The First Debate (how utterly original).

I work on Thursday nights, so it wasn't until this afternoon that I managed to watch The First Debate. And, being me, I took some notes.

So, I sat down to watch the Podium Power Rangers, each sporting a tie of their party's colour (apart from Brown, who either decided to go for pink for no apparent reason, or accidentally put his red tie in with his dark laundry), battle it out in an attempt to win my vote.

It was a shame that I had, by this morning, already found out what people thought of the debate. I found that Nick Clegg had the upper hand, and why wouldn't he? He is allowing the public to call him Nick, after all. It seemed obvious from the outset though, that Clegg was gladly riding on the back of the conflict between Cameron and Brown. He used to it his advantage, which I don't hold against him at all. However, I do wonder how well he would have come across had Cameron and Brown not been there.

In contrast, Brown seemed to have a disadvantage as although he could make promises for the future, he was repeatedly criticised for what was happening at present. So, he spent much of his time having to defend himself, while Clegg and Cameron (well actually, just Clegg) painted pretty pictures of the country's future.

This isn't to say that Brown failed to win over the audience in this debate. I must admit that although Clegg was the more likeable character, as far as substance goes, Brown definitely knew what he was talking about. By that, I mean that he didn't seem staged, for the most part. A lot of the time he simply spoke, without sounding completely rehearsed, as Clegg often did and Cameron... well... let's just say his High School Musical quote "We're all in this together" was the cheese.

Immigration. Who doesn't like a good debate on that? My Sixth Form Common Room often hears an argument or two on this subject. Clegg proposed a partial solution that actually surprised me, as I had never heard anyone mention anything like it before. Yet, it seemed so simple - immigrants will only be allowed to work in places they are needed. Fair enough, I thought. Whether or not that could work is beyond me, as I don't pretend to have much knowledge on immigration. Cameron put forward the idea of a "Border police force", which made me laugh as I assumed we had one of those already. Brown confirmed my suspicions to an extent, as he said Labour had started to bring in this kind of border protection. I laughed again when Clegg fancied himself as "like anybody else". That's got to be the lamest line in the political book, hasn't it? I mean really, there's no way that just because your children go to a state school (that goes for you too, Cameron... I don't know where Brown's children are educated...) that you're the same as the average Joe working in Tescos. To be honest, I think it's ridiculous that even though they can afford it, they don't send their children to private schools, just so they will look good in the eye of the working class. At one point in the debate, Clegg proposed smaller class sizes (as small as 20, which would be fantastic, but I do believe it to be quite unrealistic given the cuts/caps education funding will undoubtedly receive). I thought to myself, if everyone who could afford to send their children to private schools did so, that target would be much more achievable.

I was disappointed to hear the "more police on our streets" line thrown at me left right and centre in this debate. It's the easiest thing to say, especially if you add "we need" in front of it. It shows an understanding of our dismal numbers of police officers on the beat, with no actual promise of improving the issue. Clegg mocked an ID card system (which, by the way, I have never heard of, and thought sounded very cool - as if John Anderton had thought of it himself), taking it out of the pipe line and replacing it with 3,000 more police officers. Okay, I thought - my Sci-Fi days can be put on hold if it means my house won't get burgled. But the one proposal that did make me favour the Liberal Democrats was stopping young offenders from re-offending in the future. This nip-it-in-the-bud attitude is what schools try to enforce now - why is it that the government has only just stumbled upon it? Brown did take back some of my support as he stated that parents must take responsibility for their children. Hallelujah. Just I had felt previously, Cameron didn't really offer much on this subject either. It was Clegg and Brown that stood out in this instance, offering solid proposals that actually made sense. I did feel sorry for Brown though, as his cringe-worthy attempt to mock the Tories's posters of himself was so utterly awful. I wish he had planned it slightly better, because it probably could have been quite funny. He got his own-back luckily, when he asked Cameron something about his cutting of funding for the police force, and Cameron had no answer and just started going on about what "Gordon is not telling you".

By the way, did anyone notice how many times Cameron said, "What small business, what big business (insert hardship here)"? I counted three, but I'd be much happier if you could prove me wrong and present me with a higher count.

