Scientology, a brief analysis.

This essay explores scientology’s roots, founder, practices and those who are a part of the movement. Numerous sources have be drawn upon such as, writing both from an insider and outsider perspective, as well as accounts from those who have broken away from Scientology.

A note to be made however is that while conducting my research for this essay it seemed necessary to try to acquire some information from the scientologist’ perspective. The first port of call for this was on the official scientology website, where I became bombarded with advertisements for books and leaflets which I could have applied to have had sent to me in order to gain more of an ‘insiders’ perspective of scientology. As valuable as this information seemed, I could not help but feel vigilant toward this organisation. This is likely to be due to the negative publicity that the movement has had publicised within the press. And this has had an ‘a priori’ impact upon my understanding of the movement, for this I would partially apologise, however I have presented my doubts within this essay. So this essay will aim to look objectively at scientology and assess if the negativity which surrounds scientology is justified.

The final point of exploration will also be to assess whether or not Scientology is a new religious movement or the ‘sinister cult’ which some have chosen to label it.

Introduction

’The author of the Scientology scripture’ (SO, 2009)

This is an extract from his official online biography, a biography that seeks to glorify the life and works of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Scientology movement, and secure his place in history as a 20^th century messiah (a term which is used (partially) to describe Hubbard in B. Corydon’s book ‘Messiah or Madman?’).

This glorified image of Hubbard and his manufactured faith which spawned from his works has not been received well by all. Some have gone as far as to refer to scientology as ‘a sinister cult’, something an organisation that is to be viewed with a great deal of suspicion.

At first sight Scientology may appear to be nothing more than a harmless belief system, one which was created by an eccentric man with an incredible imagination. The 20^th and 21^st centuries have allowed these perspectives of religion to be acceptable, as people possess a great deal of religious freedoms. One such example of this form of faith is the religion that was adapted from the Star Wars films called Jedi. However the success of this faith demonstrates that you can clearly gain validity through adherents as opposed to any theological backing. So faiths that have a science fiction origin are nothing unheard of. However Scientology was thrusted into the spotlight and aroused people’s suspicions by its founder L. Ron Hubbard who had a habit of making statements, which to many appeared extreme.

Also if we are to grant scientology the title of ‘world religion’ is this at all justified? Or is it in fact, as some have suggested a mere concoction of what time has shown to be some of the more desirable aspects of world faiths.

‘Scientology, a whole religion that is unquestionably the deliberately designed brainchild of a single author L. Ron Hubbard, though of course he borrowed elements that had proved themselves in existing religions.’ (Dennett, 2007, p76-77)

And finally does this show that Hubbard was not looking for truth rather the money which can be earned off the back of founding a religious institution, as this popular quote by L. Ron Hubbard himself may appear to suggest? ‘Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion.’

Definition of a cult

In order to compile what could be considered a reasonable definition of a cult numerous sources must be drawn upon. The debate which surrounds the definition is almost as alive as the definition of the movement itself.

The term ‘cult’ is one which certainly would create a red mist if you were to describe scientology in such a way to a scientologist, as was demonstrated on the BBC programme Scientology and me, when a scientologist reacted in a hostile manner toward the interviewer when he expressed the concerns of some that Scientology may be considered a ‘sinister cult’. The negative connotations attached to the term are very clear. To refer to scientology as a cult is to suggest that the organisation has a negative and sinister foundation, something which the organisation has denied.

Those who subscribe to Scientology and it’s beliefs may feel hostile toward the term ‘cult’, however the term is one which appears to haunt the organisation as it can be found within many Scientology based books, such as Omar Garrisons book The hidden story of Scientology, Where he states;

‘Newspapers carry lengthy accounts purporting to show that a considerable number of people are being duped and their mental health undermined by a new ‘cult’ called Scientology.’ (Garrison, 1974, p16)

The religious status of Scientology has prompted a great deal of debate across the world. The status of Scientology thus differentiates between countries. Germany has made a point of keeping Scientology under a microscope as they view Scientology as having ‘anti-constitutional objectives.’

‘Since 1997 [Scientology has been] under observation from the federal office of the Verfassungsschutz. And Scientology members cannot (easily) hold public office.’ (Arweck, 2006, p5)

In contrast to the view held by the Verfassungsschutz, is that Scientology possesses a great deal more freedoms in America where the American First Amendment guarantees their right to believe however they wish to. These differing opinions make Scientology especially hard to label, as no definitive understanding of the organisation has yet been established.

