I have just received my ballot paper for the NEC elections and am pondering over who to go for. In my sort of transient state of never really allying myself with a particular faction, and not always backing those who may be more sympathetic to my views in favour of someone who would do a better job, I find myself puzzled. Firstly, I hate the way candidates suggest who else I should be voting for; the Grassroots Alliance have obviously been pretty blatent about it and to be fair I at least applaud their honesty. Only one candidate from the Labour First slate-or whatever it is called-has done so. So really I do prefer candidates sking me to vote for others. To me it is them acknowledging that there are slates in the election and they are being honest about being on one. I wish all slates declared their existence at the start of an election...

 

So who am I going to vote for???

 

Well I struggle at times to decide because I can imagine many of the candidates would be very good, but one thing we cannot legislate for is how susceptible they are to influence from the 'top'. I think in the absence of Tony Robinson, who was always my number one choice simply because of Baldrick and Time Team, I am going for the following candidates in no particular order:

 

Peter Wheeler: No brainer; the father of a friend, and a very ideologically sound friend at that. Like father like son... But also I think Mr. Wheeler's experience and obvious dedication to the labour movement in general do warrent my support. 'Labour's most important strengths are our members and our links with the trade unions. We are strongest when we stand united.' I could not agree more with you Mr. Wheeler.

 

Walter Wolfgang: Cult status really among activists. Mr. Wolfgang obviously has a wealth of Labour Party/movement experience. Besides, I agree with most things he says, especially this: 'I advocate public ownership of the railways (surely you could further than that Mr. Wolfgang???) and believe in extending trade union rights and strengthening their role in the Labour Party.'

 

Christine Shawcroft: Seems a pretty sound candidate with her ideas agrreable, in the main, with mine. 'I support an increased minimum wage, without discrimination against young workers...'

 

Peter Willsman: Again, very experienced and appearing very dedicated. Wants 'policies to achieve "an irreversible shift in wealth and power to working people and their families"-progressive taxation (yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes!!!!!!!), universal welfare provision, pension-earnings link, more public housing, extending employment rights, reducing gender/race/class inequalities, ending support for Bush neo-imperialism.' This is what the Labour Party should really be about! Go Peter!

 

Gaye Johnston: Co-founder of Save the Labour Party and the Grass Roots Umbrella Network. Obviously aware of the dangerous unaccountable, undemocratic way the party appears to be heading in.

 

Helen Jackson: I have to disappoint the two remaining members of the Grassroots Alliance by voting for Helen Jackson. I just think she talks a lot of sense and is quite honest in her appraisals. I especially liked: 'Labour is the only party to place 'equality' at its core. Women's voices bring warmth and common sense into politics, as I learnt in Northern Ireland, and this year working with the 'Women and Pensions' campaign.' Actually sod this! I am just thinking of some of the women that I have dealt with and their voices were anything but warm and their words were as far away from common sense as possible. So Helen, I think it is incorrect to make such generalisations about the importance of women's homely, benevolent, gentleness. I am sure it is a stereotype that feminists want to avoid.

Therefore, instead of her I am going to vote for Ann Black because she says: 'Personally I support comprehensive education, public services (could just say oppose privatisation, which would please me more), joined-up transport, earnings-linked benefits...and oppose national missile defence and replacing Trident.'

 

So there you have it. My six choices for NEC Elections are: Peter Wheeler, Walter Wolfgang, Christine Shawcroft, Peter Willsman, Gaye Johnston, and Ann Black

 

Boy, I really had to think about that one. Gone are the days when I picked at random, with the exception of Tony Robinson, and probably blurred all sorts of boundaries by not picking slates...

 

 

You have probably seen the adverts for Lynx deodorant with the catchphrase: 'SPRAY MORE GET MORE!'

 

Well quite frankly let me just confirm to all of you wannabe stud-muffins anxious to get a chance of a lovely young lady, or 20,000 as the advert suggests-usually wearing a bikini or less, running over hills and fields, swimming oceans, swinging through jungles over lakes of man-eating crocodiles who are waiting to pounce, and galloping across deserts inspite of the sun's persistent attempts to fry them-jumping all over you with lusts and sexual desire is extremely unlikely. You will have more chance of a dodo egg hatching in Alexandra Square.

