THE MOST HATED FAMILY IN AMERICA

I think we are all aware of the diversity of opinions that are out there in this big crazy world, however living in the student bubble that is Oxford Road it is all too easy to forget sometimes. Anyone who tuned into BB2 last night at 9pm to watch Louis Theroux meet 'The Most Hated Family In America' would have been truly reminded of how bizarre some people can be.

Watching this family reminded me of Jeremy Clarkson's description on a Top Gear a few weeks back, that 'some Americans continue to mate with vegetables'. This family were truly horrific. Apparently, the United States apparent tollerance of gays, or any other un-godly behaviour for that matter, means the whole nation is going to hell!!! Whether an American dies in Iraq, gets run over by car or dies of cancer, these are all examples of a condemmed nation feeling Gods wrath. Oh and I nearly forgot to mention, the Jews killed Jesus.

Maybe the Federal Government should order the round up of the adults in the family, force them to watch gay-sex, shoot them, then release a statement saying they sacrificed themselves for God. Then their poor kids could be saved from the endoctranation and adopted to another family. Maybe a gay-couple. Quite a funny idea. But luckily not a serious one as I'm not as truly horrific as this family. I'll leave it to the clever documentary skills of Louis Theroux to reveal how awful some people really are.

BAD, SAD AND MAD

Today Tony Blair made a groundbreaking announcement, 'too many people are in prison'. Thanks for that Tony! :-)

The fact our prison's are full to capacity is a poor reflection on our society, so the consensus goes. Of course it's disturbing that our prison numbers are higher than any other country in the EU, however what should guide politicians when addressing prison reform is who is in prison.

The prison population most likely comprises of three types of person: the bad person; the mad person; and the sad person. To treat them as one, the law breaker, is overly simplistic and not very helpful.

I fully subscribe to the Michael Howard viewpoint 'prison works', not as the best form of rehabilation but on the simple basis that when a 'bad person' commits a terrible crime public safety is king and justice must be exercised for all to see. Rehabiliation is, im afraid, merely a secondary consideration.

If the prison's were full with 'bad' people I'd be the first to say 'just build more prisons'. This obviously is not the case, since prison has increasingly become a dumping ground for 'the mad person' and 'the sad person'. This is disgraceful.

My sister worked for two years in a residential home for the mentally ill. When looked after and understood properly, the mentally ill pose no threat to themselves or anyone else for that matter. Without wanting to sound patronising, they often become fully active in the community.

As for the 'sad person', we have to understand why so many people, often young offenders, commit crime? Anyone with the answers would save many lives and billions of pounds. I'm no expert but a sensible drugs policy would be a start. I suspect youngsters, without stable parenting and who want it all and want it now, just can't relate to the long term benefits that education and hard work can bring. Some can, and do, but many don't and end up turning to other more short-term pleasures.

So the debate should not be on how many people are in prison but instead who is in prison. Is it mainly the 'bad, mad or sad' person? Only when this is answered properly can a government comprehensively tackle prison reform.

On a completely seperate note, I read today that the Pope has said that we shouldn't forget that sinners will burn in hell. The fires of Hell are real and eternal. Is that mad, bad or sad? Regardless, it looks like my worst fears have been confirmed.

TRUST ME, THE EU IS A GOOD THING

It was the EU's 50th birthday at the weekend, although you'd be forgiven for not realising. It took until pages 32 and 33 for The Times to celebrate the occassion. I'll re-phrase, report on the occassion. Even the traditionally Eurosceptic British press couldn't bash the club that has ensured peace and prosperity on a once unstable and fractious continent, so instead we just heard very little about it.

For once I feel well qualified to comment, so trust me the EU is a good thing and moreover a very good thing for us in Britain and I'm going to tell you why:

1) Before the European Coal and Steal Community was created in 1957 Europe was a continent of war. Pooling the two industries of war, coal and steal, was the starting point for the EU and to take the peace and security we enjoy within Europe for granted is extremely ignorant.

2) The single market has greatly improved economic performance and increased prosperity in the UK and the EU as a whole.

