How to divide fans of Doctor Who - Clara and a female Doctor

Next week sees the return of long running British science fiction series Doctor Who, and with it two distinct splits between fans. Clara and a female Doctor.

Clara started out as “The Impossible Girl” and was a very interesting character and her ark had an heir of unpredictability with Matt Smith. However, whilst Peter Capaldi has been every bit as good as I believed he would, he almost feels like a supporting character in “The Clara show”. I have no issue with the audience viewing the Universe of The Doctor through the eyes of his companion, a formula that has existed since the first episode in 1963. However, when the focus turns to the relationship of the companion and their world, we move away from what the show is all about - a humanoid alien traveller who has adventures in space and time.

The other problem with Clara is that she is yet another everyday, mid twenties, good looking, white, contemporary human girl accompanying The Doctor. She is no different to Rose nor Amy. Why can’t we have someone of equal or near intellect? Osgood would have been fantastic, a nod to Liz from the early 70s, but she was killed in the last season (although she is due back in the new season, but will it be the Zygon double from the 50th anniversary show?). Frank Skinners character, an engineer on an interstellar train based on the Orient Express, would have been neither contemporary and a stereotype. Maybe someone from the past, struggling to cope with technology that would be like magic to him or her (there a fair number of companions like this in Classic Who).

The second split is of course a future casting of an female in the roll of The Doctor. Since The Master changed gender and became “Misty” in the last season, speculation has intensified that the next regeneration will bring a woman to the role. A feeling that Misty was a testing of the waters on how people would react, and also a way of making it possible that Timelords can become Timeladies, without setting it in stone (The Master is mad enough to force a change of gender to try and get one over The Doctor).

Now, as my boss puts it, I’m one of those “lefty Guardian reading do-gooders,” so naturally I like to see diversity in TV and in particular the genre I love. I don’t like what happened with the “Sad Puppies” at the Hugo awards as I believe diversity in Science Fiction is a wonderful thing and some of my favourite books contain a rich tapestry of diverse and interesting characters. However, I don’t agree with diversity being forced on canon and characters being changed for non organic reasons.

People will argue it isn’t canon that the Doctor is male, however I would counter argue that there have been thirteen actors who have played the character since 1963 and all have been white and male. Regenerating to a female form would feel forced and wouldn’t be organic. It simply wouldn’t be logical. We as the audience would ask why hadn’t it happened during his previous regenerations?

If a more diverse show is needed, then go back to my points on Clara, and have a less generic companion? Or bring in a Timelady who isn’t a villain (Romana perhaps)?

Besides, I’m still waiting for a ginger Doctor.

There is no borders in Space between us

Today, I came home and I gave my little boy a hug and played chase with him. Nothing unusual with this. Depending on the day of the week, he may have been with his grandparents, my wife, who works part time, or at the childrens nursery he attends. Today it was a day with his one Granddad. What was different, was the extra long hold of him, the extra kiss on his forehead and the feeling, that I truly am a lucky man, and he himself is also truly lucky. Why? The image of the three year old Syrian refugee laying dead on a beach having been washed up, has hit me on a personal level.

Like many parents who will have seen this photo, I saw my own boy laying down

We are all made of atoms and for a quirk of fate I was born in a first world country and should never have to live in fear because of war near my home, or because I believe in an alternative version of the same religion, or my ethnicity is traced back to a rival tribe. That quirk of fate has meant my son was not born into that world. A World, we in the west, in our protective bubble, simply will never understand or experience. Imagine, for just a moment how it must felt, to spend your life savings, getting on a boat for a dangerous journey just to ask for help what you hope are loving human beings? The risk is huge, yet it is still safer than staying in their homeland for these poor people.

Yet, there are those, who believe they are only coming here for handouts and benefits. Logically, this is a load of rubbish. Morally, this is disturbing. Why would someone spend thousands of pounds just to get a few measly benefits? Why would someone risk the lives of their families just for a few measly benefits?

Yep, it doesn’t make sense to me neither.

Or, maybe, they are so desperate, so fearful of their lives, they simply want to go somewhere where they are safe. Just safe. Nothing else. Just safe. The basic human instinct is survival and this is all these poor people are doing. Surviving, even if the risks are huge.

