Militant secularisation - worse than militant theocracy.

There are some things you hear about that you need to do a double take with sometimes.  Take an article I read today, for example.  Lady Warsi, a British MP, has called for Christianity to be given a more central role in society and government after the latest furore over the removal of prayer sessions before council meetings.  She claims that British secularisation is "that at its core and in its instincts it is deeply intolerant. It demonstrates similar traits to totalitarian regimes – denying people the right to a religious identity because they were frightened of the concept of multiple identities."

It's not strange to hear a religious conservative stand against secularisation; at the most harmless level you can take it, they believe supporting religion is standing up for core nationalist values, that religion plays a massive part in creating the identity of a culture and society.   However, the danger with allowing religion into politics and parliament is that it's supporting one particular religion over another; religious favourtisism has never been a fair system in government and usually involves other religions being at a disadvantage at large.  Using a theocratic system I am familiar with, the Brunei government favours its Muslim citizens, allowing better benefits to them over their smaller Buddhist, Christian. Hindu and atheist citizens.  Their reasoning is that Brunei is a Muslim country, built on Muslim values.  It's by no means a fair system.  And that's in a country where a non-Muslim population is at a significantly small ratio that an uprising against that unfairness would probably take many years to overcome.  In England, where religious diversity is far more, well, diverse, favouring one religion over another would light a powder keg of dispute.  In fact, not unlike the powder keg that one Guy Fawkes had attempted. 

And it's not just favouring Christianity as a whole that Lady Warsi is advocating.  She's organising a delegation to the Vatican to argue that "Europe needs to be more confident in its Christianity".  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a trip to the Vatican itself an advocation for Catholicism being the preferred Christian denomination?  Historically, England turned Protestant under King Henry the Eighth in protest against Roman Catholicism.  Doesn't that imply that Protestant Christianity is far more important to English heritage than that of Catholic Christianity? 

Lady Warsi says she doesn't want a theocracy but that faith should play a bigger role in politics.  In what way?  It's fine if a person wants to practice their faith in private.  The problem secularists have with religion in politics and public office is that it interferes with maintaining government neutrality and fairness.  If faith was allowed to dictate what was moral, that risks pulling the country back several decades, if not centuries.  Religion as a whole has massive disdain for hot political topics such as equal rights for homosexuals and women as well as abortion and marriage, to name but a handful.  By allowing the religious right to advocate their faith in office, the worst case scenario would be to face having to fight for rights we already have. 

In the midst of this whole debate, there is one thing that strikes me as ironic.  Lady Warsi herself is a Muslim.  I wonder how her Muslim constituents must feel about her pushing for putting Christianity over her roots in Islam.

Someone get this man a lesson in culture and sociology.

What do we have here?  A high ranking religious leader promoting bigotry?  When did this happen? 

The Archbishop of York, Dr John Setanmu, is telling people that whilst he's fine with homosexuals having a civil partnership, he thinks that they shouldn't get married and that is was not "the role of the government to alter social structures that had been in place for centuries".

"I don't think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can't just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are"

Hmmm.  What is the definition of marriage, I wonder...

Marriage (or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. (-Wikipedia)

That sounds pretty cut and dry to me as far as definitions go.  So what's the problem with allowing gay couples to be married?  Well, according to Dr Sentamu and many other religious people from other faiths who share his view, marriage is a sacred union as endorsed by their God.  And since according to his mind that God hates men sticking their dicks up other men's arses, or women having scissor sex, these people should not be allowed to have their long relationships made into marriage unions, and thus "endorsed by God".

(On the vein of opposition to gay men and lesbians, why are more people of extreme faith against the former?  Is it because penises are going into poop holes and not vaginas?  Is it because lesbians are stereotypically thought of as page three models and therefore it's hot?  Seriously, I am curious to know why gay men are more hated on than gay women.)

Dr Sentamu goes another step further and compares the government's interference on marriage values a dictatorship.

"We've seen dictators do it in different contexts, and I don't want to redefine very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time and then overnight the state believes it could go in a particular way."

