And the recipe for Thangam's tradition busting Christmas Cake

So, having read the previous blog of reasons to make a carry on on Stir Up Sunday (it was last Sunday but don't worry, it's not too late) here is the recipe for the cake. Gather ye dried fruit and nuts and spices and a loose-bottomed 12 inch cake tin and a little one for you to have your own extra cake.

Ingredients

200g butter - take it out an hour before cooking, so it isn't fridge hard.

150g dark muscovado sugar - yes, nothing else will do. It's worth it.

2 tablespoon black treacle - no, golden syrup isn't the same, it's not that sort of cake.

4 eggs, beaten, or kettled. Did I say big respect to the students?

100ml or so of brandy or sherry.

650g dried fruit - I use raisins (not a single sultana will be passing my mother's lips this Christmas, as per instructions), cranberries (dried and sweetened), cherries (the dark sort, not the red ones) and candied peel. But you can add currants and sultanas if you like that sort of thing. Soak everything, except the candied peel, in the brandy/sherry overnight if you can.

120g nuts - I used almonds and hazelnuts. But you can leave them out if you have a nut allergy to cope with.

Finely grated zest of lemon or orange (but never a lime). Now is a good time to get yourself a zester, what a tool.

2tsp mixed spice - I used traditional cinnamon, cloves and nutmeg.

Seeds scraped out of half a fresh vanilla pod if you have one.

200g plain flour

1/2 tsp baking powder.

Method:

Cream butter and sugar thoroughly. Beat in treacle, then eggs, a bit at a time, alternately with the flour.  The mixture should be ploppy, not liquid.  

Add in the fruit/alcohol mixture. Add the nuts. Stir it all well, adding the baking powder.

You should have greased and lined your tin with baking parchment - this is really important. And you should have heated up your oven to 160c or 140c if you have a fan oven, or gas 3.

Ease the cake mixture carefully, just half at first, into the cake tin. Now for a mixing up of traditions - Simnel cake, the traditional cake for Easter, is a fruit cake with a layer of marzipan in the middle. What could be nicer? Roll out some ready made marzipan into a circle which is slightly smaller than the cake tin, place carefully on the cake mixture and add the rest of the cake mixture making sure it covers the marzipan at the edges.

Cook for 30 minutes, then turn down the oven to 150c or 130c if you have a fan oven, or gas 2. Cook for at least 2 hours, perhaps slightly more until a skewer comes out clean except for a bit of marzipan (taste to check!).

Leave it to cool in the tin. Once cool, take out of tin and baking parchment. Turn it upside down, skewer its bottom and splash on the first drink of extra alcohol. It will quickly soak up. Now wrap the whole thing in foil and put in a tin or somewhere else which is safe from rodents or you.

It will keep for months, particularly if no-one else in your family likes fruit cake.

Stir up Sunday - don't KEEP CALM and do make a CARRY-ON

I am not keen on tradition. It's so often used as an excuse for being vile to someone or a group of someones. Some time over the next week, tradition requires ("it's for the children!") that Dutch men will be blacking themselves and their children up, adding rubbery looking red lips and afro wigs to emulate the BlackPete character who is the nasty bad men who beats the children and abducts them to Spain if they are naughty (I am not making this up). Meanwhile, saintly (and coincidentally white) Klaus gives the good ones presents. Have a look at the youtube clip of the warm and witty David Sedaris' take on this tradition for actual footage. Here are some more traditions:


Easter Eggs: a once lovely traditional time of year for celebrating renewal and growth, now small children are given appalling quality chocolate, confusingly hollow and usually empty. I suppose that is a traditional way of giving your kids a metaphor for life (or reality TV).


Weddings: traditional way of enslaving women and their property, of providing for state interference in individual's sex lives and in in most, but not all countries, a form of sexual identity apartheid. Don't go bleating to me about Civil Partnerships, it's one sort of marriage for gay people and another for straights. Netherlands, admirably (feel obliged to mention a positive Dutch tradition) have three forms of union to which anyone of any sexual identity can sign themselves to. But they are basically not my cup of tea. If you want to invite me to one, unless you are a nephew or niece of mine, please don't, though I will of course respect your right to get married. And if you are a n or an n of mine, please be warned I may well just make you a cake and bung you a tenner, with the usual injunction not to spend it all on sweets. Then tell you I am leaving you all my money in my will and not to tell the others.


