Twisted City by Chris Singleton - album sleeve

Just enter your details below to get a copy of Chris Singleton's first album, 'Twisted City', entirely free.

Your name *  
Your email *

Postcode (County if Ireland) *

By signing up you accept
terms and conditions.

Sign up to the blog

Enter your email address below to receive Chris Singleton's blog in your inbox. You can also subscribe via RSS (using Feedburner).


Entries in David Cameron (6)


So here are the EU referendum results

So here are EU the referendum results

  • The Scots are pissed off with the English.
  • The 'natives' are pissed off with 'foreigners.'
  • The Remainers are pissed off with the Outers.
  • The young are pissed off with the old.
  • London is pissed off with the shires.
  • Europe is pissed off with Britain.
  • The middle class are pissed off with the working class.
  • The working class are pissed off at being patronised by the metropolitan elite.
  • The metropolitan elite are pissed off at being called a metropolitan elite (but probably coined the phrase themselves).
  • The 'educated' are pissed off with the 'uneducated'.
  • Depending on which meme you're into, Piglet and Pooh, after initially being quite friendly about it all are actually increasingly pissed off with each other.
  • Leavers are, in increasing numbers, now pissed off with themselves for voting leave.
  • Daily Express readers are still pissed off with everybody (except Princess Diana, who may, don't you know, still be alive).
  • Daily Mail editors are pissed off that despite their best efforts, they couldn't *quite* convince the general populace of a link between the EU and cancer.
  • The Irish passport office is pissed off with the fact that everybody suddenly has an Irish granny.
  • Boris is pissed off with about 3.8% of the people who followed his advice to vote Leave.
  • Cameron is pissed off with the idea of actually negotiating a way out of the mess he made by calling a referendum in the first place.
  • Jeremy Corbyn's right-on, loving and 'inclusive' fans are pissed off with 'Red Tories', 'Blairite scum' and 'liberal fascists.'
  • The rest of Labour is pissed off with Jeremy Corbyn for not taking a hint (or getting up off his arse during the referendum campaign).

And meanwhile, everybody, including the Leave faction, is pissed off at the prospect of actually invoking Article 50 any time soon.

(Good name for a band that actually, Article 50).



Ready for change?

I'm a bit of an anorak when it comes to UK politics, and I'm finding the whole run-up to this election fascinating. The prospect of the first hung parliament in years is decidedly exciting to people like me, however much the money men are trying to scare us off one (next time you hear a guy in a pin-stripe suit warn you that a hung parliament is a Very Bad Thing for the economy, remember that he and his chums were largely responsible for the current economic crisis in the first instance).

If on May 7th there isn't a hung parliament, it's fairly likely that the Tories will have won the election. With a foreign-owned, right-wing media providing the party with acres of free publicity and a bag-full of Lord Ashcroft's foreign-generated (and untaxed) cash to pay the marketing bill, a Conservative victory remains a very likely prospect.

So what would a Tory government be like? You've probably noticed by now that the Conservatives have gone for an Obama-esque slogan, positioning themselves as the party of change. Interestingly, a lot of journalists have rubbished this idea somewhat, pointing out that the Tories have watered down their Thatcherite stance (or at least language), are now quite New-Labourish, and that a Tory victory would provide more of the same; business as usual. 

Wrong. I think a Tory victory at this point in the UK's history could result in some of the most profound changes that Britain has ever seen.

Here's why.

Firstly, the Scots don't like the Conservative Party very much - in fact, at all. They never really vote for them these days. If the Tories win power -- thanks to the efforts of English voters ("Motorway Man" and his other carefully-segmented friends) -- there is a much greater chance of the Scots voting for full independence in a referendum. 

Secondly, the Tories have promised to reduce the number of MPs in Westminster by 10% (65 or so MPs). Somewhat unsurprisingly, the proposed cuts will mean that it is mostly Labour MPs getting the chop. This would have a massive effect on the make-up of future parliaments.

Thirdly, the Tories don't like the idea of electoral reform, or more specifically, proportional representation (the idea that the number of seats in parliament should proportionally reflect, er, the wishes of the voters). The reason that Tories don't like proportional representation is because they know that the only way that they could ever get into power is under the existing arrangements, where 40% of the vote can deliver 50%-60% of the seats in the House of Commons. Coupled with the new constituency boundaries which will help to deliver even more bang for the Tory vote, we're looking at a situation where it would be extremely hard for other parties to win elections.