‘In Germany for example, some authorities have declared Scientology a commercial enterprise and deprived it of its charitable status.’ (Woodhead, 2002, p281)

Scientology has however also managed to gain a great deal of credibility through celebrity endorsement. Such figures as Tom Cruise, John Travolta and Juliette Lewis have allowed Scientology to be frequently in the public sphere, for better or worse. It is for certain however that celebrity endorsement has elevated the status of Scientology and partially removed the veil which usually hides these organisations, causing people to view them with a suspicious eye.

From personal accounts which can be found scattered across the internet it is clear that Scientology has a sinister and threatening side, a side which even its adherents know of and feel threatened by. One such account is that of Kathryn a lady who wished to leave Scientology however feared for the safety of herself and those close to her.

‘Around New Years 1996, I realized that I had to tell my husband how I felt, even though it was a High Crime to tell another Scientologist about one's disaffection with Scientology. I also told him that I might not want to be a Scientologist any longer. He was visibly upset and very clear with me that that would be a problem for him. I knew that if I continued in my current direction, my marriage and children could be at risk. So I stopped talking about my feelings.’ (xenu, 2009)

One practice which is certainly sinister and damaging and has become strongly associated with Scientology is known as ‘fair game’, a system which sets out to discredit and attack those who speak against Scientology.

Cross-us, and it becomes Fair game

Fair game is a practice by which people who speak or act against the ‘Church of Scientology’ will be subjected to being followed and/or tracked, also that may have the church research into their lives and make public any embarrassing past the person may have as a way of discrediting the person. This of course is an extreme act and is one that the church insists is not practised (anymore).

‘The term does not appear in the scriptures of Scientology and has not existed since 1968. In fact, its only use since then is not by the Church at all, but by a handful of anti-Scientology apostates and their attorneys who have exploited it in efforts to generate anti-Scientology prejudice in the media or courtroom.’ (www.fairgamed.org, 2009)

This all sounds quite reasonable, almost as if the organisation has developed for the better since its creation. However these statements are very much contrary to what researchers have found. The BBC created a programme titled Scientology and me, which aimed to look at the organisation and assess its practices and members. What they found was far from what Scientologists say. Those who spoke against the organisation had all their personal information placed onto posters and displayed across their hometowns in a bid to embarrass and discredit the individual. Along with this those who spoke against were also under surveillance by the church and followed wherever they went.

‘Mrs. Emanuel has been engaged in a hate campaign against the Church of Scientology since about 1997 in a number of derogatory Internet postings against the Church and she maintains a web page through which she expresses her hatred and prejudice towards the Scientology religion and parishioners of Scientology. Due to the above we believe there exists a strong possibility that Mrs. Emanuel may be engaged in illegal conduct while using her position within the United States Post Office and believe an investigation is called for.’ (Fairgamed.org, 2009)

Above is a sample of an e-mail sent to the work of a person who had spoken out against Scientology. The email shows how the organization set out to make the life of this person difficult, going as far as to try to destroy her career.

These are far from the actions of a respectable and established religion. These appear to be the actions of a paranoid organisation; so insecure it sets out to destroy those who wish to voice their opinions.

What is Scientology?

Although this essay shall examine Scientology and its adherents in a great deal more detail, the terse definitions which L. Ron Hubbard himself gave are ones which give an insight into his vision and also shall act as a point for comparison between the vision of L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology in the 21^st century.

‘Scientology is an applied Religious Philosophy. The term Scientology is taken from the Latin scio (known in the fullest sense of the word) and the Greek word logos (study of). In itself the word means ‘knowing how to know.’ (Hubbard, 1999, p7)

From this first definition you cannot help but notice the Hubbard describes Scientology as a ‘religious philosophy’ so he certainly believed the organisation to be something of profound significance, or at least something that he hoped would in time be viewed in such a way. This definition is however cleverly sculptured when we look at the language and the context of times in which this was written.

Post world war Britain was a place where faiths were being questioned. The atrocities of the war had led people to question their faiths and look to other places for answers. This was coupled with the rise of science in the 20^th century. Scientific ideas and technology where growing at speeds never before experienced (this is a bitter sweet success as it is greatly due to the wars themselves, as technology flourishes in times of war, as countries race for power and control). So the use of the Latin term scio with its suggestive attachments to science and the rapid explosion of knowledge is a clever way of elevating the credibility of the movement and arousing interest (as misleading as this may be).