Right wing governments traditionally come up with convincing sounding narratives for doing really rotten things to poor people, vulnerable people and anyone who doesn't have loads of unearned income, in ways which make many otherwise reasonable people and even some of their victims think "you know,  he does have a point".


Left wing governments traditionally eventually implode under pressure from international capitalism and internal torment, get kicked out and then traditionally annoy their loyal supporters in a range of ways, this time by referring to squeezed middles. I have a squeezed middle. I am also a loyal supporter. Squeezing my middle won't rid me of the unwanted extra 8kilo. But I can identify it. Ed, dear Ed, I voted for you, stop all this talk of middles and squeezing and blank pages and get on hammering the coalition's treatment of poor people, women, people with disabilities and also with working out how to implement the Living Wage like you promised you would.


Austerity governments can traditionally rely on a Royal Wedding as cover for even more nastiness, whilst we revert to forelock tugging commoners, grateful for a souvenir mug and a day off job seeking, failing to notice that even when the Queen says she will pay half, that's OUR MONEY she is spending. And we will also be paying for some in the police to indulge in the now traditional habit of kettling under age enthusiasts on the day. Oh, and traditionally, we will all forget that royal marriages, going back to Henry 8th and before, with a very few exceptions, don't traditionally go that well.

Christmas: bah humbug. Once a way of feasting and warming each other up during the dark cold winter days (good plan now the price of gas seems to have double), now it seems to me to have become a way of using tradition as an excuse for making people feel they have to spend three months' wages on STUFF. People, stop it, we don't have any money and spending money we don't have just because bankers want us to is why we are in this mess! Go home and knit some socks. Or order a goat from Oxfam- my kind mother has given me practically a flock over the years and I love them all (thankfully, Oxfam has sent them to live with someone who actually knows about goat husbandry).

So it is with some surprise that I realise that I have a deep and abiding love for one, a Christmas, tradition. Stir up Sunday, the last Sunday before Advent is the day to make the plum pudding. I have made it the day to make the Christmas cake, which I adore. Sticky, dark, studded with plump raisins sodden with brandy, it's a nutritious and balanced meal which travels well and lasts for months, particularly if you remember that it has a thirst and will be happier if you give it ever more brandy every few days.  There is a lot of time involved in the stirring, cooking slowly and then feeding it over the weeks between the cooking and the big day itself. But that gives you time to watch Mad Men and knit more socks (you can learn how to knit on youtube you know). As you trudge the lonely road on a donkey to the source of your birth, don't forget to ring her up to let her know you have packed a blanket, a fully charged phone and map not a SatNav (who knew that maps would help more in a snowstorm than Sean Connery's voice in an electronic box? No possibility of answering that without sarcasm so I will just park it). And before you set off, wrap the cake up well, remember it will add substantially to your weight allowance if you are flying and if you get snowed up, it will provide you with all essential nutrients for longer than your phone battery will last.

Love in the room, Christmas stirred. And you can cook a big daddy of a cake and a little small one, just for you.

Recipe follows on next blog page.....

The Bakery Called and the Today Programme answered....Hot press!

A couple of days ago I posted that I was finding it hard to get any current news about the government apparently ignoring the fact that the public sector cuts are going to hit women and poor people hardest (particularly poor women and their children). And today, on the ever wonderful Today (Radio 4, 6am to 9am daily except for the blessed Sunday) comes my answer! As part of their week long exploration of fairness in public sector cuts, the feature today was about the impact on women. I clutched my knitting (I am knitting my nephews and nieces a university to go to) and listened with bated breath.

First at 7.30ish, an examination of the claims with union officers and female public sector workers. You can hear this feature by clicking here.  The interviewee who currently works for London Ambulance part time pointed out she is able to afford child care and go out to work, fitting round her children's needs through flexible working and confident her children are well cared for when she is at work because of the provision of child care support, thus paying taxes, providing a role model for her children and still being a good mum (this is not a criticism of women who do not do paid work). She is now facing the end of this and an impossible choice about how to be a mum out of work.