So, at this point - say, three years after a Tory win, what are we left with? An independent Scotland, and an England and Wales which have a voting system that is hard-wired to elect Tories (and no reform to this system in sight). Now, the Welsh don't like the Conservatives much either. Could a more vigorous independence movement start in the valleys, if it looks as though an eternally Conservative half-Britain is a likely prospect? The end of the Union beckons! And ironically, brought to you by the Conservative and Unionist Party.

It sounds far-fetched. But an independence referendum is the centrepiece policy of the current Scottish administration; the reduction in the numbers of MPs is a key part of the Tories' response to the expenses scandal; and David Cameron has come out firmly against electoral reform.

Ready for change?

More Chris Singleton content

Why I'm not betting on a Tory win

For quite a while now the media has been doing a good job of convincing us all that the Tories are on their way back to power. Be it in The Guardian or The Daily Mail, David Cameron has for the past year or so been consistently portrayed as the next PM, and the assumption that the Conservatives will win the next election is now firmly embedded in political journalism.

It’s easy to understand why political commentators are taking a ‘Tories-will-win’ line: Brown is a jaded, unpopular prime minister who presides over an uninspiring administration – an administration which has been finding it hard to appeal to Labour supporters, never mind floating voters. And the Tories have been ahead in the polls for ages.

In strictly democratic terms, the Tories will not win the next election. They will get around 36% to 42% of the vote, with the majority of the country voting the way it always does – for centre-left parties (Labour and the Lib Dems). But under the UK’s antiquated and grossly unfair electoral system, first-past-the-post – which rewards parties that win a minority of the vote with a majority of seats in parliament – a 40% chunk of the vote could still result in the Tories getting back into power.

However, I’m increasingly of the opinion that the Tories may not win a majority in parliament. Instead, I think that a lot of indicators are increasingly pointing to a hung parliament (where no party has overall control).

There are four main reasons why I think the Tories are unlikely to win a majority of seats in the House of Commons at the next election:

1) The Tories have a seriously big hill to climb to reach a majority
The Conservatives need to win 117 seats in the next election to gain an overall majority of one, and 140 seats to win a 'working majority'. This will require at least a swing of 6.9% to the Tories – the biggest swing in 60 years, according to BBC journalist Michael Crick. And I’m not sure that Cameron (a multi-millionaire ex-member of the Bullingdon Club) has sufficient populist appeal to pull that kind of swing off.

2) It’s harder than ever before to secure an overall majority in the House of Commons
As Michael Crick also points out, the number of MPs elected who are not Tory or Labour but “others” (Lib Dems, Democratic Unionists, Respect etc.) has grown massively over the years – from 7 MPs in 1959 to 100 MPs in 2005. The main effect of this has been to create a ‘balance of power’ block in parliament and make it harder for any party (and particularly for the Tories) to win an overall majority of seats in the House of Commons.

3) Constituency boundaries favour Labour over the Tories
According to the UK Polling Report, the way that constituency boundaries are currently defined means that there is an “in-built bias” for Labour in the electoral system that will frustrate the Tories’ attempts to secure a majority in the House of Commons. A combination of out-of-date boundaries, over-representation of Wales and other oddities means that Labour will automatically win “more seats per votes cast” than the Conservatives.

4) The polls are narrowing, and the economy may be improving
Largely because of the above factors, in order to win an overall majority, the Tories need to poll significantly higher than Labour in an election – 12% more, according to Professor Michael Thrasher from Plymouth University. Six months ago, opinion polls suggested that this was not an implausible scenario – many polls had Labour 20% behind the Tories. But today’s Observer poll has Labour on 31% and the Tories only 6 points ahead at 37%. And Labour’s decent bye-election win in Glasgow North East also points to a possible shoring up of their support.

This improvement in Labour's electoral fortunes and its standing in the polls may be to do with perceived improvements in economic circumstances; and if the state of the economy does improve significantly before the election (as many are now suggesting will happen), it may give Brown a boost which further narrows the Tories' lead to a point where they cannot achieve an overall majority.