‘One religion that was intelligently designed, almost in its entirety, is Scientology.’ (Dawkins, 2006, p234)

The long-term survival of Scientology owes a great deal to the writing skills of Hubbard as his ‘credibility through language’ serves as a catalyst to anybody who wishes to become familiar with Scientology. However even the power of Hubbard’s originality in ideas and writing has come into question.

‘[They] probably never knew that the phrase [phrase being ‘If you want to make a million… The quickest way is start you own religion] appears twice in Shakespeare and twice in Keats, but they knew all about Star Trek and were obsessed with it. The language of their website is a preposterous caricature of misunderstood science, laced with bad romantic poetry.’ (Dawkins, 2006, p28)

Hubbard’s second definition appears to say as much about the man himself as it does the organisation.

‘Scientology is further defined as the study and handling of the spirit in relationship to itself, universes and other life.’ (Hubbard, 1999, p7)

An Introduction to L. Ron Hubbard

The founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard’s life is one which is shrouded in mystery. He is believed to have been born in 1911 at Tilden, Nebraska. As a child Hubbard was able to spend vacations with his father who was an officer with the US navy. He lived in Washington DC with his grandfather, and attended George Washington University.

From this point on the life of L. Ron Hubbard becomes one which is not verified and is difficult to trace. It is believed he lived a very mobile life.

Among the occupations in which he is reported to have been engaged during this period, are pilot, US Marine, radio entertainer, scriptwriter and explorer. Hubbard was also a prolific writer of pulp magazine adventure, phantasy, and science fiction stories and novels in the same genres. (Wallis, 1976, p21)

The fact people struggled to trace Hubbard’s early life was something that he used to his advantage. This lack of information gave him the freedom to re-write his own past and colour it how he wished, creating an incredible life, fit for a ‘20^th century messiah’.

‘As a young boy he learned much about survival in the rugged Far West–with what he called “its do-and-dare attitudes, its wry humor, cowboy pranks, and make-nothing of the worst and most dangerous.” Not only could he ride horses at the age of three and a half, but was soon able to rope and break broncos with the best of them.’ (aboutlronhubbard.org, 2009)

He took advantage of this and when asked about his past he would tell of how he was a great scientist, explorer and a war hero. These (as many of Hubbard’s lies) contained an element of truth. He served in the U.S. Navy until poor eyesight made this difficult. As a child he travelled with his father, however spent most of his time on his grandfather ranch, he was certainly well travelled however explorer is quite an exaggeration. And he certainly had an interest in Science, however was never what anyone would consider a scientist as he failed to get any qualifications in science. However creating a science-based history of himself was key to the success of his organisation as many of his products and ideas would have been discredited had it been known how poor an understanding he had of the sciences.

‘Theorizing that the world of subatomic particles might possibly provide a clue to the human thought process, he enrolled in one of the first nuclear physics courses taught in the United States. Moreover, he was concerned for the safety of the world, recognizing that if man were to handle the atom sanely for the greatest benefit, he would first have to learn to handle himself. His aim, then, was to synthesize and test all knowledge for what was observable, workable and could truly help solve man’s problems. And to that end, he set out to determine precisely how the mind functioned.’ (aboutlronhubbard.org, 2009)

It would appear that even the life of L. Ron Hubbard is a fabricated story, created purely for the purpose of furthering Scientology, demonstrating that Hubbard’s financial incentive to create a religion was not only a mere aspect but an ultimate goal.

The scripture of Scientology

In 1950 Hubbard published his self-help book entitled Dianetics, this would become the foundational text of Scientology. This book was not a highly financed piece; published by a small New York publisher what later became an incredible, worldwide success had very modest beginnings. The word Dianetics is derived from the Greek dia meaning through, and nous meaning mind so ‘through the mind’.

‘Dianetics is an adventure, wrote Hubbard’ in a brief foreword to his work. ‘It is an exploration into terra incognita, the human mind, that vast and hitherto unknown realm an inch back of our foreheads.’ (Garrison, 1974, p20)

Scientologist’ insist that dianetics can help with psychological well-being. The website which is devoted to dianetics states that,

‘Dianetics is a methodology which can help alleviate unwanted sensations and emotions, irrational fears and psychosomatic illnesses (illnesses caused or aggravated by mental stress). It is most accurately described as what the soul is doing to the body through the mind.’ (www.dianetics.org, 2009)

This sounds like a very promising practice and test have shown that religious practices can help with overall wellbeing e.g. prayer. However one of the key barriers between Scientology as an organisation and/or a cult and Scientology as a world religion is that tests which have been conducted have shown no benefits to dianetics, and so have denied Scientology religious status.