Then at 8.19am Fawcett Society's Anna Bird was on the air (click here to go to the page for the entire programme, annoyingly there isn't a direct link for this feature but you can click on play the entire programme and then fast forward to 8.19am, two hours and 19 minutes into the programme), along with Louise Bagshawe, Tory MP.  I typed as I listened. Anna Bird reminded us of the following reasons why the cuts are likely to hit women hardest and therefore why the Fawcett Society has lodged a legal challenge asking the ConDems to do an Equalities Report, a legal obligation, and to take action if this report shows unfairness in the effects of the public spending cuts:

• Women make up 65% of the public sector workforce, more in the health and social care sectors
• Women are heavier users of public services than men –  we are more likely to live in poverty, we frequently get fecklessly pregnant, we need more care in old age as they live longer (there is a gender equality flaw in that last argument - what are we doing about men's shorter life expectancies? - but it doesn't undermine the overall validity)Women already shoulder the majority of unpaid caring duties and when the public sector cuts are felt it will be women who are expected to take up the slack, looking after elderly neighbours as well as family, doing child care on top of low paid work, we will be the Big Society because that's what we've always done.

Conservative MP Louise Bagshawe promptly flat out denied that the public sector cuts will have this effect. She criticised the Fawcett society for their concern about housing benefit cuts, child benefit cuts and cited the restoration of the link between earnings and pensions as a support for women and said that the majority of the public supported the ConDem cuts.


She also pointed out that the Labour Government didn’t do an Equalities Impact Statement on the abolition of the 10p tax band in 2008 (the year after the Gender Equality Duty became law) which is a good point, though please let’s notice that they did in the end reverse the decision.


Fawcett Society’s Anna Bird reiterated that the child benefit cuts and so on will hit women hardest, Today programme journalist asked “what about the argument that this is what women want”? Anna Bird said the government has LEGAL DUTY to look at the impact on equality and to take action to avoid discriminatory harm.


Louise Bagshawe said she knew that the Treasury is looking at this and has met with the Fawcett Society. She also said that the government is supporting small businesses, which are often a place for women to gain economically. Today programme asked if government would be happy to see more women forced to stay at home. Louise Bagshawe, after calling herself a feminist, trotted out the old clichés about choice and children doing better if women stay at home. It's curious that having denied that there was a gendered impact, she went on to defend the government by saying that they were looking at it. It is particularly odd seeing as the curiously positioned Theresa May, Home Secretary and minister for equalities has previously stated clearly to gorgeous George Osborne that she herself was worried that the government might, ahem, be breaking the law on equalities.


I have to ask, how will having less money, cutting their benefits if they find themselves unable to work for whatever reason, having to take on more unpaid work and having fewer opportunities to do paid work or get quality child care give women more choice? I also have to ask when someone will please teach Tory politicians, in fact, be fair, most politicians, to read or at least understand the summaries of the resaerch on which they claim to base their evidence based “what works” policies? Or just to notice their own ideological biases? Children do best when they are not poor. Children do best when their parents aren’t worried sick about how they are going to manage. Children do better when we all make a commitment to support them, whether or not we have our own – we will all need the current generation of children to look after us, pay for public services and bring us the odd pitcher of margaritas when we are old.


I do get (though politely have to disagree with) the argument many of my friends and many others are making about higher earning parents not needing Child Benefit. First criticism is the link between this and an inferred inevitability about having to make such huge public sector cuts and with such speed - a premise which greater brains than mine are rejecting. Look at the example of the austerity bugets of years gone by which resulted in the Great Depression and the converse of the post war public spending investment which resulted in growth in European and US economies. Government budgets are not the same as household ones, we rightly pool our resources and expect the state to invest on our behalf so that we all have good roads, transport, schools, health, water, refuse collection etc and then we can grow as an economy, pay more in taxes and require less in benefits, at which point public spending can fall as a proportion of GDP because we just need less of it.