Well, let's examine history on social change where the government was involved.  How about one that should be close to the Archbishop's heart - slavery and equal rights for black people.  Once upon a time, black people were thought of as lower than anyone with pale skin.  They were hunted and shipped out of their home countries like cattle, sold like property, abused, unheard, ignored.  It was a massive joke to suggest to a white man to let his slaves go free, or to give them a basic wage, or even just to stop sticking his boot in their faces.  Then what happened?  White people grew a conscience.  White people started recognising that it was wrong to abuse someone because of the colour of their skin.  White people spoke up and fought back for the rights of their fellow humans, for the sake of human decency.  Obviously, they were resisted.  They were scoffed at or accused of being "black lovers" like it was a sin (which it was thought of at the time).  There were fights, battles, wars.  And the thing with fights and wars is that they build up in scale.  The government would HAVE to get involved.  The government would HAVE to listen to their people.

As history has proven in the Western world, slavery was abolished but not without the backing of the governments.  Not without the changing of laws that allowed the atrocity to happen.  Yes, it took a very long time.  Even now, race crimes are not uncommon, but they are just that now - crimes.  You cannot deny a black person's basic rights to welfare, work, relationships, marriage based on the colour of their skin.  And that extends to other races as well.

How is that fight any different to now?  People are fighting in this day and age to help another disadvantaged group; the LGBT community.  They are still people, they are still humans.  You wouldn't know them to be any different to another straight person unless they told you.  And yet people still think it's okay to deny them the same rights a straight person enjoys, that it's okay to sneer at them, to abuse them, to kill them because they love the wrong gender.  The government has to get involved now because the public WANTS them to. 

The problem Dr Sentamu has with the government getting involved is that he knows the public domain is supportive of gay marriage. Hopefully in March, when the government has had their consultation regarding gay marriage, Dr Sentamu and the people who agree with this homophobic bigotry will see that social change can and will happen at a government level, but not because the Prime Minister is a dictator, but because the British public have voted for equal rights instead of religious privilage and bigotry. 

(Sourced from The Guardian)

I'd call them animals, but that'd be an insult to animals.

I used to think I'd like to visit Egypt one day.  Then something like this pops up and I rethink any future travel plans. 

“My roommates and I fell to the ground when they attacked us. The people pulled my pants off even as I yelled and tried to fight,” she continued.

She said that after the men pulled their pants off, they continued to grab and grobe the woman’s bodies. “It is disgusting. They put fingers up my ass,” she revealed.  Luckily, the women were somehow pulled from the violence by a man and a woman and taken to safety. She said she doesn’t recall exactly how she was saved from the violent attack.

What the bloody fuck?  

What kind of mental processes must go through the minds of these men when they decide it's perfectly okay to strip and sexually molest women in the middle of a public square without warning?  It's depraved and sickening and it goes without saying, absolutely wrong.  The world is watching the country after the people rose up to remove a corrupt power from their government, but it seems that corruption runs far deeper than in just the upper echleons of politics.  It's running rampant in the streets, amongst the people and poisoning the society itself.  It must be, if this is what's happening in the general population after the revolution.

Thankfully, people in Tahrir are speaking out and speaking against these assaults, calling for people to be exposed and brought to face their crimes.

Activists called the attacks on women completely “unacceptable” and must be exposed no matter what. They demanded an end to all violence toward women.
“What happened in Tahrir today has no justification and must be fully exposed even if it taints Tahrir!” wrote EgyptSecularist on Twitter.

However, some people close to the assaulted women don't seem to agree with these sentiments.  Heather, the young woman who came forward with the story of her assault above, was told by people not to share her story as it would "taint the image of the revolution".  I say, good for her and fuck her naysayers.  It has tainted the image of the revolution, but this is a good kind of taint.  If the mobs are made to at least face up to the nature of their crimes and see that the international stage won't allow this kind of behaviour, maybe it could steer them towards a more civilised movement.  However, this optimism is a little strained - the numbers and ingrained mentality involved is exceedingly great.  It will take so much more work and so many more women to come forward and shame the men who assault them, and for the population against this abuse to support them.

Though with the statistics involved, it's going to be a long fight.

According to studies conducted by the Egyptian Center for Women’s Right (ECWR) in 2008, 98 percent of foreign women and 83 percent of Egyptian women surveyed had experienced sexual harassment in Egypt.
Meanwhile, 62 percent of Egyptian men confessed to harassing women and 53 percent of Egyptian men faulted women for “bringing it on.”

Bringing it on?  I'd like to meet each of those men and bring it on.

Preferably with a sledgehammer.

(Article found on Butterflies and Wheels)

Awww, just kiss and make up already.

Advertising is designed to get certain emotions going to sell their products or ideology.  Quite a few adverts cause controversy.  United Colors of Benetton have released one such ad campaign which has sent people up in arms.

