Who'd Have Thought It: Gay-Bashing California

November 4th may have brought a promise of 'hope' and 'change' to a nation exhausted by eight years of George Bush but in California it would appear that the old forces of division were alive and well and out in force. Proposition Eight - a ballot-initiative proposal to amend the California Constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman and thereby prevent same-sex couples from marrying - passed by a slim 52-48 margin in a supposedly liberal Democratic state.

So, how did it pass? Let's begin with the more trivial reasons.

Firstly, it is alleged that opponents of Proposition Eight irritated the electorate. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who is seen as kicking off the game of legal football which led to California, for a short period, conducting same-sex ceremonies, wound up conservatives by boasting (at a rally following an earlier judicial setback to the cause) that same-sex marriages were "going to happen, whether you like it or not." It is also argued that the behaviour of the gay community aggravated social tensions during the campaign. One such example is that of Tara Miller, a teacher in Hayward, CA, who got her kindergartners - in the run-up to the vote - to sign 'pledge cards' issued by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network promising 'not to use anti-LGBT language or slurs' and to 'intervene...in situations where others are using anti-LGBT language or harassing other students'. Now that seems perfectly fine to me - schools should promote understanding and tolerance of all cultures and lifestyles - but it was hardly a political savvy move. Gay rights groups know just as well as anyone else that legislative success is more about tactical campaigning rather than changing hearts and minds.

Secondly, there was also a notable lack of prominent political support. Whilst both Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi - a rare example of Democrats and Republicans coming together in common cause - made clear that they opposed Proposition Eight they were not especially active in the 'No' camp. It must be said, of course, that even acknowledging opposition was a particularly brave move for Schwarzenegger, who risked undermining his Republican base in an overwhelmingly Democratic state ahead of a possible Senate run in 2010, but nonetheless both he and Pelosi weren't out on the stump urging voters to reject the amendment.

Thirdly, it is argued that people didn't really know what they were voting for, considering that the ballot was asking for their personal view on gay marriage as opposed to their view about the state's provisions in this regard. Pelosi herself, in analysing the result, said "Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their view of same-sex marriage was...I don't know if it was clear that this meant that we are amending the Constitution to diminish freedom in our state."

Fourthly, the effect of a higher black turnout. We should take a moment to consider the rather perverse effect which now-President-Elect Obama's candidacy had on the result. Black voters - inspired to vote in massive numbers, many for the first time, for the first African American presidential candidate - were shown to be more socially conservative than their white and Hispanic counterparts and voted in favour of the amendment 69%-31%. This can be compared with the 55% of white voters and 52% of Hispanic voters who rejected the amendment. It is unfortunate that a group which for so long was denied civil rights and, indeed, continues to suffer discrimination and subjugation, would opt to deny freedoms to another oppressed minority.

But regardless of the closeness of the result and the abovementioned reasons why it was tipped in favour of the 'Yes' camp we really are splitting hairs if we dwell on the margin too much.

The real and worrying fact is that, even if the result had gone narrowly the other way, almost half of the Californian electorate would have chosen to deny gay couples the right to marry. That reveals something very worrying about social attitudes in the 21st century and suggests we still have a long way to go to achieve equality.

I have a very simple piece of advice for anyone opposed to gay marriage: don't get one! If you don't believe that it's 'right' or 'moral' then - whilst I personally don't understand what planet you're living on - I respect your view. But please don't seek to impose your own moral view on others. Americans are always banging on about how their country was founded on the principle of freedom and, as far as I'm concerned, this permits citizens to use whatever means they like to seek 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' provided that they don't, in so doing, impede anyone else's right to do the same. This basic libertarian concept - which is widely manifested in other areas of American culture - underpins all stable and cooperative societies. Gay people aren't hurting anyone. So how about leaving them to get on with it?