Then there is the symbolic importance of valuing children from birth - the benefit is called CHILD benefit, not PARENT benefit, it's for children. And even if you argue in favour of cutting child benefit, the current plan is clearly, demonstrably unfair as it favours dual income families with individual salaries just below the cut off point over single income families with salary just above.

Finally, I feel strongly that the original argument made by our grandmothers and great grandmothers in the Labour and Co-op movements a century ago, about rewarding, even if only symbolically, the unpaid work of bringing up children, still stands. Even if you don't want children, you don't want other people's growing up poor, badly brought up, lacking in basic health care, even if only for the self preservation reasons I have already mentioned - we childless are going to need other people's children when we are old (actually I already do need other people's children and I am merely of a certain age).


If you want to make your own mind up – and please do – you can visit the latest from the Fawcett Society and go to the Today Programme website to hear the interview. For a previous Today programme interview with the same Anna Bird and the Institute of Fiscal Studies’ Mark Littlewood, broadcast on 25th August 2010 you can click here.

Autumn at the Bakery - can anyone find any publicity for the fact women are paying for the bulk of the public sector cuts?

me and Mad Men on my wall big style

Season of mist and mellow fruitfulness be damned, this is the Autumn of our miserable anxiety ridden discontent, made bearable by Mad Men Season 4, A History of the World in 100 Objects (though it does feel as though we have had more than 100), my mum's lemon drizzle cake turned into buns and yellling abuse at radio 4 every time someone intones solemnly that we are all in this together. No we bloody well aren't. Arms dealers, apparently, are the new nurses, the profession we should admire for their selfless devotion to the human race and to whom we should give all our money, yay, e'een unto the very last penny in the small child's piggy bank. They aren't in it with us, whatever 'it' is.

Updates on bakery business 1: the Fawcett Society’s legal challenge to the Coalition Government’s failure to obey the law on gender equality has not exactly been all over the press, TV, radio or blogosphere. In fact, their own website is startlingly lacking in recent information. Yet Osborne appears to be happy to ignore the rule of law and we, the public, remain braced to experience the full force of bankers’ revenge without supporting the sole legal challenge to the cuts we know will be unfair, cruel and, well, how can I say this politely, illegal. Various research papers have identified the unfairness of making poor women pay for rich (mostly, but not entirely) male bankers’ frivolity, but this isn’t making enough press yet.


The ConDems are making a great deal of "fairness" and how "we are all in this together". But, despite the fact that women make up the majority of the low paid workers and are still far from on equal pay with men, we are asked to shoulder the majority of the burdeen of the public sector cuts, as workers and service users. And some nice governmental advisors have started saying that the Equalities Act was a mistake...


Anyway, despite this crucially important aspect of the public spending cuts (there are many others) we are hearing very little, nay, practically nothing, about it. The only people I have heard mention it in public are union leaders - the left wing blogs and the Labour Party aren't exactly trumpeting it either (and I say that with love and regret).


So pass it on. Post it on your facebook status, send this blog to others, make a donation to the Fawcett Society, write to your MP or councillor, write to the newspaper. Do something!

Any bakery readers who remain at the hand wringing stage about the impending doom, or who are teetering on the brink of the sleepless with worry stage, try writing a letter to your MP, particularly if she or he is a Lib Dem or Tory. Let them know what you think. Whatever happens, at least they can’t say they weren’t told and at least you won’t feel that you stood by and did nothing. But honestly, writing letters does have an effect. If you don’t believe me, ask Troy Davis’ sister (see previous blog), or any prisoner freed from prison or granted reprieve from the death penalty after pressure from letter writing by Amnesty supporters.


Or – bakery past blast – consider that about twenty years ago, the Secretary of State for Benefits (he wasn’t called that exactly, but you know what I mean) did a complete turnaround on allowing parents who had been abused or whose children had been abused by their ex-partner to refuse to agree to a child support agency claim for maintenance, if they feared harm or distress would result to their child or to them as a result. It cost public money (which we were told was impossible to convince a Tory government about) and it wasn’t perfect, but thousands of women and children have benefitted from this tiny but significant clause in the Child Support Act 1991 known as the good cause clause. At Women’s Aid back then we hopeless idealists naively thought writing letters to MPs would make a difference. You know, it did.