The education section of the debate was something I was looking forward to, but none of my questions about University fees were answered, so I was disappointed. The whole thing about teachers and headteachers having more freedom was very nice - they did like to state the obvious. I really liked it when Brown said that we need Teachers and Teacher's Assistants, and that he didn't want to get rid of any jobs, like the Tories will. I feel very strongly about this - Teachers' jobs always need to be safe, because without them we'd end up having grown men wanting to represent our country having arguments on TV. I promise you, education has improved immensely... and I say this having been educated at a state school (and liking it) my entire life. Well done Eton, you've produced some marvelous pieces of work.

I understand that Clegg wanted to get the point across to the audience that the Liberal Democrats will be "straight" with us. I understand that because he said it at every opportunity. However, as much as I have criticised him, I liked Clegg very much. Even though his trousers were too long, the arms of his jacket too short and he had my Nan is uproar commenting that he should take his hands out of his pockets, he used the phrase "Millions and Squillions", which makes him one of the most amazing politicians ever, quite obviously.

So here's the deal:
Brown knew what he was talking about. He wasn't the most charismatic, but he was the solid, older man you feel you can trust to water your plants when you're on holiday. That's a good thing.
Cameron was just plain useless, and a lot of the time I forgot he was there, even when he was speaking. I heard he flew in the guy who coaches Barack Obama - so, while he spoke like a news reader, his content wasn't very impressive. His closing statement reminded me of my Year 6 house captain elections (I won... by the way) when my teacher told me not to say "if you fall over in the playground, I will help you" but rather, "If you want something to change, tell me and I will tell Mr Guest".
Clegg was, as I have already said, the most likeable character. He offered figures, which instantly makes people feel that he is a trustworthy kind of guy. And he did present some good points, for which I was very happy. I think Clegg showed that a change would be alright, as a matter of fact.

Oh, and Cameron - how do you know that woman is doing a great job with regards to our health service? For all you know she could be stealing office supplies and spending her shifts looking for bar maid jobs online.

It's probably only fitting that I link the debate to this post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk5HvJmy_yg

I also liked how Alistair Stewart never knew where the camera was.

Women - never forget the Suffragettes. Vote.
Tails.

Too cool for nothing at all.

We are too obsessed with what is cool. From when we get dressed in the morning, to what we decide watch on TV in the evening, we are forever worrying about what others will approve of. A prime example: Facebook and Twitter. I know for a fact that when updating their statuses, there are a lot of people who spend a great deal of time deciding what the coolest/funniest/most intelligent-sounding way to write what they've got to say. And most of the time, that something is as insignificant as "I'm bored". Yet the fear that people may find "Today was so boring" to mean you have no social life, you instantly feel the need to change your quote to something like, "Today was boring until I spoke to (tag person here)". You didn't really have fun speaking to that person, but at least that gets your point across and saves you from being a social outcast.

It's no wonder we are so fearful of what others think - if you step outside wearing the 'wrong' shoes the muttering will start. Working in a clothes store I regularly hear things like "what the hell is she thinking?" or "yeah, like she's going to look good in that". However, we have become such a consuming-driven society (we're suckers for an advert or two) that even if we know that we don't have the figure for that skimpy size 10 dress, we still need to have it, just so people won't think we're off-trend. God forbid we wear something that fits and actually looks decent, because who wants something that nobody else is wearing? We do like to shun individuality, after all.

I'm going off on a slight tangent. What I mean to say is, why can't people just be themselves? (Please ignore the cliché). Say what they really think, dress how they want to dress and do what they want to do? Another example: when I get a car, I want to have 'My other car is a TARDIS' on the bottom of the number plate. Already, I know a lot of you are thinking, "what an idiot", and that's fair enough. But so what? If I was as obsessed with what other people think as some people are, I wouldn't be having much fun at all... and I most certainly wouldn't be writing this blog.

This isn't to say that I don't care what people think. I do, to an extent. It's frustrating really, because a lot of the time I don't mean to care. I think these little insecurities are built-in for a lot of us. If you're sitting there reading this thinking, "I don't give a shit what people think", I'd like to direct you to the clothes you wear that you think make you look good, the things you say that you hope will make you sound funny or intelligent, and the things in life that you don't do. That's what it's all down to, isn't it? Not just what people will do to seem cool, but the things they won't, even if they really want to, in case it makes them look like a loser.