Even if they do make it over to a country in the EU, they become pawns in a bigger political game where the countries of the EU, play a game of “I’m alright jack” and “its not my problem”. The actions of the UK government have left me embarrassed to call myself British. I look at Germany and the help they are providing and I feel pride that I live on the same continent as them. I see the #refugeeswelcome and I feel pride that there are hundreds of thousands more Brits who feel the same way.

This isn’t about borders, and immigration controls and statistics. Its about helping our fellow human. Its about not allowing another poor child, parent and families to die as they flee wars and oppression.

I am reminded of a quote from an astronaut on the ISS when discussing working with someone from a country with political differences and he said ‘There is no borders in space between us.’

Maybe, all our problems can be traced back to the moment we moved from a nomadic society to one of ownership of land and borders.

So, if you’re a parent, give you son or daughter an extra special hug and be thankful.

Even if Manchester United won every game six nil, they would still come under scrutiny and critism.

For most teams and their fans, three wins out of three at the start of the season, with only one goal against, would be reason for some optimism for the upcoming season. But for Manchester United, their fans, rival fans and the many so called experts that litter the media, on TV, radio and in the written form, this is still a poor start.

Apparently, its been too boring or just enough, efficient without exciting, any negatives highlighted, whilst positives are ignored. Coupled with an ongoing transfer window where nobody appears happy. This despite finally finding a solution to the weak midfield that had plagued the club for nearly ten years, no longer having to use a winger or volatile player at right back and bringing in one of the most exacting up and coming forwards in Europe to add the much needed pace and goals to attack. Yet, because a Spanish substitute signed for Chelsea having been linked to United for the past couple of weeks, it is now a disaster. Forget that the only true part of the interest was Van Gaal saying Pedro was a player that fit the profile he was looking at, and that everything else was based on the usual bullshit you read in the newspapers and via “Sky Sources” on Sky Sports, this has meant it is a disaster.

Then of course there is the much maligned defence, a defence that, from November last season, statistically let in the least amount of goals in the English Premiership. A defence that due to injuries, hardly had the same set of players playing more than two or three games in a row, allowing them to build up the understanding a good defence needs. A defence that at times was left exposed by an unbalanced midfield with attack minded players pushing forward, meaning De Gea, having a season to remember rescuing them. Now a dominant centre back in the mould of Stam or Vidic would be great, but there aren’t many about who can also play the ball out of defence and are available. And they also need to upgrade on what United have. Its no good bringing in a new centre back if they are equal or worst than what they have. The other criticism appears to be levelled at the use of Blind in the middle of defence - a man with seemingly no pace and no height. Yet, the modern defender needs intelligence and the ability to use the ball well. Something Blind brings to the team. Intelligent players don’t need pace, as they are tactically aware of where they need to be at any given time and in a day and age where the big strong striker is a dying breed, height isn’t important if you have someone tall next to you - and this is where Smalling comes in, who appears to have woken up and realised he could be the dominant centre back people seem to think United need.

The goalkeeper situation is a little more awkward though and again is very much drawn from hearsay and the usual newspaper bullshit. The only facts we know are, De Gea has one year left on his contract and he is out of the matchday squad until September and the transfer window has closed. We assume that United want more than Real Madrid are offering, assuming they have actually bid for him as neither club have made a statement regarding bids. Nothing else is fact, and the blur between fact and fiction is very much evident in the De Gea story. Will he end up at Real Madrid? Probably, but until this happens he is a United player and although he very much may have been the most important player at the club last season, with a more stable defence and a midfield joining in with defencive duties, he can be dropped whilst the situation is being resolved.

With most in agreement midfield is very much okay, it is the attack and upfront that is also a problem for a lot of people. Even though United are now only playing one up front, three strikers is not enough and a reliance on Rooney is too risky. Forget his recent form, we all know, as captain he is playing, so its best to accept it and move on. Which means unless he is moved to another position or the system is changes, bringing a top quality striker is redundant, as the only top strikers who would come would be ageing ones or mercenaries happy to sit on the bench. I understand Rooney gets injured, United will be left with Wilson or Hernandez, but what happens if Aguero is injured or Costa? They are replaced by players like Wilson or Hernandez - good solid backup strikers willing to do that job.

Rooney’s form, has though been worrying, but I can’t see him being dropped. But, it is is getting tiring reading another ex pro, now turned media pundit, saying he should be played in the number ten position (the fabled hub linking midfield and attack and main focal point of all great teams). Watching him misplace simple passes in recent games should be enough to prove he is not good enough to be the focal point, and with better players to choose from he shouldn’t even be considered. If he plays, it is as the main striker. Having been made captain and having heard Van Gaal describe the captain as the only player almost certain to be played, we know he will still be played (unless Van Gaal and his reputation for dropping main players comes back, but I doubt it).