Benetton's Unhate campaign is trying to spread the message of tolerance and "unhate".  Quoted from their website...

What does UNHATE mean? UN-hate. Stop hating, if you were hating. Unhate is a message that invites us to consider that hate and love are not as far away from each other as we think. Actually, the two opposing sentiments are often in a delicate and unstable balance. Our campaign promotes a shift in the balance: don’t hate, Unhate

I think this is a WONDERFUL message to spread.  It's not everyday that a big firm would release a specific campaign urging people the world over to stop hating each other.  Unfortunately, this message is a little lost on some people.  First in line to argue this "controversial advertising" is the Vatican, on behalf of Pope Benedict.

Don't they make a lovely couple?

Locking lips with the Pope in that image is Sheik Ahmed el-Tayeb, a prominant imam and scholar of Sunni Islam from Cairo.  Other images in the campaign has Barack Obama kissing the leaders from China and Venezuela, Angela Merkel kissing Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of Palestine kissing the Prime Minister of Israel, and another personal favourite of mine, Kim Jong-il kissing the president of South Korea, Lee Myung-bak.

Unfortunately, the Pope's poster hasn't been up for more than an hour before they were forced to pull it from their website due to complaints from Vatican City. 

"This shows a grave lack of respect for the Pope, an offence to the feelings of believers, a clear demonstration of how publicity can violate the basic rules of respect for people," said Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican's spokesman.

The posters were unveiled in a "series of guerilla actions" according to the company, with the posters of Benedict/Ahemd, Merkel/Sarkozy and Obama/Hu Jintao being revealed in Rome, Paris and Milan respectively.  As of yet, the Pope is the only one considering taking legal action against the company for his particular poster, although I would be very interested in hearing the reactions of the other posters from the other featured leaders.  Alessandro Benetton, the deputy head of the company, knew what he was doing in this provocative campaign but wanted to share the ideal notion of love through these posters.  Good on him, I say; I love this campaign.

"The central theme is the kiss, the most universal symbol of love, between world political and religious leaders," Alessandro Benetton said in a statement.

 I suggest heading over to their website and check out the other posters.  It's like looking at movie posters for an upcoming rom-com next summer.  

(News source: Daily Telegraph)

It's a busy weekend.

Anyone else surprised we made it to the 22nd of October?  No?  Good, let's move on...

Another chapter in political history has been made with the death of a tyrant.  Colonel Muannmar "Mad Dog" Gadaffi, as we all know by now, had been killed two days ago.  This is bittersweet news - the people have a chance at a true democracy after over forty years under his harsh reign.  However, I got the same disappointed dread I felt when Osama Bin Laden was killed earlier this year.  For all the crimes he is guilty of, Gadaffi should have been made to stand trial and made accountable for everything he has done, in a court of justice.  Instead, he was executed, although reports have argued against it, saying he had been mortally wounded before being shot in the head.  If that was the case, if they were so eager for him to die, why not let him bleed to death instead of helping along?  And not only that, but allowing his body to be photographed by everyone on their mobile phones whilst it lays in refrigeration, awaiting transportation. 

It may have been a war, but I don't understand why a little decorum from the rebels couldn't have been practiced.  But then again, this is my shallow opinion of the matter.  The next step would be for Libya to pick itself up again and show the world what it can do with its own people speaking up for themselves. 

All these equal rights are taking away our religious privilege!

Don't worry, these aren't my words, per se.  Rather, I was translating what one Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks, has been saying.  It would seem that he, along with other religious leaders, are worried about the lack of "religious liberty" and that the number of believers in England are "extraordinarily low".

"I share a real concern that the attempt to impose the current prevailing template of equality and discrimination on religious organisations is an erosion of religious liberty."

He suggests that with the rise of equality laws and rights in England, many religious people will be repeating history by leaving the country in what he calls a mass exodus on the same level as the Mayflower pilgrimage from the 17th century when English Separatists left England for America. 

At face value, you would feel sorry for them if there was a good reason for why they feel like they are not being given their religious liberty.  What then is it that these people are disappointed about? 

> Charles Wookey, the assistant general secretary of the Catholic bishops conference of England and Wales, told the MPs that religious organisations were struggling with “rapid social change”. This meant they were forced to alter practices that had been in place for many years, he said.

 > Roman Catholic adoption agencies have closed because they cannot reconcile the requirements under the new laws with their belief that children should not be placed with gay couples.