What is perhaps most disgusting about the continued debate into Proposition Eight, which promises to ramble on through appeal after appeal, are the attempts by the 'Yes on 8' campaign to undo the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters stepped in. They filed a brief telling the California Supreme Court that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognised or valid in California the state can no longer recognise the existing marriages. I'd respectfully submit that the utter arsewipes pushing this twisted plot should take a running jump. Banning same-sex marriages is one thing but nullifying the marriages of those who wed legally is quite another. It would frankly be extraordinarily cruel to seek to tear up the marriage certificates of legally-wedded couples and I don't quite understand how any compassionate human being could advocate such a move. Marriage isn't something to be entered into lightly. There is deep emotional (and financial) investment involved. And no decision, however democratic, should be allowed to reverse that.

The fate of those couples already married rests with the California judiciary who are also considering, alongside this, the more general question of the legality of Proposition Eight. The 'No' camp was boosted the other day by California's Attorney-General (and former Governor) Jerry Brown - who had pledged to respect the voters' decision despite personally disagreeing with it - changing his mind to judge that "It [is] evident that the Article 1 provision guaranteeing basic liberty, which includes the right to marry, t[akes] precedence over the initiative...Based on my duty to defend the law and the entire Constitution, I conclude [that] the court should protect the right to marry even in the face of the 52 percent vote."

Whilst it seems a shame that the constitutional amendment might be struck down on a technicality rather than being rejected by the electorate - the latter demonstrating that attitudes towards homosexuality are changing for the better - this is a rare example of where democracy has to be reined in (to protect the interests of a minority group). If America truly wants to live up to its reputation as the 'Land of the Free' it must accept and embrace the diversity of its people. And political leaders, where public opinion lags behind this inclusive sentiment, must be bold enough to impose the necessary change.

The trial continues...

McCain Won't Win...Will He?

Take the Democratic insurgency under Barack Obama, which has rallied millions under a banner of hope and change, add eight years of divisive and disastrous rule under George II, sprinkle a touch of Republican disillusionment with their maverick and slightly-less-right-wing-than-your-average-conservative candidate and you'd conclude that John McCain really shouldn't have bothered freezing his proverbials off in the bleak New Hampshire winter to win his party's presidential nomination.

And yet the 'Nam veteran-turned-Arizona senator has, remarkably, drawn more or less level with Obama in the polls and for the first time we are seeing cracks appear in the inevitability of the Democratic Messiah's inauguration.

Just a blip, surely? Isn't it?

Well, we hope so. A McCain presidency would – despite his weak claim to being an agent of change in Washington – be disastrous for American foreign and domestic policy. With McCain moving further to the right in a bid to shore up the conservative base he’d only further consolidate the socially repressive policies of President Bush. Sure, he’s less repugnant than most of his colleagues, and he’s taken a few principled and modernising stands against the grain of the Republican party, but an economic and social Republican he still is. And his imperialistic and arrogant foreign policy stance, particularly towards Iran, is hopelessly out of step with the collective thinking of other world nations at a time when – amidst the threat of international terrorism – the global community should be working together.

But wishing doesn’t make it so. The fact is, firstly, that McCain’s canny selection of 45-year-old Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has enlivened Republicans, with her God-fearingly, gay-bashingly, gun-totingly conservative credentials appealing greatly to the Dubya faithful. To be sure it was a cynical move – looking at pre-convention polling it was clear that McCain’s No.2 choice needed to be a game-changer if he was to counter the history-making nature of an African American presidential candidacy – but that doesn’t seem to have backfired. At least for now. And whilst in the early days following her unveiling it seemed that McCain’s desire to put a woman on the ticket had been achieved at the expense of a thorough vetting process – I’m thinking here of her stance on the infamous pork-barrel ‘Road to Nowhere’, her teenage daughter’s pregnancy and the impending criminal investigation into her conduct over the dismissal of her estranged brother-in-law as a state employee – the campaign has moved impressively to play down these issues and, indeed, project the image of an ordinary ‘hockey mom’ in tune with the lives and needs of ordinary Americans. They’ve also been able to subvert – at least to moderates and independents – her total opposition to abortion rights, her unequivocal support for the NRA and her lack of both executive and foreign policy experience, even successfully portraying Palin as at the very least matching Obama in terms of qualifications for the presidency.