Now, I’m not for one minute saying United can win the league with the squad they have. But I don’t think its all doom and gloom. If there are no more major signings then so be it. I am confident that the players they have will be good enough to make a challenge and be there or thereabouts come the end of the season. But, as Van Gaal has repeatedly said, if a player comes along who can improve what they have then great. And this, as a United fan, I would rather have than sign second rate players just for the sake of it.

Finally, much has been said about the way these first games have been won. This isn’t the united way. Its too slow and efficient. I say so what. Haven’t all the great sides adapted for the current footballing climate? Its evolution. Football is a changing game and the old United way of attacking with speed and wingers, may not have a place in the modern game. I am actually enjoying watch them pass the ball around with confidence, controlling the midfield.

Van Gaal is building a team who control the game with high possession and fast closing down - the opposition can’t score if United have the ball. This is what he started at both Barcelona and Bayern Munich, arguably the two most successful club sides in Europe over the last decade. They owe their success to the foundations he put down when in charge. He may have a reputation for upsetting players, but it seems to me that for every player, bitter at being dropped, complaining in the press, there are more who talk highly of him. Besides, would Fergie have stood for the stunt Victor Valdes pulled but not playing in a reserve match? Of course not. So lets embrace Van Gaal and his philosophy, and remember how bad it was under Moyes.

Game of Thrones.

Writing about the TV series Game of Thrones and its fantasy book series and source material A Song of Ice and Fire, has been on my ‘to do list’ for a few weeks now. During the controversy of the last few episodes of the recently broadcast season 5, I held back commenting via this blog, preferring instead to post the odd tweet and share online articles on my Facebook newsfeed, whilst waiting for the season to finish, so I can then write about it with knowledge of any any organic resolutions to those controversial moments.

But as always is the way of a writer, both published and non-published, other stuff got in the way. Work on a novel took importance, whilst a pause from that has led me to a short story.

However, having received the last edition of ‘Interzone’, and started by reading the regular feature ‘Time Pieces’ by the excellent Nina Allan (check out her story ‘Marielena’ in Interzone #254 for a wonderful example of her writing), now seems as good a time as any.

Unfortunately I have no link, so you will need to read the feature yourself - and if you love diverse and interesting science fiction and fantasy, yet don’t regularly read Interzone, why not?

She admits that she hasn’t read any of A Song of Ice and Fire, saying, quite honestly, that she can’t justify the time commitment. I myself, have gotten four books in - well three books as the third is a two volume set. Her reasoning is the same I used up until last summer when I decided to give it a go, having been an avid watcher of Game of Thrones since it first begun. It is a series that at times drags, and I made the conscious decision to dip in and out of it, so I didn’t miss out on other genre novels that caught my eye. Nina also admits to only being halfway through season 2, so skipped ahead to see what the fuss was all about in regards those controversial season 5 episodes and in particular the scene involving the rape of Sansa Stark by Ramsay Bolton (whilst Theon/Reek was forced to look on).

Some would argue, that she perhaps needed to invest in the entire series before commenting on it. This though would be a weak argument but I am sure she did her research via the many online spoilers for all series before writing her piece.

The main criticism of that scene is the violence towards women. In fact it is in some ways the straw that broke the proverbial camel as this isn’t the first rape scene in the show and in the books. It is a very difficult scene to watch, less because of what you see, and more that we, as the audience, are viewing it through the eyes of Theon/Reek (I assume anybody reading this will have knowledge of why I use both names). Which is why, I believe Nina is missing the point when she argues that “Sansa is currency.” Theon/Reek is also being used as currency. Having watched the past three seasons, where Theon goes from arrogant, misogynistic lord to quivering wreck; tortured and belittled, manipulated and having the symbol of his sexuality removed from him. It was just an organic step to see him so frightened, yet so submissive to sit there in fear watching it happen, not having a single ounce of strength, both mentally and physically, to help her. This whole process of turning Theon into Reek has hardly been mentioned at all by critics of the show - dare I say it, but would the reaction have been more angry, if Theon has have been a woman and not a man being tortured by another man?