So....Lord Sacks and other religious leaders are angry they have to keep up with the times, drop out-dated and irrelevant practices and not be bigotted?   Oh dear, poor them!  How dare we treat gays, women and the secular society as equal human beings?  How dare we allow gay couples the right to adopt, to tell people that they cannot pass their bigotted ways down to children, that people cannot use their faith to mistreat others as they see fit? 

Lord Sacks has it all wrong.  England is one of the few countries in the world where ANY religion can be practiced freely, without fear of prosecution as long as it does not infringe on the rights and welfare of others.  So no, sirs, you cannot complain that you are being singled out, silenced and downtrodden.  You are only complaining that you cannot do the singling out, the silencing and keeping the heathens down yourselves.  If you want the Government to stop telling you to open your doors and stop being such bastards to others, then by all means, hop on a boat and leave (I think you might find some brethren in America who would gladly take you in).  The people left behind will be grateful for it. 

Oh look, a bigoted Conservative politician!

It's nice to see how far equal opportunites has come along since the days where only the healthy, wealthy, white men were allowed rights.  But look!  I see a healthy, wealthy, white male politician who thinks that a disadvantaged group should be treated less fairly than others.

Phillip Davies, the MP for Shipley, suggests that those with mental health disabilities should be able to opt out of the national minimum wage to be more competitive at the work place.  Because, according to him, disabled people are less productive in the work place.  Yeah right - I'm sure my dyslexic, dysphraxic and depression-prone hard-working friends would be very pleased to hear that.   Especially the following quote made by him.

“Given that some of those people with a learning disability clearly, by definition, can't be as productive in their work as somebody who hasn't got a disability of that nature, then it was inevitable that given that the employer was going to have to pay them both the same they were going to take on the person who was going to be more productive, less of a risk, and that was doing those people a huge disservice.”

Apart from discriminating based on disability being against the law, I don't see how anyone with a learning disability would be less productive.  Many people cope in work with a learning disability and prove themselves just as capable.  In fact, in some cases, even more so because they feel like they have to work twice as hard as "mentally abled" people just to prove they can do it.  Some of the most successful people in history and in the world have proven themselves to be far more successful in life because they refuse to let such prejudices get them down.  In fact, I did a quick Google search to prove the point; apart from Richard Branson and Winston Churchill whom the Telegraph listed, we also have

• Hans Christian Andersen (dyslexia)
• Daniel Radcliff (dyspraxia)
• Beethoven (dyslexia)
• Leonardo da Vinci (dyslexia)
• Agatha Cristie (depression)
• Michaelangelo (depression)
• Anthony Hopkins (dyslexia)
• Albert Einstein (suspected dyspraxia, Asperger's syndrome)
• Bill Gates (Asperger's syndrome)

I can go on, but then I would overload this post with names.  Fact is, often so called mentally disabled individuals are the most mentally abled of us.  They are more determined to overcome what people would assume to be a disadvantage and provide role models for others.

Despite the critism and the outrage, Philip Davis is unapologetic, claiming that disabled people have to "prove themselves" before moving up the payscale and that "left-wing hysteria" is to blame for the criticisms he received.  Well, sounds like this MP needs a pay review because if we were to follow his suggestion, I think he is earning far more than his brain cell states he should earn.

Is there a doctor in the house?

If there's anything to be learnt in politics, it's that photo opportunities are great for public opinion.  Especially involving children, the elderly or ill people.  So of course, Prime Minister David Cameron and his deputy Nick Clegg would be found in a hospital ward, speaking to patients.  However, their little chat with the patients was interrupted by a very irate surgeon.

Doctor Nunn, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon of Guy's Hospital, took offence to the camera crew and political aides who did not adhere to the strict hygiene rules of the ward (i.e. rolled up sleeves and scrubbed arms), which were put in place to prevent to spread of superbugs in hospitals.  It was reported that a ward sister had authorised the staff's attire because they weren't coming into close contact with patients.  However true that may be, I do feel more inclined to agree with the doctor.  With the NHS in the state it is in most of the time, it's hard enough to be able to keep a hospital clean and safe for the people who go in to get better.  The last thing you want to do is to go into a hospital only to contract a horrible infection and die as a result.  Doctor Nunn was only thinking of his responsibility to his patients, and rightly so. 