This all links, secondly, to an impressive shift in the McCain campaign outfit over the past few months. Some wise personnel shifts have given a new lease of life to his flagging candidature; McCain seems more energetic, more visible and more focused, and he’s beginning to push a cohesive message and display a winning campaign structure. Of course, McCain’s message has changed – he's bowed to the Republican sceptics by coming out against Roe v. Wade and doing his best to espouse his religious bona fides – but the strength of his campaign team is not to be underestimated. The most impressive campaign achievement, and thirdly, has been the seizing of Obama’s mantle of change and the strengthening of Hillary Clinton’s argument that the ability to deliver change – through extensive experience and a deep understanding of the Washington-based political oligarchy – is more important than rhetoric. He’s made great hay from his aversion to earmarks and pork-barrel appropriations and has used his maverick status to create the image of being a changemaker. He’s had the courage to continue and reinforce Clinton’s strategy of questioning the qualities necessary to bring about change. This was an especially bold tactic given its failure to work for Hillary; but he accurately observed that, towards the end of the primary campaign, in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, it was beginning to win the public's sympathy. Just too late for the former First Lady to re-take the initiative. Just as change has thus far formed the basis of the election so too will it be the basis on which, if they do pull it off, the McCain-Palin ticket will attract defectors from the Obama camp. I don’t buy the argument that it is purely Palin’s gender which changes the game. The implication that female voters would vote for a candidate simply on the basis of gender, regardless of policy, is both patronising and insulting, not just to women but to all thinking voters. The battleground will be waged on change. Not sex. This is, fourthly, no longer resoundingly good news for Obamaniacs. The simple truth is that the whole ‘change’ and ‘newness’ act becomes old after a while and he’s been hammering it home for almost two years (yes, it really has been that long since he announced his candidacy). It’s getting increasingly difficult to stay fresh. That’s the problem with running a campaign which is devoid of substance. And that’s why, incidentally, I was a staunch Hillaryite. In acknowledging all her faults, which I do freely, she was a strong, seasoned and substantive candidate. She didn’t pretend to be anything other than a tough-minded Democrat. She didn’t try to be all things to all people. Obama, on the other hand, has united a vast swathe of folks around a vacuous notion of change. The fact is that change means different things to different people. When you bring Democrats, Republicans and independents together in this way you’ll soon find, once in office, that their policy expectations are very different. That will inevitably lead to alienation. It’s particularly galling in 2008, too, because popular disillusionment with the Republicans has made the American electorate more receptive than ever to a solidly and unapologetically Democratic partisan message. Moreover attempting to be on everybody’s side is damaging to democracy. This is particularly true in 2008 when many of the energised and engaged are young people. More specifically, young people for whom the political process has hitherto had no relevance. It’s great, of course, that they’re going to vote. My day job’s all about engaging young people with democracy, after all. But the worst thing you can do is engage young people with a single event or a single personality, especially one which is vacuous. Participation is a process not an event. If Obama wins the presidency without engaging young people in issues, in substance, then they’ll fall away.

Of course, Obama remains the only choice for any thinking progressive at this election. But McCain’s fightback means he has a race on his hands. What appeared to be a cakewalk has become a close contest. And whilst the Illinois senator’s fundraising machine coupled with the general unpopularity of the Republican brand puts him at a distinct advantage, it’s no longer a dead-cert that he’ll win.

Game on.

Positive Discrimination? About Time!

I was very happy to stumble upon this in today's Observer:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/aug/17/oxbridgeandelitism.highereducation/education/2008/aug/17/oxbridgeandelitism.highereducation

Happy, firstly, because it's about time Britain's top universities acknowledged that access to education has been riddled with injustice since time immemorial and put in place some practical steps to help those from less-advantaged backgrounds overcome the deep-set impediments bestowed by their social and economic status. And happy, secondly, because Oxford - my university - has been bold enough to implement a scheme which is bound to aggravate many dons who, for a variety of reasons, oppose the use of contextual data in the admissions process.

Sure, it'll be difficult to implement, particularly at Oxford and Cambridge. Those universities' 'federal' systems means that compliance will vary from college to college; central admissions policies are always difficult to impose. But be imposed they must.

