In the same great tradition of modern-day political journalists, I’d like to contribute my own analysis of the recent political debate between the three major candidates, using the photo above.

The issues at stake in this election: the budget, jobs, immigration.  Scratch that.  Style, poise, eye contact, sound bites, tone.

Nick Clegg sounded and looked good at the first debate, but Gordon Brown and David Cameron came back in the second.  To the third and final debate, it could have been neck and neck and neck.  Unfortunately, Brown put his foot in his mouth with the “bigot” comment.  That left room only for Clegg and Cameron.  Who would come out on top?

Looks like Cameron has his pope’s nose in the sky, while Clegg and Brown are watching to make sure they don’t trip.  Oooh, nooo!  Clegg and Brown only have one leg each to stand on.  Won’t be good for “running” an election.

I’ve read some of the arguments.  Pros: saves paper, saves money.  Cons: more vulnerable people lack access (the pros argue that they will set up centres to help with this), some people refuse to use the internet (no help there, except that they will be forced to use it), loss of jobs results in loss of income for the government (pros will argue that the savings will make up for it).

Of course, going online will take time and money to get started, so we shouldn’t get overexcited yet.

Yes, I do like the idea of making things easier when dealing with government offices.  I have already seen government inefficiencies and can see the advantages of going paperless in some instances.  However, I do share the concerns about everything going on the internet.

Fraud is the biggest concern, and I really don’t need to go into details about how that can be accomplished on the net. I was caught recently in a virus scam and I can easily see how going paperless will result in this happening even more.  Furthermore, fraudulent claims, especially for benefits will not be picked up so easily.  There will still need to be some human contact.  There still needs to be some face-to-face interviews and identity checks.  They should try to make those as painless as possible.  I’ve been to some that have been completely convoluted.

Perhaps one of my biggest concerns is the lack of human contact.  Already, I hate the automated messages and FAQs that don’t answer your specific questions.  Not that human contact is the answer to that particular problem, knowing as I do that the most intelligent person is usually not the one left answering the phones.  But it helps to put a complicated question to a person rather than to a robot.  If they go paperless, they’ll probably start to go telephone-less as well, since they won’t need people to sit in offices.  (That’s a loss of revenues to BT, but they’ll make up for it on the broadband side.)

Now we have Baroness Scotland breaking the very law that she drafted and pushed through Parliament.  The law makes it punishable to hire an illegal immigrant.  And being ignorant is not an acceptable defense.  So, what was her excuse when she hired an illegal immigrant?  Not that she was unaware, that would have been walking into her own trap.  No, the problem is a technical one.  She did all the appropriate checks, but she did not photocopy any of the documents. That was required by law.

Does it mean that if she had photocopied the documents, she would not be in breach of the law.  No, I think it just means that she could have proved her point that she looked at the documents.  Which then leads us to question, if the documents were in order, why was the worker illegal?  Were they forged?  If a government minister could not identify real from faked documents, how can the ordinary employer?

If the worker is not illegal, why was Baroness Scotland fined?  Just simply that she did not keep a copy of the documents?  Has she admitted to unknowingly hire an illegal immigrant?  If she did so, is this enough reason for her to be sacked?

Gordon Brown does not intend to sack her, and it’s questionable whether any of the other parties will push for it to happen.  Apparently, Baroness Scotland is well-respected all around.  However, if she wants to preserve that reputation of respectability, she should have offered to step down, especially after breaking her own law.  Had it been an ordinary citizen, he/she would have been treated like a down and dirty criminal.  What’s good for the goose in this government is not always good for the gander in the public.

We seem to have reached the point of stalemate with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Though the Iraqi war is “over”, there are still hostilities and Afghanistan is nowhere near a position of stability.  It’s a tug o’ war effort.

The message that Osama bin Laden has supposedly sent to the US seems to imply that he may have come to realise that all this warring may be fruitless to both sides.  Many of us have seen that light for a while, even if we still hold on to our stance of support for war, because to do otherwise would be to give in to the terrorists.  However, if the other side is showing signs of relenting, should we not reconsider?

Any steps should be carefully measured though.  The Islamic extremists want Israel on the table.  Quite understandable – it has been a raging battle for generations.  The Israelis and the Palestinians both belong to the region.  Something does need to be done to give the Palestinians their own land and their own government.  However, there needs to be some guarantees of Israeli safety in a region that is predominantly Muslim.  Unfortunately, the Middle Eastern world sees the western support and protection of Israel as a direct opposition to them.  Furthermore, the new Israeli government appear to be entrenched in the old mindset and rigidly unbending.