I am not medically trained by any means, but I do think that the state of hospitals in the UK could stand to do better.  I miss the days when I could walk into a hospital and be overwhelmed by the smell of antiseptic and at the stark cleanliness of the building.  Then again, I have been called a bit of a weirdo for actually finding the smell comforting.  But why shouldn't it be?  Unless someone accidentally dropped a bottle of Dettol, I think it is a sign of good hygiene to be able to actually smell how clean a supposedly sterile environment is.  Or at least be able to tell at a glance how clean a hospital is if their cleaning products are odourless.  It could well be that the reports of infections such as MRSA are only feared because it's being reported more, but given how many hospitals are under review, have closed or are under going investigation due to outbreaks of infection or accused of neglect, I'm more inclined to think declining staff care and increased bureaucracy are to blame. 

Doctors like Nunn are a credit to their hospitals for not putting up with the bull of publicity stunts at the risk of patient health.  Sure, he came across as a bit of an arsehole about it, but in the medical world, I think someone who isn't afraid to storm up to the country's leaders and berate them on camera for allowing their staff to contaminate a ward is someone who can be a good example for other doctors in the country.

Rape: Be prepared!

You know, is it really that hard for some people to drum up some empathy for a victim of rape?  They've been through enough already - violated, humiliated and abused, left broken, afraid and vulnerable.  The last thing they need is for more grief to come from somewhere that should be helping them.

This being the case, I suggest avoiding getting raped in Kansas.   Especially if you fall pregnant as a result.  This month, legislators have approved a ban on abortion coverage on general health insurance policies, the only exception being if a pregnancy risks the life of the woman.  No other exceptions - not even a pregnancy as a result of sexual assault.  Sam Brownback, the Governor of Kansas, has been hard at work it would seem police abortions in his state - he already approved restrictions on late-term abortions, health and safety standards for abortion clinics and getting doctors to obtain written parental permission for minors' pregnancies.

Lance Kinzer, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (and Republican) said it best in the article when he said that "this bill includes very crucial pro-life language".  However, I get the feeling he wouldn't have had to spit it out like I just had to, along with another delightful quote "The fundamental issue here is not — although I wish it were — the ability to further limit legal access to abortion, but rather who pays".  I could ALMOST buy that he was truly concerned about the financial welfare of those hard-up businessmen who must have to shell out bags of money for abortions.

Oh yeah, about the whole businessmen thing? Apparently the banning of abortion coverage on company health insurances is also apparently good business sense.

Supporters of the bill argue that it will protect employers who oppose abortion rights from having to pay for policies that cover the procedures.

"I would view this as an important conscience protection for Kansas business owners."

So this bill isn't to protect the women affected by unwanted pregnancy, oh no no no.  This is to take care of the poor business owners who find it offensive that a woman has the choice to not be pregnant.  This is to help all those pro-lifers make it even harder for a woman to have an abortion.  This is to help all those repugnant far-right Republicans shove their version of morality and justice down people's throats, all the while screaming it's God's will, dammit! 

What's even sadder is that other states are looking to Kansas as an example for similar legislations, undoing the work of previous Democrats who fought to protect the rights of women in these states.  Democratic State Rep Annie Kuether sums all this up well - that women are basically treated as second-class citizens. 

In fact, to drive that point further, State Rep Pete DeGraaf has compared planning for pregnancy as a result of rape as being on the same level as planning for a flat tyre on your car. 

Bollier asked him, "And so women need to plan ahead for issues that they have no control over with a pregnancy?"
DeGraaf drew groans of protest from some House members when he responded, "I have spare tire on my car."
"I also have life insurance," he added. "I have a lot of things that I plan ahead for."

Yeah, because every woman should be aware she could be raped at any given time!  Why, it seems almost logical; she's only a second-class citizen after all.  And hey, it's also one of the few places in the world where it's the victim's fault if she does get raped, outside of say Saudi Arabia, Africa and Pakistan.  Oh, but don't tell the Republicans that, they hate being compared to those "savages". 

My friend, Grace Barton, has a proposal for DeGraaf, actually.

"Can I put something to him? Can we ban his health cover for AIDS if he gets raped and catches it?"

 You know what, Grace?  Doesn't sound like a bad idea at all.

Never too young

Chris Whitehead from Cambridgeshire is a brave young man.  With the warmer weather that usually signals the summer, school kids obviously want the chance to wear cooler uniforms.  However, due to school policy brought into effect two years ago, boys at Impington Village College aren't allowed to wear shorts in the warmer months.  In protest, Chris attended school in a skirt, thanks to a loophole that didn't prevent boys from doing so.  He reasons that it's discriminatory against boys as girls were allowed to switch to skirts come summer time, but boys have to remain in long trousers.