The criticisms? Some claim that it will lower academic standards. This is absolute nonsense. Firstly, as all the evidence shows, many students from less-advantaged backgrounds might underperform at GCSE and A-Level only to then outperform their more affluent peers at university-level. And you only need to look at the secondary school value-added table -much worthier as a measure of school performance than the crude league table - to realise that, in the right educational conditions, young people who hitherto have underperformed are able to quickly catch-up with wealthier counterparts and overcome their lifelong social impediments. So educational attainment does not decline. And secondly, the policy does not provide to admit students of lower academic merit; it simply guarantees that candidates from less-advantaged backgrounds will be guaranteed an interview if they meet the basic standards required by Oxford tutors (e.g. excellent academic potential). An interview is a much better way of assessing the raw potential of young people than analysing results on a piece of paper.

Some claim - and this perhaps has a little merit - that affirmative action serves to patronise. It is, I admit, about helping people onto the academic ladder. And many people are proud (like me) and would eschew such assistance. But surely it patronises only because, much of the time, poorer people are not conscious of the injustices they face? They have grown accustomed to a lowly status which is compounded by the immense difficulties of social mobility. In the words of Ernest Jones, the great Chartist leader, 'Does man know what he wants when he is starving? And sees the rich rolling in riotous profusion? Does a man know what he wants when he is sinking with over-work, that the healthy may enjoy their sumptuous indolence?' Affirmative action is about society acknowledging that we've been giving many groups of people a crappy deal for generations and working to redress the imbalance. That's not patronising. It's justice.

Some claim - as indeed do the critics mentioned in the article - that the use of contextual data in the admissions process will 'put middle-class applicants at an unfair disadvantage'. Firstly, no it won't. Affirmative action is decidedly not about disadvantaging anyone. Rather, it's about creating a level playing field; by creating a programme which compensates for deeply-imbued inequalities we ensure a greater degree of inclusion. Certainly the move to equality will mean that middle-class applicants have a diminished chance of admission - but that's what comes with having an equal process in which many more people can participate. And secondly, so what if it does? Isn't it about time the working classes got a larger bite of the cherry?

KEY QUOTE: "The purpose of affirmative action is to give our nation a way to finally address the systemic exclusion of individuals of talent...from opportunities to develop, perform, achieve and contribute. Affirmative action is an effort to develop a systematic approach to open the doors of education [and] employment...to qualified individuals who happen to be members of groups that have experienced long-standing and persistent discrimination"

(President Bill Clinton, 1995)

I also find myself perversely satisfied that the will of the student body is being ignored on this one. OUSU (Oxford University Students' Union) agreed an access and admissions policy earlier this year which, whilst advocating that the application fee be scrapped and that, in the interests of dispelling myths about Oxford, resources be targeted 'at under-represented groups and talented students in weaker schools to help raise aspirations', explicitly stated the following:

'No Positive Discrimination: There should be no form of positive discrimination or use of contextual data not related to a student's educational potential used in the admissions process...Such data includes, but is not limited to, an applicant's race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, geographical location, gender, sexuality or religion'.

According to OUSU, whilst 'educationally-based' contextual data - such as the number of students achieving five A*-C grades at GCSE and the average class size at the school - might be appropriate 'to inform decisions about admitting students at the margin', this contextual data should categorically not include 'anything reflecting the socioeconomic status of an applicant’s background including, but not limited to, the number of students in receipt of Educational Maintenance Allowance or free school meals, as this does not reflect an applicant’s own academic potential'.

As Pembroke's JCR President at the time, with a vote at Council, I abstained. But not before I'd proposed and voted for an amendment to strike out the 'No Positive Discrimination' clause and replace it with a passage indicating OUSU's support for affirmative action. My contribution is summarised in the not-too-brilliant minutes as 'Oxford should go for positive discrimination...should be mindful of people's backgrounds' [http://www.ousu.org/democracy/ousu-council/minutes/3rd-week-hilary-2008-minutes/] which doesn't do justice to the quality of my argument. Needless to say, of course, the amendment failed spectacularly - and I just couldn't bring myself to vote in favour of the rest of the policy with the offending clause still in existence. The fact is that contextual data is important. It reveals a great deal about the challenges individual young people have faced throughout their lives and which can be said to have impacted on their academic performance.

