was to the last european election, whether the party is an “anti-European” party or not, whether they watch Neighbours or not… - though how you weight these things is anyone’s guess. Projection: CON 27(nc), LAB 22(+3), LDEM 13(+1), UKIP 4(-8), SNP 2(nc), PC 1(nc), GRN 0(-2).

Is this the most hopeless poll ever? The notion that the Conservatives make no progress on their 2004 result (their lowest vote share in a national election since 1832) despite a UKIP meltdown; that Labour make significant progress; the Lib Dems improve from their post-Iraq War highs; the SNP make no progress; and the Greens vanish despite the global warming fears…it’s bonkers. What are they on?

My prediction (excluding Northern Ireland) is that the UKIP meltdown largely aids the Conservatives who win 40 seats, with UKIP being reduced to a 3 by holding a single seat in each of the South East, East Anglia and South West constituencies; Labour gets reduced to around 11 MEPs again aiding the Conservatives but also seriously affected by low turnout and the BNP, who I expect will sadly gain a seat in each of the North West, Yorkshire & Humber and London regions; Liberal Democrats will do poorly and be reduced to maybe 10 seats; whilst the Greens will do well with 4 seats, two in London and two in the South East. The SNP will probably gain a seat to have 3, with Plaid Cymru holding their 1.

We will see which is more accurate…

There have been over 100 complaints about Coronation Street.

Unfortunately they weren’t about the illogical story lines, poor acting, sheer improbability of so much gloom infesting one street or the fact that nothing and no one changes, progresses or does anything. I don’t watch - as you can probably tell - but recently I saw part of an episode and I’m sure the plot was the same as the last time I saw it about 5 years ago.

A murderer from “beyond the Street” - this time a sociopathic control freak Scotsman named Mr Gordon (I wonder where they got that idea?) - and some sort of love triangle, Ken Barlow about to have an affair with some weird woman he met through some weird local arts thing (and disguised by “research” for a local history book no one will read), a hat that controls people’s speech, and grumpy workers.

I wonder what this teaches children - beware outsiders, hats can take over your brain and if you want an affair hide it behind something boring? But no complains about this.

Instead they were about busybody left-leaning oar-poking Ken Barlow being, well, busybody left-leaning oar-poking Ken Barlow.

The BBC reports “while the Barlow family were preparing to go to church, Ken - played by William Roache - questioned his son Peter on why he was allowing his grandson, Simon, to be “indoctrinated” by the church. He then went on to criticise Simon’s school for teaching creationism. After the family returned from church, Ken began to tell his grandson that Jesus rising from the dead “may not necessarily be true” and that scientists think the Big Bang created the universe.”

I am however with ITV on this one. As they say the soap was set in modern society and “represents views from all sides of the religious spectrum”. In a free country religion can be questioned, criticised and even joked about in any non-violent way; and the religious can reply likewise..in this case by calling Ken a busybody left-leaning oar-poking trouble maker. The most important part of a tolerant society is tolerating those who disagree. I do however wonder whether they would treat all religions this way…

Atheist adverts declaring that “there’s probably no God, now stop worrying and enjoy your life” have been placed on 800 buses around Britain after an unprecedented fundraising campaign.

They have spent £140,000 on this message.

I believe you should be able to spend your money largely how you like, and advertise largely what you like, so am glad that there hasn’t been any violent protests against this or laws against it.

But I do ask what good can come of this?

I can think of a lot better use to put £140,000 to start with, and then you have the time and effort contributed. I’m sure atheists would get a much better reputation if they had utilised this more charitably.

Now I’m not hugely religious, but I know that religion has lead many people to do good things. The Salvation Army, Red Cross, Samaritans and countless other charities owe their creation, volunteers and funding to - in part at least - people motivated by religion. Locally to me a church group helps people home safely at night, another provides scholarships, another runs a hospice. In many places religious groups run projects for the young that keep them off the streets and teach right from wrong, in fact within many inner cities church groups are at the front of stopping youth gang crime. At Beachy Head a church group talks people out of suicide where the Police won’t go due to “health & safety”.

Not all of this needs religion (though some does) but sensible religion (and I am first to denounce the non-sensible) encourages charity and thinking of others at its core, certainly more than the message “now stop worrying and enjoy your life” - which has its emphasis on being thoughtless and self-centred.

Then we hit a big issue. Whatever you think of religion, you have to admit it helps a lot of people come to terms with grief and loss. Is the message “there’s probably no God” what you want to see in giant pink letters after a loved ones funeral? How insensitive and callous to these people it is. They don’t want a debate with Richard Dawkins, they want support, a friendly ear and hope.

Richard Dawkins leads a kind of fundamentalist army of atheists, what is his problem and does he really think he is doing a good thing? I don’t.