But of course, it is also difficult to defend the rape of Sansa, any rape is difficult to defend in a form of entertainment. The whole purpose of Ninas’s article was due to the writer of A Song of Fire and Ice, George R R Martin defending the use of rape in his series and subsequently the TV series. He argues that this was what life was like in the medieval world, and he has chosen to create a fantasy world based on that same medieval world, so he feels it would be dishonest not to include rape. Its an argument that on the face of it, makes perfect sense. However, there is a feeling that with the Sansa rape scene, it wasn’t particularly organic. Yes, Ramsay is a monster, and he’s hardly going to be all lovey-dovey with his new wife on their wedding night - so the rape made sense. However, its seems to me, Nina may very well be onto something, when she refers to Sansa as “currency”. There was no real logical and organic reason why she was sent to marry Ramsay in the first place? Was she a pawn of master manipulator Littlefinger? Or as I suspect, was it a device to get her into a situation, where Theon/Reek finally finds the strength to rise up against his tormentor (see final episode of Season 5). If this is the case, then the criticism is justified.

My main issue at the time, and still is an issue was the reaction. What made this particular scene so wrong in the eyes of many watching it, yet other equally shocking scenes didn’t register on the moral compass? One must remember that as early as the first two episodes in Season 1, Daenerys, a young bride is raped by her new husband on their wedding night. And who can forget ‘The Red Wedding’, where a number of important characters are slaughtered in a brutal and violent fashion, including the pregnant wife of one major character being stabbed in the belly - try watching this scene with a heavily pregnant wife, understandably upset.

So why wasn’t there such uproar after those scenes? Why didn’t viewers switch off in disgust two episodes in when Daenerys was raped? Was the real issue, less with rape, and more simply that Sansa is a popular character (I believe Nina has at least made her argument with no bias towards the character - unlike others)?

Which is one of the main points and reasons for my liking of the seried. No one is safe. There are no ‘main characters’ to cheer on. No Frodo to overcome great odds. No Luke Skywalker to realise his destiny. In all honesty, apart from Daenerys, it is quite difficult to pinpoint who will win the Game of Thrones at the end, and even then she isn’t far from reaching a grizzly end. It may be, that the final resolution will be, that the Boltons, the brutal and sadistic family win.

That is the beauty of the show. Its unpredictable. It has its flaws, nothing is perfect after all. Nina, could do with watching season three and the development of Brienne as a woman knight in a world dominated by males, when she attacks Martin for “suggesting that the number of intelligent, freethinking women in any given society is mainly dependent on the extent to which men are prepared to allow and encourage their wives and daughters to be those things.” Brienne is a knight, because she wants to be one, and she will fight with every ounce of strength to be one and carry on being one. Here is a a strong woman and perhaps a role model for young women, and equally me, who wish to see some equality in their genre fiction. Like all characters in the series, she has moments of weakness and moments of strength, much like any other strong male character, and it could be argued, in a world with a lot of male characters dying, her survival is a small victory.

Before I finish, I will go back quickly to the Sansa rape scene. What was lost in a swirl of controversy and anger, was the superb acting from the three actors in the scene. The anguish and torture on the face of Theon/Reek or the fearful duty of Sansa, or the sadistic brutality of Ramsay, all three deserve plaudits, not to be mere currency in a different game of thrones - that of the anger from those opposed to it going up against the writers trying to justify a potentially unjustifiable scene.

TFI Friday and my era - the 90's

Having been born in 1980, the 80’s nostalgia fad that seemingly comes around every couple of years, always never felt right for me. I was just too young to have truly lived it. Yes, I can click “Like” on those many Facebook posts that go around proclaiming how wonderful your childhood was if you were born before 1985 (or whatever 1980s year the creator of said post goes with), but the naivety of childhood meant I was only aware through my mum, and my grandparents, of more grownup things the 80s was remembered for. And at that age, I didn’t have any choice in what 80s fashion to dress in - my mum decided.

So the 90s were more my era, having lived my entire teenage years in that decade, had greater understanding and appreciation of the music, popular culture and fashion (although I failed there too). As I write this, the funny thing I keep thinking, is that until last night, I always thought I missed out on being part of an “era”. As mentioned earlier, I was too young for any of the many 80’s eras, I was born after everything from punk to disco to rock n roll. The 90’s always felt not so great or memorable.

Yet it was. Certainly more so than the decade that followed, where I was in my twenties, and saw the explosion in tech from MP3 players to mobile phones to the beginnings of reality based TV and talent contests giving potential pop singers a jumping of the queue to success (but only if the producer of the show wanted them to win).