And so whilst I'd usually baulk at the idea of students' views being ignored - my day job is all about youth participation - I'm delighted that, in this instance, wiser heads have won the day. Many of my colleagues at university are just plain wrong on admissions. And this arguably - no disrespect intended - is borne of the fact that a great majority of Oxfordians are beneficiaries of an admissions system which favours the better-off: turkeys don't vote for Christmas, after all.

Democratic Veepstakes Hotting Up

Ever since Barack Obama wrapped up the Democratic nomination in June the press have been speculating wildly about his choice of running mate. But with the convention fast-approaching and evidence that his vice-presidential search committee is vetting a number of candidates the Veepstakes are well and truly hotting up.

So who's he gonna pick?

Firstly, he's got to go white male. Such was the groundbreaking nature of Hillary Clinton's candidacy it would be a tad disrespectful for him to nominate any woman but her. And it seems unlikely, secondly, that he'll ask Mrs Clinton. The primary fight was just that bit too bruising, she carries way too much baggage and, to be honest, the role is beneath her. Thirdly, he'll be looking to find an outside-the-beltway running mate who will complement his message of 'change'. It would help, fourthly, if this individual came with experience in government, foreign policy and defence, both to compensate for Obama's shortcomings and to be accepted as a credible potential successor (just a heartbeat away and all that). It would also aid his cause, fifthly, if his number two had a track record of bipartisanship and - ideally - was able to deliver a swing state in November. In order to appease Hillary fans and guarantee her support, sixthly, it would be desirable to have a Vice-President who wouldn't challenge her for the nomination in 2016.

It would appear therefore that the procedure for picking a running mate - once based on a simple 'do no harm' mantra - has become more complex: the Democrats are looking for a male Washington outsider with foreign policy and executive experience, a reputation for working across the aisle, popularity in a toss-up state and an absence of presidential ambition.

Not asking for much then!

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) ticks some of the boxes. She's the popular governor of a traditionally red state. She's cut her political teeth winning the votes of conservatives. Her executive experience - outside of Washington - is valuable. "I think she is as talented a public official as there is right now", said Obama recently. But there are drawbacks. She'd take the 'groundbreaking woman' title away from Clinton and that wouldn't go down well. Plus she's not very well-known outside Kansas and blew her chance to address this with her ignominious response to President Bush's last State of the Union address.

Perhaps - addressing the need to keep the ticket open for Hillary next time round - the prominent Clinton-supporting Govs. Ed Rendell (D-PA) or Ted Strickland (D-OH) would be good choices. Both from decisive general election states - winning the industrial belt being vital to winning the presidency - they've got sound governmental credentials. And Rendell in particular is an impressive campaigner and communicator. But they too have drawbacks. Both states - while toss-ups presidentially speaking - have a history of electing Democratic governors, thus removing the imperative of bipartisanship. Plus state politics doesn't provide that all-important foreign policy experience. And their biggest flaw? They were perhaps just a little too pro-Clinton. The McCain campaign would be sure to dig out any number of statements in which they levelled criticisms against Obama when stumping for Hillary. That'd be embarrassing to Obama and might re-open the wounds from the bitter primary battle.

There's been a lot of chatter about Sam Nunn, too. The retired Georgia senator would, in many ways, be an ideal pick: he's a moderate-to-conservative Democrat which could help to balance out Obama's alleged uber-liberalism. He's got sound business acumen and a lengthy political CV. He's well-respected as a bipartisan compromiser. Having chaired the Senate armed services committee for eight years he's well placed to inform Obama's thinking on defence and foreign policy. He might also help nudge his home state - which hasn't given a Democratic presidential candidate more than 50% of the vote since native son Jimmy Carter's re-election bid in 1980 - into the blue column. Plus, he's 70. As well as being useful in countering McCain's emphasis on the importance of experience he'll also leave office with Obama and thus keep the door open for a Clinton candidacy in eight years. But age is also a negative, as McCain is finding out. Plus Nunn's near 25-year Senate career doesn't smack of the new kind of politics Obama is trying to usher in. And even if this experience was valuable it's possible - having retired in 1997 - that he's been out of the game just a little too long.