It's Mint Julep o'clock!

Two blogs or so ago I retired to my chaise longue and dreamt of mint juleps. The mint julep pixies provided for me and it was a life changing experience. Yes, I felt like I was in an F. Scott Fitzgerald novel, in fact I think I was actually one made flesh. Very unsuitably rounded ample flesh rather than board like 20s flapper like flesh but definitely created by the great man himself or would have been if he had stayed off the Mint Juleps to live longer.

So here it is. The sun seems to have returned so it felt like a good idea. Enjoy.

Per person (if they only want one drink)

4 fresh sprigs of mint - well, how much is a sprig? It's a sprig! which is a fancy word for twiggish stalk thing.

2.5 fluid oz Bourbon or similar (don't be put off thinking you don't like whiskey, this is something altogether different)

1 tsp powdered sugar
2 tsp water

Muddle mint leaves (rip them off the sprigs), sugar and water. Some would make the sugar and water into a syrup first, for ease of blending. But you can just muddle. Not sure how to muddle a mint leaf? look at it firmly, tell it first that Keynesian economic policies are an outmoded method of reinvigorating an underperforming economy, then tell it that monetarists' approches to fiscal stimulation are SOOOOO last century, then say you are going to give up cash and only obtain goods from Freecycle and services from TimeBanking. It'll be muddled by then or my name's not George Osborne. Oh, OK, muddling means mix it up with a stumpy pokey stick to release the aromatic flavours.

Fill glass with shaved or crushed ice. How to shave a block of ice? I still don't really know but I do know if you wrap the ice in a tea towel and whack it madly with a rolling pin, you will crush the thing.

Add bourbon.

Top up with more ice and another sprig mint for looks.

Serve with a Straw (by clicking on the top right hand link to Left Foot Forward?). Or serve with a straw.  

If you want to make in bulk, do all the above but in a cocktail shaker in multiple quantities. Try not to think of Tom Cruise. That's a good motto for life.

Ladies in their pants

First, by way of easing us into a discussion about women wearing not much more than pants, a publicity push for whomadeyourpants? collective. They make pretty underwear - hooray! - but concerned girls can be assured that the women who made them were properly treated and have a stake in the business, a rarity in any business involving women and intimate garments. I have ordered mine and will report back on future Bakery pages. I also have a pattern for knitting lacy pants so we can see whether commerce triumphs over home craft shortly.


Last week's Bakery posting urged support for the Fawcett Society's admirable attempt to take the government to court for failure to abide by the Gender Equality Duty and notice that they are disproportionately affecting women in the proposed cuts. It's pleasing to see that they are garnering much support, but saddening to find that they are getting so little coverage (try googling this or searching in any of the major newspaper websites or political blogs and you will see what I mean).


But let's try to keep the rant level low. Is there anything good to report on women's lives in the UK in summer 10? Well, yes, actually there is, though it is a strange thing to have to celebrate and is a bit like celebrating the end of a war. Thanks due to Object, a wonderful campaigning organisation. Even if you don't agree with them - and I do hope that by the end of this blog you will - they gladden the heart, they remind us all that you don't have to be a Freemason to influence people.


As of 3rd August 2010 (two weeks ago), Job Centres were no longer allowed to advertise posts in the so-called 'sex industry' (some of us choose to use the less factually challenged  term rape-and-sexual-abuse-industry when referring to lap-dancing clubs, sex shows, prostitution, pornography and the like, but call it what you will). 


I will pause for the effects of this to be clear....yes, that's right, it was legal before 3rd August for lap dancing clubs (known quaintly as the Adult Entertainment Industry) to advertise for staff in Job Centres. Which meant it was perfectly legal for Job Centre staff to put these adverts in front of unemployed young women. Did they put them in front of unemployed men, I wonder? And did the adverts carry the footnote about Exemption from the Sex Discrimination Act? If not, the Job Centres were themselves breaking the Sex Discrimination Act, but let that slide for the moment.


If you had an unemployed daughter, niece, friend, or if you yourself are a young unemployed woman, what would be your response to a Job Centre employee telling your daughter/niece/etc./you that you should consider this line of employment? Yes, the Job Centre guidance did say that job seekers should not be forced to apply, but at the very least, putting up the adverts in a government office gives them some sort of respectability.