3) Notions of lost sovereignty, on the whole, are complete bogus. First, as part of an ever increasingly globalised world the interdependence between nation-states is inevitable and necessary. You only need to look at environmental policy to get the point. Secondly, on certain issues we can always opt-out. It wasn't right for us to join the Euro and we didn't. To comprehensively and crudely prove my point, we could always withdraw.

4) ... and finally, the UK has never been in a such a good position within the EU. That's what my whole dissertation is on so I can't be bothered to go into it. You'll just have to trust me again!

So basically trust me on this one, the EU is a good thing and if you find anyone who can tell you otherwise without ranting 'Kilroy' style, I'll move to Bulgaria.

SOME PEOPLE ARE JUST 'SLIPPERY'

Peter Mandelson is a 'slippery' character. Why you ask? Because he just is!

When I saw 'Mandelson An Appreciation' as one of the comments on the Guardians website I couldn't help but giggle. I never thought I'd read such a statement. Who would believe this man deserved 'an appreciation' and moreover who would actually comment this in a national newspaper. I suppose only in the Guardian.

But when you think of it Paul Owen, who writes the comment, has a point. Mandelson after all did play a crucial role in the process of making Labour the successful electoral machine it has been since the mid-90s and should continue to be if it sticks to the centre.

I suppose, however, some people are just 'slippery' and regardless of what they say and do we'll always be listening and watching with a degree cringing cynicism. Hence we viewed Mandelson's modernising of the Labour Party as a mere 'rebranding exercise' and we'll forever view professional campaigning and media management as 'spin'.

On the recent Tony Blair documentary, Mandelson said Tony 'has a rod of steal and I've even been on the recieving end of it on a couple of occassions'. He certainly has the Cliff Richard cringe factor. This is a man who looks and sounds untrustworthy.

The poor guy: he has resigned not once but twice from the cabinet, he is still 'mr spin', he still hasn't removed the big white gay elephant from his room, and now he's one of those unelected EU Commissioners the British people love. So why is Mr Mandelson loathed? It is because he's slippery and it's as simple as that.

WHERE ARE THE REAL 'GREENS'???

New Tory logo, 'green' taxes, wind turbines, carbon footprints... it is clear 'green politics' has jumped up the list of priorities for the middle classes, champagne socialists and students in recent months. At the same time, I've been finding it strange that the Green Partny has been no-where to be seen or heard.

You'd think new fertile political ground for a 'green' party! Earlier today it became clear why they've been so useless when I read on the bbc website some comments by 'this guy' in the Green Party who said that the Greens should not be "sucked in" to having a figurehead. Apparently to stay 'distinctive' they'll be having principal speakers. Good strategy!!!! Now what was that guy called again? If it only it was distinctive.

CLEVER POLITICS

'And finally I announce a 2p reduction in Income Tax from 22 to 20%... the lowest level in 75 years' In my short-lived memory of caring about politics, never has a Budget recieved so much attention.

The norm is usually the predictable 'fags up, booze up', 'the winners, the losers', ooops Brown's got his sums wrong again and thus needs to borrow more money but we shouldn't criticise since he is after all the 'one of the longest serving and successful Chancellors in recent years... overseen the longest period of growth and so forth.'

This year's Budget was evidently different. This was a very 'political' budget, one that in my opinion was very clever and almost ensures Gordon Brown as the next PM (if it wasn't certain already). It was all about 'the 2p drop in income tax'. It was 'political' because in reality, as anyone with half a brain understands, the level of tax people pay has hardly changed.

It was a 'neutral' budget', tax went up in places but went down in others. This was an exercise in demonstrating Brown's New Labour credentials to 'Mondeo Man' and grabbing news coverage. He suceeded!!!

In recent months, the Tories have been able to relentlessly bash away at Brown. The 'road-block' to reform and the 'control freak'. Being the unconfirmed PM in waiting Brown has been restricted to fight back. This year's Budget was Brown's clever retaliation. Economically, nothing has really altered but politically much has. The savvy know little has changed but many people are stupid and when they see at the bottom of their pay-slip and an extra few quid, as of April next year (maybe just before an election), they'll be reassured that Brown is not the Old Labour control freak the Tories want to portray.

Brown has also been compared to Stalin this week: The man who rules the treasury with an iron fist! Not a bad trait when dealing with civil servants, the public might say. For Gordon, this has been a productive week.