The next election could be the most fascinating in years. But what happens after it could be even more interesting: a hung parliament might finally lead to the introduction of a fair voting system - Proportional Representation - if the Lib Dems end up being kingmakers and demand it as part of a deal for propping up Labour or the Tories.

My betting career only goes as far as putting £2 on a horse that didn't win the Grand National - but next May or June I might throw a few bob after a hung parliament. And I'll definitely be staying up all night to watch the election.

Get more Chris Singleton content:


Obama v McCain: who won the first debate?

Well I didn't stay up till the wee hours to watch the debate, I caught up with it on CNN this morning. I had a boiled egg to go with it, and a nice cup of tea.

My gut feeling on presidential debates is that they tend to be about the 'presidential' and not about the 'debate'. There seems to be an almost platonic ideal of what a president should look like (or come across as) and the televised debates between candidates give the US public a chance to see how the candidates conform to that ideal.

This is not a good thing: it places personality over policies. When personality politics takes over, affable guys or gals with very bad ideas can end up in power. When you think about the 2004 US election, even with all his visible faults, and having conducted a disastrous war, George Bush looked and came across more like a 'typical' president than John Kerry (the fact that he actually was the president probably helped). Did that sway the election? Well, I think it certainly improved Bush's chances of winning.

This kind of silliness is not restricted to the US: it's fairly obvious that the Tories' good performance in the polls is due in no small part to the fact that David Cameron looks more like a PM, and is a better communicator, than Gordon Brown (although, policy-wise, Gordon hasn't made it easy for himself).

Anyway, back to the US presidential debate itself. Who won? Well, most right-wingers, I expect, will have agreed with what McCain had to say, and most left-liberals will have sympathised with Obama.

As with most elections, it all comes down to the floating voters - and here's where the "presidential ideal" comes in. If 'independent' or 'indecisive' voters cannot differentiate between the policies and content of the candidates (despite there being clear differences in the approaches of McCain and Obama), it probably means that they are going to look for the candidate who appears most presidential. Who was that?

Well, intriguingly, neither of the candidates looked hugely like a conventional president: we saw an old white guy and a young(ish) black guy slugging it out. This is possibly what makes this race so interesting: the parties have plumped for candidates who do not look like, and certainly don't talk like, the presidents of recent times. McCain comes across as a sort of friendly grand-dad, who will sit the voter on his knee and give him a boiled sweet, and Obama sounds like a toned-down version of Martin Luther King.

If neither of them looked quite like a president, the question becomes one of whom came closest. And, on balance, my answer is Obama. He looked slightly more presidential, slightly more authoritative than McCain. It's easier - in my mind at least - to imagine him giving a presidential address to the nation, or greeting foreign dignitaries in the Rose Garden.

Will this be enough, though, to win him the election? Let's see: there are still dirty tricks (Democrats are already going to court to try to stop Republicans from denying the vote to certain social groups) and possibly racism (are Americans prepared to elect a black man yet?) to overcome.

Get Chris Singleton's blog in your inbox - subscribe at


David and David

David Miliband's article in today's Guardian seems to have provoked a lot of speculation about whether or not he'll take a shot at the Labour leadership.

Whilst battling a horrendous hangover this morning, I read said article. It wasn't much of a hangover cure (and certainly not as effective as the bacon sandwich which was also being consumed at the time).

Despite the media fuss, basically what Miliband is offering is exactly what Brown is currently providing - Blairite "reform" of public services (read creeping privatisation). The 'platform for change' that his article refers to is more of the same, albeit maybe at a faster pace.

What David Miliband might be able to provide which Gordon seemingly cannot is a bit more personality. He's definitely more likeable and seems more at ease with the media. I could see him having a reasonable chance of improving Labour's situation should he become leader (then again, it couldn't get much worse).

If Miliband does lead Labour into the next election, it will amount to a personality contest between two rather well-to-do Davids. This is because Miliband's New Labour politics are so close to Tory positions that there will be little for voters to choose from except the likeability of the respective Davids. Once again, voters will be denied a proper choice, and will have to elect a right-wing government or a er, right-wing government.

In other words, it would be like voting for David...or David.