So, would it be wise to call a truce and discuss moving onwards with peace in the region?  I would gladly welcome the day when we can be able to do that, because I believe that the Middle East as well as Afghanistan/Pakistan could benefit greatly if both sides were to work together and improve conditions for the peoples there.  The hardest part would be to put aside all the prejudices and suspicions on all three sides: the western countries, the Islamic world, and Israel.

Take, for example, the British woman (Samantha Orobator) who was caught in Laos with too much cocaine.  Never mind the legality of using or transporting cocaine, which she admitted to.  She had the right to choose the life she led.  However, when she got into trouble through her own fault, she expected her country to come to her aid.  Of course, that is why there are embassies around the world.  But, charities working on her behalf, rushing to her aid, getting everyone worked up about her rights, when she put herself in that predicament, was unbelievable. It wasn’t as if she was innocent and needed people to stand up for her.

Then, there were the two Americans (Laura Ling and Euna Lee) who crossed into North Korea and arrested.  They were reporters, so they should have understood the tensions in North Korea.  Heedlessly, they entered and it took Bill Clinton, the former US president, to intercede on their behalf.  Perhaps, the diplomacy involved may have helped not only Clinton, but US-North Korea relations as well.  On the other hand, it may have given North Korea an upper hand.

And, very recently, we have the British-Irish New York Times journalist (Stephen Farrell) who was kidnapped by the Taliban.  He had been kidnapped previously and rescued.  He was warned about entering the Taliban stronghold, yet risked his own as well as his translator’s life.  And, in the end, his rescue effort cost three people their lives.

None of these people took responsibility for their actions.  They do not seem to understand the adage, “You made your bed, now sleep in it.”  I have absolutely no sympathy for people who create their own problems, then expect others to bail them out.  They might think they were being heroic, they might think they were invincible, but I think they were all idiots.  When people do stupid things, they deserve to suffer for their irresponsible behaviour.  I have no sympathy for them.  I won’t say I’m perfect.  In fact, I’m not.  I make mistakes, do stupid things, and I face the music.  Why can’t these same people do likewise?  Instead, they get their fifteen minutes of fame.  And they make their governments look ridiculous.

Yes, I agree that preventing paedophiles from having access to our children is important, but isn’t this idea rather extreme and an over-reaction to an incident where a school caretaker murdered two children?  In that particular case, it was the school’s fault for not investigating allegations against the caretaker.

Some authors have already felt insulted enough by the idea that they will stop making school visits.  How many parents will be turned off so that they will not volunteer to help with transportation?  It is the principles of the plan that is absurd and insulting.

The plan does not cover informal arrangements by parents, so why can’t the government just leave the parents and schools to work out these informal arrangements rather than expecting regular parent-transporters to be registered with the Vetting and Barring Scheme? 

And how will this scheme be enforced?  Will there be additional people employed at schools to guarantee that the procedures are followed?  Will there be additional people employed to register the millions that will need to be vetted under this scheme? Is this part of the government’s job creation scheme?

In science and medicine, studies determine how many people need to be treated or screened before the benefit justifies a medication or test.  If we were to apply the same principles to government, will the Vetting and Barring Scheme be worth the cost?  How many people need to be vetted in order for us to prevent one case of child murder or catch a paedophile? 

Paedophiles and murderers do not commit their crimes so obviously by kidnapping a child when everyone knows that the child was in their care.  Of course, proponents will argue that this scheme will prevent such criminals from having access to vulnerable children.  But, the case above excepted, how many paedophiles and murderers in the past actually had easy access to children?  The majority of cases will be committed by strangers who may have been stalking or taking advantage of an opportunity.  Had we had a rash of cases committed by school visitors or parents, I would be the first to argue that such a scheme would work.  But, as it is, this is just another example of unnecessary government interference.  Why can’t they come up with more useful ideas?

If the BNP are illegal, why were they granted the right to be a political party in the first place?  And, once granted, why were their members discriminated against in the job market?

And, let’s say that they lose their court battle and are forced to change their stance against other races.  Will any other race want to join?  Their political aim is for the advancement of the White British race.  Will members of other races work to support that?

What is the real purpose of this court case?  To eliminate the BNP as a political party once and for all?  What will happen to the two seats they’ve won in the EU Parliament?  Is this another instance of wasting taxpayers’ time and money?

If they want the BNP to include other races in their workforce/membership, that should be easy for the BNP to comply.  If they want them to change their political agenda, that’s intimidation.  No one is forcing any other political party to accept or reject a particular agenda.  And, the BNP is a minor party with a nil chance of ever forming a government.

And, once they’re done with the BNP, will they go after other groups, like the Christian Alliance? Maybe the Christian Alliance doesn’t discriminate against race or anything else; but would Muslims and Hindus join the Christian Alliance?