I now realise, I had a great era. The time of cool Britannia, a pre war criminal Tony Blair, Britpop and the explosion in 60s influenced indie music. A premiership football league on the cusp of an explosion in high money and foreign imports, yet still with the feel of a game for the working class person.

It was also a time when TV was at least entertaining. No reality shows, no talent contests with people desperate for a nano-second of fame. And non typified this more than TFI Friday. So it was a pleasure to sit down and watch last nights anniversary show, or as host Chris Evans described it, a chance to have a final show.

If the Internet broke due to Jeremy Clarkson and his dinosaur ways, it would have regressed back to its pre 1995 state, if TFI Friday was a regular series now. It was loud, brash, sometimes sexist - okay nearly always sexist. It typified the lad and laddette culture of the 90’s. It was dangerously close to the edge, with risque guests swearing three hours before the watershed - it would never be broadcast live at 6pm nowadays.

Of course, I’m not selling it very well. This was unashamedly anti-PC at a time when political correctness was just starting to develop. However, it was clever and of the times. Host Chris Evans was at his very best, almost ready to tip over the edge and go too far (the show ended abruptly, when in his words ‘went a bit mad’).

As a teenager on a eager quest to find new and exciting bands, ones who were at their best in the live arena, TFI Friday was the show to watch with all the cool bands of the 90s playing live on the show. I remember Faith No More appearing, a band I only knew by name, yet the next day I went out and brought their latest single that had been performed on the show.

Its also easy to pin the success on Chris Evans who by being host on this show could play to his strengths. Yet its also easy to forget one of the greats of TV Danny Baker was the writer on the show.

This was more than a talk show, or a music show, it also had its silliness. From Freak or Unique, to Its your letters, to the constant cooing of ‘Wiiiiiillllll’ to its producer Will MacDonald, who was in some ways more than just a sidekick to Chris Evans, he was very much a man who should be knighted for always remaining calm during the hurricane effect of Chris Evans. By the way, whatever anti-ageing cream Will is using, should be the biggest seller of that kind.

The issue with comebacks like this, are that watching it again with the same people twenty years on, sometimes ruins the memory. We’re all grown up now with families, jobs and the show could have seemed almost embarrassing now. Yet it wasn’t. It is what TV light entertainment should be, entertaining. As a friend put on Facebook after five minutes, ‘TFI Friday is already better than 99.9% of whats usually on TV’. Yes, it may struggle to fit in to a culture where you can’t say anything in case you offend someone, but maybe that is needed.

A run in the park.

The word phenomenon is one that can be overused. Innovation is another word often overused when it really isn’t warranted. However, when it comes to Parkrun, they are most certainly not overused. Put simply, Parkrun is the biggest phenomenon in running today and its biggest innovation for decades, if not of all time.

Parkrun is simple. At 9am, each Saturday, in parks across the country (330 and counting and many more dotted around the globe), runners turn up and run a 5k run with other runners for free. Yes, for free. All they have to do is is register at www.parkrun.org.uk and print off a barcode which they bring with them. This gets scanned, along with a finish token, at the end of the event and later that day they find out what time they did, and what position they came, via a text and email. Simple process really.

The beauty of this event is that it can be whatever the individual running it, wants it to be. From the fast club runner looking to race to the person running their very first 5k, everyone is catered for, and no one is looked down upon for being slow or for walking. Runners run with friends, family, their children or just on their own to clear their head - I once read a lovely story where a man who was dealing with mental health problems sighted Parkrun as a big help for him.

I also once read someone describe Parkrun as the perfect example of socialism and a fairer society, with every runner applauding each other and socialising with friends in this little community that will inevitably grow as each parkrun grows organically. I would go one better and say its an example of a community that carries the best from both the left and the right, as Parkrun also rewards its runners for hard work and loyalty, by issuing T-Shirts to any runner who runs 50, 100, 250 and if you are a junior runner, 10 runs. There are now going to be T-Shirts for those who volunteer 25 times - a reward for helping to put on the event.

I myself attend the Kingsbury Water Parkrun and have done so on a regular basis since it started in July 2013. Well it is only 10 minutes from my house! I have run there often and I also volunteer a fair bit, so my wife can also run it (I have our son). We have made a lot of good friends and look forward to it each and every Saturday.