What, Bakery Thangam, I hear you ask. What can you possibly have against nice ladies taking their tops off for kindly men who mean them no harm and simply want to give them some cash to buy a cardi with?  Pen and paper ready, please, take down the following:


Increased risk of sexual harassment of women living or working in the areas surrounding these establishments: try walking past one at night. I have to cycle home past two late at night after I get off the train from London, coincidentally after runnning a re-education programme for violent men and so I can personally assure you there is anecdotal evidence to support this. But don't believe me, read the research which shows this clearly: lap dancing clubs create an atmosphere in which men feel free to sexually harass and abuse women in and out of the premises. When they leave the club, they do not get hosed down with reasonable thought processes and their minds are in the same foolish state when they are outside addressing we ladies of the general public. I can also assure you of the generally depressing effect the sight of the clubs has on me: just spent 4 hours trying to give men reasons to stop treating women as their property and play things, only to be reminded that the men will have already been given 10 times as many reasons to ignore me, by the time they get home.


Increased risk of sexual harassment and assault for women working in these establishments: sounds like a duh! factor but there it is. Research shows that clubs are not safe for women to work in, they regularly face sexual harassment and assault. The clubs respond that they employ security guards to protect the women - by definition this shows that the clients are not to be trusted and a security guard can't be there all the time. You could try arguing that women know that they are risking this when they take on the job, but then you would also be arguing that women give up their rights to bodily safety when they get a job in the Adult Entertainment Industry. Are you sure you really mean that? If men pay the entrance fee, should we just ignore whatever they do to the women?


Sexualisation contributes to sexually abusive beliefs: yup, another duh! factor.  Research into sexual assault and beliefs shows that about a third of UK population think that women are to blame if they are wearing revealing clothing and get sexually assaulted. Are any of those people the same as the ones who want certain other women to reveal a bit more, by not wearing the veil? What's a girl to do? Wear more or wear less? Or shall we just stay at home in sensible shoes and knit lacy pants?


Sex industries make young women want to work in the sex industry: Some polls suggest that about two-thirds of the UK's young women want to work in the rape-and-sexual-assault-industry. Is this what you want for your daughter? If you aren't fine with that, but think people like me are interfering old witches, why is it OK for someone else's daugher but not yours? Would you say nothing if you were in a club and it was your daughter the men were leering over and trying to grab?


Sexualisation puts young women at risk of sexual harm: Young women in their early teens are publishing pictures and videos of them naked online on various well-known social networking sites. Some of these sites have proudly announced the thousands of user licenses belonging to convicted sex offenders they have had to close down.  Do you know what the young women in your life are posting online? More glamourising of the lap dancing and similar industries helps make sexual abusers feel justified in watching and abusing young women and the internet is then able to provide the means for them to do this from the comfort of their own homes. Why would we want to help that?


Discrimination: The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) conducted an Equalities Impact Assessment on this topic, which makes clear that jobs advertised in the Job Centres have to obey the law on discrimination in employment. Lap dancing clubs recruit young, thin, women with a particular body shape. They are not well known for their equal opportunities strategies.


Lap dancing clubs who responded to the DWP consultation protested that they are simply a choice of employer amongst many, comparing their vacancies with those in butchers. Nice touch.


FACT: there is no reply yet from the government to the Fawcett application for a judicial review for gender discrimination.
FACT: just because something turns you on, doesn't make it right.
FACT: so far as I know, no-one has yet invented a device for checking if internet porn/webcams etc were produced with no coercion, trafficking, force, sexual violence against the people on screen.
FACT: there is much more to say about women in and out of our pants. But until then, do visit who made your pants and see good things about the subject and perhaps agonise over whether their pictures are objectifying us females....Comments welcome please.


So there we are, some good news, some bad. Mostly the not so good sort.


Keep on knitting and baking. But most of all, get active. And I am not talking about sport.

NEXT TIME: yes, there will be recipes. I promise. Fish pie looks likely, also some bread related item.