 

Seriously though, what sort of a message do these commercials send out to people, particularly young people new to the whole game of male-female attraction. Firstly, what does it say to young men, bursting with hormones, wanting to ride any piece of skirt that passes. To me it tells of an unhealthy lack or respect for women and an expectation that by simply spraying some deodorant-which quite frankly is nothing special; I mean £1.79 for some secret love potion...give me a break; you would expect it to at least cost a fiver-will give you unlimited power over a woman. And to the women; Lynx portrays them as nothing more than sex slaves, pandering to the needs of their 'sexual-aromourised' men.

 

You also have to question the corporate/social responsibility issues here too. By spraying more, we pollute more by sending more cfc's are stuff into the atmosphere. Perhaps Lynx should encourage us to use roll-on deodorant: 'Roll more, get more...'

 

I really do question the morals of this marketing ploy. Seriously, who has bought a can of Lynx because they thought that they would 'get more'. Moreover, is this not the same Lynx that I was buying when I was a young adolescent boy; the concept never worked then, why should it work now? If anyone gets dragged into this con they really are foolish.

 

Given that, I suppose I had better own up to it: I am pretty foolish. The fact is that men and sex are two things that are not always on the same wavelength, even to 'sexualised males'. I suppose part of it comes down to understanding the female and her needs and desires. Because of this occasional inadequacy we are willing to believe what marketing strategies tell us, namely that if we spray more, we get more. Now I have sprayed more, believe me I have sprayed till there's no tomorrow, and yet have I got more....?

 

What do you think?

 

I have yet to receive my ballot paper for the NEC elections. I have, however, received numerous emails asking me to vote for this group of candidates and that group of candidates. There appears to be two distinct groups along with a whole host of, for want of a better word, 'randomers'. I can't comment too much at the moment until  I have seen the full list with bio's but I am intrigued to learn that the national organisation of labour students has passed policy to support a certain group.

 

 

Here's my initial take on it. I will of course provide an update when I get my ballot paper, or should I say if I get my ballot paper- I heard that they are trying to exclude trots from voting... lol

 

 

Well the subconscious pomposity and ignorance of the National Organisation of Labour Students appears to have reared its ugly head again.

My first encounter with them was not a good one and the suggestions that went round of disaffiliation intrigued me. However, I decided, perhaps somewhat naively, that change could be made from within. I believed that there was great scope to improve the way Labour Students worker, particularly with individual Labour Clubs. That is why I stood for the sabbatical position of Campaigns and Membership Officer.

I must be honest though: my original impression of NOLS changed after the Council where the elections were held. The Incumbent officers, particularly Henri Murison, went to great lengths to ammend some broken bridges between Lancaster and NOLS. I was encouraged by what I experienced at that weekend back in Feb/Mar in Leeds.

I was particularly encouraged and enthused by the efforts made by Henri during the local elections; we (Lancaster, and me personally) built up a good relationship.

It is a pitty that the unaccountable and undemocratic tendencies that lurk in the corners of any NOLS administration appear to have come out again. I hope that this is something which the new officers will quickly pick up on and resolve to do better next time. I appreciate the complexities of ariving at policy when there are so many Labour Clubs in the country but I think an email to the members informing them of suggestive policy be sent out, this should include the offer for any member to object by email.

 

Indeed it is quite worrying; not so much the actual testing of the weapons, although I do feel as though we should be looking to move away from this sort of 'deterrent', but the response from America:

 

taken from the guardian online:

A visibly angry George Bush rounded on the two remaining members of Washington's "axis of evil" today, as he dismissed "absurd" suggestions that the US presents the greatest threat to world stability.

Mr Bush also warned North Korea that it would face even greater international isolation if it carries out its threat to test-fire its long-range missiles. "It should make people nervous when non-transparent regimes who have announced they have nuclear warheads, fire missiles," he said. "This is not the way you conduct business in the world."

 

 

Mr Bush bridled at the suggestion that Europeans regard the US as the greatest threat to world stability, cutting across his Austrian hosts to snap: "That is absurd. We'll defend ourselves but we are working with our partners to spread peace and democracy around the world."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some of the comments are pretty bog-standard, but when you remember that they are coming from the voice of Dubya you really do start to worry.

 

I think we should be trying to distance ourselves from America because I do not believe we have the capacity to act as a restraining, perhaps rational voice at the moment. The more countries like Britain, especially those in the EU and the middle east, stand on the side of peace and cooperation, the more, I think, we are going to avoid war. Here's hoping...