Of course, as we anything in life, there will be detractors, which in the case of Parkrun are the very rare breed that is the snobby club runner, that feels clubs should be the hub of the running community and paid up races should be the event they come to race. Luckily, most in clubs don’t think like that, and see the bigger picture - thousands more are running who may not have without the accessibility of Parkrun, and these people may go on to look at the local club scene and have the confidence to run longer and harder events thanks to Parkrun.

Not bad for an event started in London, by a runner who was out injured and wanted to keep being involved in a sport he loved, so organised a small time trial that anybody could take part in.

Now, if only my son could hurry up and grow up so we can take him to Parkrun to run it.

My reaction to the UK General Election 2015

The dust has settled, and the fallout has been loud and split. Somehow, the Tories managed to defy seemingly large odds, and get enough seats to win a majority. Social media isn’t the best indicator, but is probably just as good a snapshot of what the voting public are thinking as the traditional polls are, and based on my own Facebook feed and the various re-tweets and tweets from people I follow, the Tories were almost seen as the party of the devil in the lead up to the vote.

As I joked this morning on Facebook, it is clear Tories don’t use social media! This was said in jest as of course its difficult to truly get a snapshot of society via social media - much like in real life I will choose who I am friends with and who I follow on twitter. This will mean they follow the same politic idealism as I do.

However, this isn’t entirely true. I know some of my friends are people I went to school with, a time when our political views haven’t quite been shaped. Others will be, in my case, people I have met in the running and triathlon scene, and again political opinions aren’t important. Add to that people I have worked with and family members and again, political opinions aren’t important. Personally, I have no problem with someone who has different political views - I just draw the line on the extreme left or right, which would have been very blatant when that person first entered my life.

Looking at my friends list and those I follow, its a mixed bag of political opinions and I like that. Yet I can only think of one, maybe two people who were very pro Tory in their posts in recent weeks. So does this mean, the traditional Tory simply stays quiet, or is even slightly ashamed to vote due to the big vocal left representation that may attack them from every angle?

Its very interesting and has felt almost bizarre. At best I felt that whoever gained the most votes would not win enough for a majority and it would be very close. At first I felt another coalition would be the only option. However, it was clear, the Tories had no support from other parties so would struggle to form a coalition this time around, and Ed Miliband would commit career and political suicide if he formed a coalition, especially with the SNP after making it perfectly clear he wouldn’t do so. This meant at best I thought the winning party would attempt to form a government even without the majority.

But this has not been the case at all and somehow the Tories have won with a majority. Now this is where things get interesting. They won the most seats and reached the number of seats needed to get the majority. But the share of the vote was 36.8% - hardly what you call a majority. It means just over a third of those who voted did so for the winning party. 12.1% voted UKIP who somehow got only 1 seat - not a bad thing I might add. 4.7% voted SNP who got 56 seats and understandably UKIP are probably feeling this is unfair. I can not stand their politics and firmly believe they have a far right agenda that they are pushing behind the scenes, but they should have won or lost fairly.

This is our own fault. We had the chance to change the voting system and voted to keep the standard “fast past the post” system. A proportionate representation voting system would have meant 80 plus seats for UKIP, 24 for Greens and the Tories would have won by only a few votes. http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-parliament-proportional-representation/20893 shows this. However I must be quick to add, that page is based on the current votes, some of which would have been the tactical kind often seen in FPTP voting. Its also worth noting that FPTP is not going away - why would the new Tory government change a system that puts them at an advantage?

As people who read my last blog a week ago will know, I changed from being a Tory to a green voter this year. I can say, hand on heart, I am pleased I made that decision. I am proud to have joined the one million plus who voted for them (a 400% increase from 2010) and my conscious feels clear today. I have no regret and will be supporting the Green Party for the foreseeable future.

One thing that has irritated me today are labour voters complaining that the Tories will now privatise and destroy the NHS. This may very well be the truth, however the Tories are only doing what Labour started when they were in power. Labour are basically the Twin Tory Party but in red. They are now as right wing as the Tories and can thank Tony Blair and his legacy. New Labour pandered to the right to get votes from the Tories. For Labour to truly be an alternative they will need to have a change in ideology and become a real alternative to the Tories. Maybe a return to their socialist past? Maybe a very clear centre left agenda?