That is not to say that they cannot be accorded certain privileges that they are now entitled to, in accordance with many of the equal rights laws that have come into effect.  But, those laws need to be defined in better terms.  For example, a lesbian should be given her maternity leave as appropriate.  Her partner should be accorded similar parental rights as a father – that means paternity leave, not maternity leave.  Similarly, when a gay couple adopt a baby, both may be able to get paternity rights.  Why not maternity?  Because, neither gave birth and neither can breastfeed.  They should be treated the same way as a single father.

But, to allow both partners of a homosexual relationship to declare themselves as parents on a birth certificate is beyond belief.  A birth certificate serves as a legal document, detailing the natural parentage of the child.  In this day and age, when people have a lot of interest in discovering their lineage, it would be impossible for a child to discover his/her ancestors when this document only serves to further the rights of the parents.  (How will the kids reconcile this when they learn about sex and procreation when they grow up?) The rights of the lesbian partner takes precedence to the rights of the sperm donor on the certificate.  The partner can assume this right, even if she is not even in a civil relationship with the birth mother. 

What next?  Will homosexual males who ask a woman to be a surrogate mother then be able to have both their names on the birth certificate, excluding the birth mother?  After all, if it’s to be equal rights, what’s good for the lesbians should be good for the gays.

I did not lose a loved one in the Lockerbie bombing, but I did have a friend in college who lost her brother.  I did not follow the trial and can only accept that Mr. Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was found guilty and imprisoned.  For those who cannot understand how cold Americans can be regarding Mr. al-Megrahi and how angry they are at his release, let me point out a few things.

Mr. al-Megrahi was the only one convicted – he probably was not the only one involved, he may not have been the ringleader, but most likely, he had a hand in it.  Whether he was a scapegoat or not is a different matter.  His government handed him over and he was found guilty.  The Americans were not the judges.  They accepted the verdict.  Had he been found innocent, they would have continued the quest for justice.  He is something tangible for them to take their anger and frustration out on.

A sentence was delivered.  To cut the sentence short, out of compassion, feels like a betrayal to these people.  It does not seem like justice.  People may preach compassion all they want, but victims’ families have a hard time hearing it.  Also, in the US, prisoners get better health care than the general public.  So, releasing him on compassionate grounds would not be considered “compassionate” – though Americans don’t view keeping him in prison as compassionate, they just think it’s justice.  However, if you wanted to argue compassion, they would argue that he would get free medical care in prison.  Was he getting that in the UK?  Is it more compassionate to send him home to Libya where medical care may not be as good?

I’m sure Gaddafi and the Libyans now pretend to show great friendship to the UK (especially Lord Mandelson), but deep down inside I wonder what their feelings are regarding the UK’s “compassionate” stand.  I don’t refer just to Mr. al-Megrahi.  The UK (I am not separating Scotland and England) has shown compassion to several prisoners who are terminally ill.  Do the people in the Middle East admire that trait, or do they scorn it?  Will they be grateful, or will they take advantage of it?  Of course, most people in the UK are probably not as cynical as I am, so they will not care.  They may claim to be atheists, but they show a more Christian-like attitude by turning the other cheek and proving that they can rise above resentment and revenge by showing compassion to someone they feel may be a mass murderer.

But, even so, the fact that he received a hero’s welcome, rather than house arrest, almost comes across as if the Libyans want to stick it to the western world that they can get away with murder.

Addendum:  The fact that al-Megrahi’s solicitor, Tony Kelly, made the following statement (according to BBC online):

“He had to say whether he was going to stay here and die in prison with a view to trying to clear his name posthumously, or to abandon the appeal with a view to getting himself home so he could go back to the bosom of his family.”

seems to imply that al-Megrahi  had prior knowledge of his release, even before the decision was made.  And Mandelson denies he had a discussion with Gaddafi’s son regarding this issue?

But, the question is, will it really make a difference?  Yes, there’s public anger, but some more reasonably minded people still support their MPs. Not all of them, of course.  Even though many MPs were named and shamed, not all their offences were equally offensive.  So, some of them still have supporters.  Not only that, despite their iniquities, some MPs still did a very good job for their constituents (according to their constituents).  So, in the end, the whole brouhaha amounted to very little.

On the other hand, would it be smart to replace a productive MP just because of his/her indiscretions?  Have they really learned any lessons from the scandal or is it all just lip service?  With less than 10 months to go until a general election, how will the expenses scandal play into it?  Will independent candidates be the answer?  Or would anything change, even if independent candidates were to win?  Will people’s anger mean that real changes can really take place?  Or will the anger be misguided into choosing the wrong candidates?  It remains to be seen.