Foundational Beliefs

This is where scientology reflects the imagination of its creator. It seems to be beyond doubt that the origin story of Scientology has more in common with the works of science fiction writers rather than any major world faith.

‘Xenu, or Xemu, was, according to Scientology founder and science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, the dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of his people to Earth in DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs. Scientology holds that the essences of these many people remained, and that they form around people in modern times, causing them spiritual harm. Members of the Church of Scientology widely deny or try to hide the Xenu story.’ (Wiki, 2009)

Although this story is a reflection of Hubbards passion for sci-fi and his undisputable ability to create an amazing story. This ‘creation story’ is one which appears to bring shame even to Scientologists. This was demonstrated in the BBC documentary ‘Scientology and me’ as the interviewer asked a group of Scientologists their opinions of the Xenu story and each of them either refused to comment or just began to laugh.

Conclusion

Although it must be said Scientology has through the years taken a less extreme stance it is however still quite extreme in its practices. As negative a term as ‘cult’ is I believe Scientology has failed to move beyond this status. Practices such as ‘fair game’ are still very much alive and these practices are far from those that would be expected from a world religion.

Celebrity endorsement has certainly helped to give the organisation validity, however as was pointed out on many ‘anti-scientology’ websites it is understandable that celebrities would not wish to speak out against an organisation that could potentially destroy their careers and reputations.

This is however not necessarily something which will last. The fact that this is a new organisation and one which demands a great deal of faith is something which is bound to cause adherents to be protective, and although this is unacceptable, it is however something which once the religion has grown from its infancy and matured it may leave behind.

Creationism vs Evolution, an age old debate.

Abstract

When in the pursuit of providing a fair and efficient learning environment for children you must first tackle the possibilities of deception. Teach the facts, as we know them to be, and teach the methods in which we gained those facts s that children may carry on the questioning and investigation of ideas. It appears to be crucial that in order to evade possible deceptions that the teaching of science and religion should be handled sensitively. Teach the scientific facts of the times but also speak of the doubts that are held and the contradictory theories that exist. ’Teach the controversy’ as some say.

This essay focuses upon summarizing the Creationism vs. Evolution argument which has continued for many decades, and seeks to evaluate the ideas held on each side, see how over time these have evolved and adapted, and (if possible) reach a conclusion as to how science and religion should be approached within our schools.

……………………….

Introduction

The teaching of evolution in public schools has long been a controversial subject, and one that has been targeted primarily by anti-evolutionists. Similar to how anti-creationists targeted schools which teach the biblical creation story as a scientific fact.

The arguments between evolutionists and creationists have taken place within multiple countries across the globe, and this has over decades evolved both into, and out of numerous phases. One issue that arises when discussing the subject of evolution vs. creationism is that each side has become quite difficult to define. The creationist side has taken many forms, from the simple biblical literalist approach to the more complex creation science that includes such ideas as ‘irreducible biological complexity’. Contrary to this, the demands of the evolutionists appear to have taken numerous forms. The fundamental demand for evolution to be taught as scientific fact has been at the forefront of the evolutionist’ vision, however due to the rise of ‘New Atheism’ the confidence of the movement has differed from a timid proposal to a demand for educational reform.

Noah’s Ark! – When children could be learning the spine-tingling fact that Africa and South America were once joined, and have drawn apart at the speed with which fingernails grow. (Dawkins, 2007, p376)

New Atheism has certainly played a vital role in reinforcing the evolutionist corner, as these writers bring with them many followers. However some writers have attempted to find a common ground, one that unites faith with science. One such writer is Michael Ruse whose book Can a Darwinian be a Christian? Argued that you can both be a religious believer and a scientist.

Can a Darwinian be a Christian? Absolutely! Is it always easy for a Darwinian to be a Christian? No, but whoever said that the worthwhile things in life are easy? Is the Darwinian obliged to be a Christian? No, but try to be understanding of those who are. Is the Christian obliged to be a Darwinian? No, but realize how much you are going to foreswear if you don’t make the effort, and ask yourself seriously (if you reject all forms of evolutionism) whether you are using your God-given talents to the full. (Ruse, 2006, p217)

This significantly more liberal approach to the debate is one that shifted the aims of Creationists and Evolutionists, as it moved the focus from a grand victory for either science or faith, to establishing a fair and balanced education system. A balanced and fair approach to the teachings of these arguments is believed by some to be the key to promoting positive pedagogical values.