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) might also make a great pick. He's a long-serving senator blessed with charisma, a sharp intellect and a larger-than-average public profile. He's respected both within the Democratic party and on the Republican side of the aisle. Despite his age and length of Senate service he somehow avoids the 'Washington insider' label. His chairmanship of the foreign relations committee gives him enormous credibility in the field. On the downside, his state of Delaware is hardly a key battleground state in November and it's proximity to Illinois doesn't represent the geographical spread now customary on presidential tickets. Moreover, he's currently running for re-election to the Senate; a vice-presidential nomination might throw the state party into a messy scramble ahead of the general election. Plus he's said publicly that - whilst he'd accept Obama's invitation - he'd rather not be asked. He's too used to being his own boss, apparently, and mightn't be able to adapt to subordination.

Then there's Fmr. Sen. John Edwards (D-NC). The 2004 vice-presidential nominee won plaudits for his campaign for the nomination, championing poverty and the plight of the poor. He'd surely help Obama win over the Clintonite blue-collar workers who eschewed him during the nominating season. On the other hand, his performance in the 2004 election was questioned by some; and indeed his home state of North Carolina opted for the Bush-Cheney ticket that year. So maybe instead Evan Bayh (D-IN)? He might be able to put his generally-Republican state into play. Despite only supporting a Democrat for president four times since 1900 Bayh is hugely popular in Indiana, winning re-election in 2004 with 62% of the vote. He's got plenty of experience and, as a Clinton-supporter, would help recruit her disgruntled followers.

Until his categorical statement rejecting the possibility of accepting the VP slot Jim Webb (D-VA) looked promising, too. He'd recently ousted an incumbent Republican in a GOP-leaning state following a distinguished military career - including service in Vietnam. As Secretary of the Navy under Republican President Reagan he demonstrated his centrist views and his ability to work across the political spectrum to get things done. But the senator intends to focus on his relatively new role representing Virginia in the Senate. Fair enough. So to the rescue Gov. Tim Kaine (D-VA)? Also a Virginian, Kaine might put the state in play. He has a close personal relationship with Obama - shared experiences of legal practice and community work - and has a youthful, Washington-free image to compliment the 'change' message. On the other hand he lacks any significant political accomplishments as governor and would certainly put paid to Clinton's 2016 ambitions.

Other names are mentioned of course, all of whom have their pros and cons, from his vanquished rivals Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM), to GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Independent New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg and former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD). Hagel and Bloomberg have in particular been the focus of media speculation though the heat surrounding their prospects has somewhat diminished of late.

In short, then, it's hard to predict who Obama'll go for. He's going to have to agonise over a very talented field of candidates. His decision might be shaped by McCain's choice; reports suggest that the Republican nominee is close to naming his running mate. At this stage it's still anyone's guess.

A rogues' gallery of possible VP picks for Obama (t-b, l-r, Sens. Bayh, Biden, Clinton and Webb, Fmr. Sens. Edwards and Nunn and Govs. Kaine and Sebelius):