As for the Lib Dems, well they took a right kicking, and probably paid for forming a coalition government and bending over to take a shafting on issues they were very much against in the build up to the election in 2010. Which is a shame as Nick Clegg in particular is a very likable politician in a world of backstabbers and sharks. As a Green voter the time is right for them to take off where the Lib Dems were and be the liberal voice of the UK.

Whatever happens next, it will be an interesting five years and one I hope will see further rise in support for the Greens, a good strong Labour with good leadership to be a good opposition, one that will push the Tories on everything, and a UKIP that will slowly die off.

Why I'm voting Green

I’ll be honest from the start; I am traditionally a Tory voter. I was brought up a Tory, and remember going to visit the Houses of Parliament as a child and being somewhat disappointed that Maggie Thatcher wasn’t there, leading to a friend of her private secretary arranging for a signed photograph from the PM to be sent to me.

I did go through the “New Labour” phase that so many in my generation did regardless of their usual political opinions (I’m pretty sure Tony Blair utilized the same tactic as The Master, as played by John Simm, in Dr Who).

Yet, I still came back to the Tories and have voted for them in the last two general elections, believing that they were the right party to form a government. I believe in good conservative values of hard work being rewarded. Of people striving to make a go of it, and not relying on others.

Now, I have that out on the table, you are probably wondering why I would go from the right to the left? Why would I vote Green?

Truth be told, I can’t really pinpoint a moment when I started to look at them as a viable option. I can’t really recall when I became, what can only be described, as a disgruntled Tory.

Was it their push for the high speed rail link that will destroy local countryside, including a lovely waterpark I use on a daily basis, and benefit no one but those that will be able to afford the high ticket prices - and in the 21st century, business people need high speed broadband to make conference video calls, not fast travel to get to meetings?

Could it be, the mismanaging of the public spending cuts? As someone vehemently against striking I have found myself supporting the fire service strikes. Cuts to the frontline are not good. Changes in pensions are not good. When a company goes through a cost cutting exercise, it does so using marginal cuts and by stopping wastage. If cuts were needed, then look at the wasteful bureaucracy of middle-management in the various public departments.

Having friends in teaching has meant I've seen first hand what happens to good teachers driven almost crazy by changes in education in the last five years. As a parent of a child who will be school during the next term of government, I want him to be taught but happy teachers, not teachers under constant pressure. I also want him to develop at his own pace - the zero tolerance the Tories are proposing for children not meeting certain levels in maths and English by certain ages is disgraceful.

If there was one certainty on my switch to Green, it is simply because when you become a parent, that what is important to you changes and you start to think in terms of what the world will be like for your child when he or she is your age. Yes, I am better off under the Tories, but will my boy be better off living in a world they want? I think the answer is a big no.

Do I want him growing up in a world where we as a nation we spend billions on a nuclear weapon system that belongs in a time where the nuclear threat came from other nations, but groups with no fixed abode? No, I don’t.

Do I want him growing up in a world, where the divide between rich and poor gets bigger year by year? Where food banks become the norm for more and more people year by year? Where corporations cheat the tax system? Where people who are rich lose sight of their basic humanity?

Do I want him growing up in a world where non-renewable energy sources are not replaced with cleaner, renewable energy sources?

Do I want him growing up in a world where the science and research budget is cut, leading us to slow down development of new technologies that could progress us as a culture?

Do I want him growing up in a world, where humans are treated differently, just because they come from another nation, or because they were plain unlucky to be born in one with extreme poverty and war as norm? A world where we don’t want to help our fellow human being?

No to all the above.

Am I wasting my vote, especially when I live in a constituency that swings from Labour to Tory (Tories won by 50 odd votes last time)? I don’t believe a vote is ever a wasted vote. People throughout history have fought and died for the simple right to vote in elections, so we should all vote in my humble view. However if anybody reading this is considering voting for someone not expected to win, do so. If we all do this, that so called safe seat may not be so safe after all.

So, with all the above, it is clear Green is the party for me. They won’t win. They won’t get enough to help form a coalition, but if they can add to the one seat they have, it will be a massive victory and will help them grow in the coming years.

Society needs to change for the better. We’ve swung between Tory and Labour for decades now, one messing up the country, with the other promising to sort it out, before messing it up again to restart the viscous circle. Russell Brand has his detractors (as well as a very big thesaurus), but he is spot on when he asks for a change in the way our politicians are elected. He is wrong to not vote, but he has that right. Voting green will help that change get implemented.

For my son and for all our sons and daughters futures, I will vote Green.