Summary of the debate

Creationism stems from the belief that ‘the entire universe and everything contained within was created by deity or deities’. Creationists generally take religious scripture (specifically those concerned with creation) and interpret them literally.

There is a long running debate within the Council of Europe primarily focusing on whether or not our schools should teach creationism in their science lessons, in particular alongside evolution.

Creation Science proponents argue that theirs is a legitimate scientific view, not merely a religious perspective, and that out of a sense of fairness; both ‘evolution science’ and ‘creation science’ should be presented. ‘Let the children decide’ has been the rallying cry of Young Earth Creationists for decades. (Scott, 2005, p212)

The teaching of two perspectives is certainly a fair way with which to resolve this conflict. However, do we not have a moral obligation to not only demonstrate the evidence but also explain the lack of evidence in many areas? And if little to no evidence is available, is it not both misleading and immoral to teach these ideas as part of a subject which focuses heavily upon empirical facts.

We now think of Charles Darwin as the man whose theories of evolution finally abolished the view of the creation set forth in the bible. To this day, so-called ‘creationism’ is taught in some American schools as an explanation for the world around us; but it has largely been replaced by evolutionary theory, which argues that humans and all other living creatures on earth developed over successive generations, acquiring over hundreds of thousands of years the characteristics that most aided the goals of survival and reproduction in their specific environments. In evolutionary theory, not only is the Bible wrong, but there is no need for God at the helm. (Winston, 2005, p384)

It would be unfair to say that creationism should be separated altogether from science as it would be somewhat ‘un-scientific’ to do so, as although there is little evidence to support this claim there is also gaps of knowledge which means it cannot be conclusively disproven.

Although numbers alone do not validate anything, you cannot help but award some merit to the incredible numbers of people who believe in creationism as it would be fair to assume that these people have though long and hard in regards to what they believe. And for people to still have faith means somewhere there must be something, just as some cannot bring themselves to believe in the religious ideas. There are many creationists who cannot bring themselves to believe in the scientific methods.

This is an issue within schools that has to be addressed and scrutinized in detail, as science lessons are reserved for what we see as factual information, and is also a place where the students are being taught what they are told is scientific fact.

We are seeing across the world a number of creationist schools which challenge the teaching of evolution and other scientific ideas as fact and, in place teach their own ideas in relation to the world, as they believe this to be a much more satisfying alternative. However this approach is one that lacks any fairness and is potentially damaging to students of science and religion. We do not merely have two sides that hold different opinions, but we have two sides that are to their extremes. This ‘all or nothing approach’ must be moved beyond if a constructive and fair system of education is to be created or even conceived of.

If there is a unifying conclusion it is that while the comparison of Darwinism and Christianity may be challenging and difficult, it is also stimulating and fruitful. I argue and I have argued that time and again what might seem to be firm barriers to the Darwinian and the Christian existing in one and the same person prove, on examination to be precisely the points where advances can be made and understanding can be achieved. (Ruse, 2006, p217-218)

This has not (on either side) offered any new arguments, it is merely a continuation of the old arguments which were at their peek within the last five years under the presidency of George W Bush, and has since been fiercely debated in America where there are many both for, and against the idea of teaching creationism alongside science.

One argument originating in America, which is said to contradict the evolutionist’ theories, originated from the research of Michael Behe who believes that organisms are of Irreducible biological complexity (IBC), which is the idea that all living organisms can and will only function in one way if anything was mutated or missing it would fail to live and/or fulfill its purpose.

Now this directly contradicts the theory of evolution which suggests we evolved into what we are now in gradual steps over millions of years, but IBC suggests that this cannot be as the organism would not have lived to evolve as it would have to be as it is now to have been able to have evolved originally. Therefore the organism must have been created in its entirety, now this cannot be chance so (they conclude) there must be a creator. This was however soon (to an extent) disproved as they found that you can break down an organism and it can function effectively, so this is why the debate continues.

‘To say “all people are equal” is just to make a meaningless noise’. Is it?

When faced with this question one can’t help remembering the writing on the wall of the barn, in George Orwell’s classic fictional work, Animal farm.