Silly Season Underway

A grim day for Labour in Glasgow East - with Margaret Curran's promised fightback falling a crucial 365 votes short of countering a monstrously-large swing to the SNP - has provoked rumblings of discontent from nervous backbenchers. Rumours abound of a plot to usurp the great leader; crowing Tories slam the disunity and demand an immediate election; and Labour heavyweights close ranks around an embattled Brown. Yup, the silly season has well and truly begun. Let's be honest: the by-election was a nightmare. A 22.5% swing to overturn a 13,500 majority in Labour's second-safest seat in Scotland is not very good. There can be no dressing up the result. This applies irrespective of whether Margaret Curran's namesake - Frances Curran of the Scottish Socialist Party - swung the result in the SNP's favour by confusing Glaswegians intending to vote Curran. But there's really no need to panic: it was a by-election. Governments are supposed to get whacked, particularly when they've been in power for a while and are presiding over a shaky economy. Voters like to give the party in power a drubbing and there's really no rhyme or reason to it - though it's slightly more galling when said party has done so much to try to regenerate the area and alleviate the social problems afflicting many of its residents. I feel quite sorry for Curran. Propelled into the candidacy following George Ryan's last-gasp decision not to contest the seat she fought a good solid campaign based on local issues. And yet whilst the defeat isn't hers it will nonetheless probably prevent her from standing for the Scottish Labour leadership (Cathy Jamieson is my preference, incidentally). And now, apparently, Labour supporters are itching to ditch the prime minister. Whilst it's true that Gordon Prentice and Graham Stringer - hardly PLP power-brokers - have openly called for Brown to go, theirs are almost entirely lone voices. It might well be the case that a few cabinet ministers are thinking about their futures - they are ambitious people and it's entirely plausible that they aspire to the leadership - but this does not represent a plot. They're aware, firstly, that the economic situation is not going to get better any time soon. It's hard to imagine that they'd want to take charge in these circumstances. They're aware, secondly, that the procedure for challenging an incumbent leader is very difficult. And they're aware, thirdly, that Gordon Brown, even whilst wounded, remains a formidable force. He's well respected around the world for his economic expertise, he's unmatched in terms of experience and he retains a good deal of support in the party. Sure, he's a crap communicator, and is regularly out-done at PMQs, but these impediments can be worked out. So let's ditch all this talk of a cabinet challenge. It was good to see old John Prescott - a man for whom I have a good deal of respect despite his shortage of braincells - providing some much-needed no-nonsense 'get behind the leader and stop all this silliness' talk this week. The cabinet is somewhat lacking - such is the towering presence of the PM - in straight-talking battle-hardened veterans able to steady the ship. Hopefully we'll see Harriet Harman, Jack Straw, Jacqui Smith and Alan Johnson - the only ministers with sufficient weight and credibility - step up to the plate in the coming days. And then perhaps we can turn fire on the Tories. Silly season is always more enjoyable when you're not on the receiving end...

Day Two: Ecstatic and Exhausted

Already - the end of Day Two of UK Youth Parliament's eighth Annual Sitting!

I had intended to take the time to write a full blog of the Sitting as it progressed but there quite literally hasn't been a second to spare; with fun and frolics from morning till night, I (along with the fabulous staff and trustees of this wonderful organisation) have been embroiled in a whirl of activity pretty much non-stop.

Not to worry, though. A far better blog, live from right here at Exeter University, is being regularly updated at http://www.ukyp.org.uk/live/ - and you can also subscribe to free text updates by texting 'FOLLOW UKYP' to 07624 801423 - how interactive!

A full report of the weekend will appear in due course - most likely after a good, long sleep on Wednesday - but suffice it to say that everything is going swimmingly; campaign development and manifesto groups are working well, the fringe meetings have been engaging, the speeches inspiring, the food spectacular, and, most importantly, young representatives from across the UK are exercising their right to take meaningful action on the issues which matter to the young people they represent.

Roll on Day Three of the Annual Sitting 2008!

Seeing Through The Stereotype

A very insightful piece from the BBC's Mark Easton reminding us that the majority of young people, despite what you might read in the press, make a positive contribution to society: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/07/10_reasons_to_cheer_our_teenag.html The negative stereotyping of young people - as hoodies, yobs and thugs - is widespread and is contributing to a moral panic being whipped up by the media. Of course the recent spate of gun- and knife-related violence, largely perpetrated by and inflicted on young people, is a serious and worrying problem which needs to be addressed, and addressed urgently. But it also needs to be put into context. We're in grave danger of creating a false consensus amongst adults about the attitudes and behaviour of young people most of whom, as Easton notes, are both engaged in productive activities and imbued with admirable virtues. Such a consensus risks inviting a raft of reactionary, punitive and tough-talking political responses which, far from addressing the problems which do exist, will unfairly isolate and marginalise the majority and unhelpfully create a self-fulfilling prophecy for the minority. If we're going to tackle what's wrong we need to also acknowledge what's right. So perhaps it's time for a little more bigging-up and a little less demonisation.