In the summer girl students are allowed to wear skirts but boys are not allowed to wear shorts. We think that this discriminates against boys. I will march in a skirt with other boys waving banners and making a lot of noise.

I will be wearing the skirt at school all day in protest at the uniform policy and addressing the assembly with the student council, wearing a skirt.

I find it really uplifting that this young man was able to find the courage within himself to make a bold statement for what he perceived to be a wrong in school policy.  He has been cited as being interested in politics as a career.  Good luck to him, I say.  If he can hang on to his guts and his strong principles, then I can see him becoming a valuable asset in the world of politics.

Extra thought:  With the loophole in their uniform policy allowing boys to wear skirts, could this not be an opprtunity for possible transgendered boys to feel more comfortable in school?  I know kids can be cruel and bullying rife in any school, but this is an opportunity or and inspiration for others to use in their own fight for equality in school.

Got yours in?

Today's a voting day in the UK yet again.  However, unlike voting for who you want to stay in the Big Brother house, who to get to the next stage of Britain's Got Talent or who you want to watch on Eurovision (which is next week, for those who like their annual dosage of high octane cheesy pop like yours truly), voting on the AV Referendum isn't as rivetting or as popular. 

I have to admit, I was a little floundered myself by the whole thing when I first heard it.  New voting system?  What's wrong with the old one?  HOW does the new system actually work?  Research was a little touch and go for me because I have to admit, voting does bore me a little bit.  Okay, a lot.  But then my Dad's words popped into my head - If you had the chance to vote and didn't take it, you have no room to complain if you don't like the end result.  So I decided to take a little time out today to read up on the alternate voting system.  At the moment, the current voting system is First Past The Post, which is basically whoever gets the most votes in.  It's not entirely flawed - it's direct, it's simple, it ensures one clear winner.

Or does it?

After all, if you only get one vote, but you vote for an unpopular person, then you'll have to make do with the knowledge your voice wasn't heard and someone you probably really didn't want in power gets in.  There is a sense of "tough luck" about it and having to put up with someone else's decision trumping yours.  It's also flawed in that if there's no single clear victor, then the Government has to go into a coalition like is has at the moment with David Cameron of the Conservatives and Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats.  People thought this was a good thing initially - even though David Cameron is the Prime Minister, Nick Clegg could still speak up for the Lib Dem voters and get some of his policies through, right?  Not so - Clegg has unfortunately proven he hasn't a backbone when placed next to Cameron.  His policies have been watered down to near enough non-existance, his own supporters have lost faith in him and he's become a bit of a joke as a deputy PM.

On the other hand, the new vote system being proposed is a numbering system that sounds complicated at first, but only if you don't concentrate.  The MP you most want in power is labelled as "1", your second choice as "2" and so on.  And you needn't number all of them, just the ones you support the most in the order of your own preference.  Then those first choice votes get counted up.  If one person gets 50% or more of the first choice votes, they get in.  If there's no such clear winner, then the person who gets got the least is eliminated and using the wonderful tool known as maths, you distribute the remainder 2nd, 3rd etc votes to their respective MPs.  This process continues until one person clearly comes out on top.  In theory, it means the end of coalition governments and extremist groups like the BNP won't even have a look in.  It's also been said though that it was only an excuse for Nick Clegg to ensure a victory for his party next election.  But to the people who say this, I ask this - wouldn't his party only get a victory if he gets a lot more second choice votes as well?  And it's not entirely a bad thing.  If you don't want him to be in with a chance at all, just don't put him down as your second or third choice, or as a choice at all.  You still have a say in that, after all.

Some people have complained this system is unneccessarily complicated, but is it?  I admit I found it a little confusing at first but that was down to the poor explanations I came across.  I probably haven't explained it all that well either myself.  Though I did draw parallels to one system that's in popular use at least once a year in Europe.

(Side note: I have grown rather fond of Graham Norton's commentary - he's a good step from Terry Wogan.)

See, not honestly that hard at all when you think about it.  And if someone is obviously popular, then they will win anyway.  The least popular ones still won't get in.  And you can still sit well in the knowledge that even if your first choice didn't win, your second choice might.  And isn't it better than letting your last choice get in at all?