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Now of course a great deal of progress has been made since 1945 when this story was written. We now exhibit both tolerance and understanding towards those of other backgrounds and faiths. We also now have gay rights (something which until 1967 were unacknowledged). And from These primary factors, (of which there are many more examples) we can see the progression made towards people’s freedom and equality within society.

One doctrine which focuses upon establishing the ‘total’ equality of people is Egalitarianism. Now this of course appears a very fair and noble idea. However could it ever be something to be desired? Is their not a point where ‘total’ equality could become problematic? It would appear that equality is to an extent possible and is of course a positive force within society. Although just as all great ideas and visions equality it would appear cannot be universalised. Is it not the case that sometimes you need a voice, or group of voices which is elevated above the rest, and aids us in our overall progression towards a common end?

Although I believe that great advances and achievements could be made in the pursuit of a state of total equality. I believe the goal of that equality is one which will always remain out of reach.

Equality is a dream. However it is a dream which possesses the ability to motivate the person and the society to progress, and so is a positive venture. This dream is expressed succinctly by Thomas Jefferson;

Equal rights for all, special privileges for none.

Don't despair, at-least the criminals have rights

‘If you are stopped you’ll first be asked where you’re going and what you’ve been doing. The police may then decide to search you but only if they have a good reason, for example, that you fit the profile of a criminal seen in the area, or they think you’re acting suspiciously. You should not be stopped or searched just because of your age, race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion, the way you dress or because you’ve committed a crime in the past.’ (Home office, 2009).

At first glance this ‘new power’ given to the Police appears to be (if carried out) a minefield. For the Police to approach an individual or group and exercise their power to search them as the officer feels it necessary to do so, means that the officer is taking a great risk. If the search leads to a weapon being found then a potential violent crime has been averted, however if the officer finds no weapon then they are in risk of having their motives for the search questioned, which can lead to allegations of discrimination.

As the Home Office website states, ‘You should not be stopped or searched just because you’ve committed a crime in the past.’ However this would appear to cause problems for the Police officer as when confronted with a person who has a previous record for violent crime or any other crime which has made the individual known to the Police, the officer must decide if the grounds for the search are strong enough to conduct the search. The Spectator magazine published in an article entitled, Political correctness is the real failure of stop and search. ‘Indiscriminate searches are marginalizing young men, and suggests that – as 90 percent of knife murderers are previously known to police - searching targeted youths would get better results.’

However, who would wish to risk their career on whether or not an individual is carrying a weapon based on very little objective evidence? Many wouldn’t, so we are now faced with the issue of having a Police force with the power to stop and search but in many cases will not use that power as they are afraid of the potential consequences.

Now I am aware of the inherent risks of adopting this out-look towards stop and search as the next step would appear to be an extreme one. And this is an almost complete disregard for the human rights of the individual and allow Police officers to stop and search anyone using any criteria they wish, they do not have to justify themselves they can merely exercise their power. This will leave the Police trapped between a Rock and a hard place as they can either opt for the (to use the Spectators term) ‘politically correct’ method and risk missing potential violent offenders because they fear using their own powers, or they can opt for the extreme and risk destroying any potential bond between the Police and communities.

'Mr Transparency' the first honest title as we can see through the lies and corruption of the British political parties

The recent 'blacking out' of MP's expenses has confirmed all that has long been thought about the political parties of Britain. Fraud, theft and corruption to name only a few of the possible words to describe politics in 21st Century Britain. All we have are words, where is the action? It would appear that Gordon Browns days are numbered in office if he does the honorable deed of stepping down before the country loses all faith in the Labour party, a party which has the potential to do a great deal of good in areas where it is much needed.

But here we have the Conservative party, a party which has spent so much time feeding on the failures of the Labour party that they appear to have no idea what they will do if they get into office.

Posters, snappy slogans and witty put-downs may just enough for the Conservatives to claw their way to victory, but to what end?

I propose if a party wishes to win the next election, whoever that party may be. They should stop with this 'school-yard pettiness' and instead put their money where their mouth is. Many small towns in Britain are in need of help, poor education, anti-social behavior and poverty is not as small an issue as we would be made to believe, i would like to see a party take one of these towns, use the money they would use for their campaigns and the many millions many of the parties have and show that they can make a difference. The party which can turn a town into a 'political showroom' a place which demonstrates the party effectiveness and ability will have my vote and i believe the votes of the rest of Britain.