In other news, I've almost come to the conclusion that I want to go to St Mary's to study Media Arts and English. They have an awesome Media course there, and unlike many universities, actually include Shakespeare in their English course.

This link will take you to an interview about video games, which made me quite angry. Notice the attack on the video-game-guy, and the fact that no one else can comprehend the fact that video games have certificates. It was on The Alan Tichmarsh Show. Also notice that I left that statement until last.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryH2WemACIM&feature=player_embedded

As my birthday nears, the excitement builds. More on this story next time...

Happy blogging,
Tails.

The Shadow Proclamation and other matters.

I am a huge Doctor Who fan, so tonight was a very important night indeed. Still grieving the loss of my beloved David Tennant, and worrying what the programme would be made into with a new TARDIS, no Tennant and no Russell, I sat with my knees to my chest as I anxiously awaited the opening drum beats.

I wasn't very happy that the music had changed slightly. It does change every so often, but I must admit that I wasn't comfortable until it neared the end, when last series' tune came into play.

I was very impressed with Matt Smith. I had believed that no one could possibly compare to Tennant, especially not a nobody that caused the hair rating of the programme to fall from a 10 to a 2. However, the quick pace and wittiness of him made the Doctor easily recognisable and for that, I am happy. It was almost as if if I closed my eyes, it could have been Tennant. Almost. In my opinion, Smith most definitely did the character justice; I let out a sigh of relief as the episode came to a close, knowing that I could look forward to the next. The absence of Russell T Davies didn't do much damage, thankfully. After writing Blink (which I felt had been written by someone else at the time, even before I knew it had [it was quite different]) Steven Moffat gained my support. After seeing this episode, he can keep it.

As for the TARDIS, well... they built that up, didn't they? The fear filled me entirely and yet it didn't have to - the same hat stand stood tall, and the TARDIS remained pretty much the same, just with a few changes of colours and materials here and there. Thank The Shadow Proclamation for that.

In other news (literally) did anyone see the April Fool in The Guardian the other day? 'Lame' doesn't come close - I mean, seriously, as soon as I saw the images I was scanning the page for some sort of April Fools anagram. Granted, they dropped the s, but I found it eventually. To be honest with you, it would have been received with much more 'gotcha' humour if it had been in a tabloid. Saying that, if anyone did fall for the article, they most definitely should not be reading The Guardian in the first place.

Speaking of The Guardian, I read a story in Weekend about a couple who are paying £30,000 to chose the sex of their baby. After having three boys, they desperately want a girl. But I ask, how ethical is this? I understand that there are people who would be disappointed with having a baby of a particular gender, but should these people be having children at all?

I suppose, if someone has the inability to love a boy, because they want a girl so much, then they should be given the chance to have a girl. Not because this is what they deserve, but because if this wasn't the case then there would be an unloved baby boy brought into the world. How awful is that? I once watched a programme about babies and gender - a couple had four boys and were going to have a scan of their unborn baby number 5. They were hoping for a girl, just as they had done during the previous four pregnancies. They had the scan, and the baby was revealed to be a boy. You know what the woman did? She cried. She was so upset and disappointed that she was having another boy. I feared for that child. That unwanted baby boy.

So, perhaps there are pros as well as cons for deciding your baby's gender. For health reasons, this is obviously a wonderful thing. However, in the case of choosing your baby's eye colour, hair colour, etc... aren't we going a little too far? Designing a baby, just as if you were choosing an outfit for the weekend. Where's the love and pride? It's more like having a baby that will cause your friends to envy you - my baby's prettier than yours, ner ner.

It's my birthday soon - I'm very excited.
Oh, and by the way - I passed my driving test this week. And got my drama exam over and done with. Good times.

A video for you: very different from what I usually give you, because it's one of my own. I was watching it today... that's really the only reason I'm putting it in my blog.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tKNpN88AGk

Au revoir,
Tails.