Take the government to court

I love the Fawcett Society. They are named after the lovely Millicent Fawcett and have been around since 1866. They are still keeping up the struggle for equal pay for equal work, still a long way from reality, 40 years after the passing of the Equal Pay Act (which means that women earn at best about a fifth less than men and if you take into account lifetime loss of earnings for child rearing, a great deal less). They are excellent at telling it like it is about so called lap dancing clubs and have cearly helped lots of people to persuade their local councils to adopt the change in licensing laws which will end the ridiculous practice of licensing lap dancing clubs and the like under the same rules as a cafe (as have their sister organisation Object, also wonderful campaigning network tackling the whole gamut of the so-called 'sex' industry - or rape, harassment and sexual abuse industry as it could more truthfully be known).

And they have put the Equality and Human Rights Commission to shame, by doing the only responsible thing in the face of imminent budget changes which will result in more hardship, fewer opportunities, lower paid jobs and worse services, disproportionately for women - they are taking the government to court.

Someone really should be taking the Condems to court for just generally doing things which are likely to hurt poor people more than rich people. But we don't have laws against being unfair to poor people. And we do have laws requiring public bodies not to discriminate against women (we also have ones requiring them not to discriminate against disabled people, or people on grounds of their sexuality, hooray).

Last time I looked (about 5 minutes ago) the government hadn't yet been put out to tender and sold to the consultant with the best score on Best Value Performance Indicators, so I am pretty sure that it is still a public body at the moment. So this rule, known enticeingly as the Gender Equality Duty, still applies. And instead of the body legally constituted to hold organisations to account for adherence to equalities and human rights legislation, paid for with public money, it has been left to the Fawcett Society, a charity, funded almost entirely by individual donations and trusts, to tell the government that they can't do this without at least considering how this will affect equality between men and women.

Theresa May, Home Secretary and expert of the apparent 180degree turn illusion, aka Minister for Equalities, has made the Chancellor aware of this responsibilities to avoid discrimination of all kinds, including discrimination against gay people, disabled people and others under the Equalities Act 2010, in a clear letter which you can have a look at by clicking on that link. In other words: THEY CAN'T EVER SAY THEY WEREN'T WARNED, by their own Home Secretary.

So, support the Fawcett Society in their work, kindly helping to keep the government from breaking the law. If you join, not only will you have the pleasure of knowing that your money is helping to sue Cam'n'Clegg'n'co (and honestly, wouldn't that be a pleasure?). You will get a t-shirt with "This is what a feminist looks like" running attractively across your chest.

I have been photographed wearing this in a range of appropriate poses: whilst knitting aside a raging waterfall in Northumberland (the photographer lost his nerve there, so you will just have to believe me); as a protective outer layer when baking almond slices (of more anon), knitting in an ancient beech forest (see left), attempting to cook a three course meal for a family of 12 in a cliff top campsite in Wales, as half a pyjama. Frankly it could do with better tailoring - I didn't win many sartorial points as you can see, so there is a cliche sadly supported - but the political point is, I hope, clear. Feminists may bake, (or not), knit (or not), skip through meadows (or not), dress up (or down), rear or care for children and older people (or not) and we all work (whether paid or unpaid). Just like everyone else. Except for the important detail that we don't want (nit pickers that we are) to be treated as less important, less able, less deserving of decent lives, just because we are females. That's it. Nothing threatening there.

Any woman who doesn't want to call herself one out loud, that's a choice. Any woman who wants to slam feminism can, in order, give back: equal pay, protection under the law from violence, child benefit, right to vote, right to work, right to remain in work after marriage, right to own property, right to have own bank account, right to privacy and bodily integrity. Give 'em all back, if you have nothing but bad things to say about feminists - most of these didn't exist 50 years ago, lots didn't exist 20 years ago (including the right to say no to sex within marriage) and don't think for a minute that powerful political men just woke up one morning and said "let's do something nice for ladies today". Feminists organised and got busy and wrote letters and took to the streets and raised money to pay for legal challenges and thus, equal rights got a bit closer.

In reality, lots of the apparent gains are still mere mirages or fuzzy images at best, which is why we still need the Fawcett Society.

To those dear friends who think that we have gender equality and I am just being old fashioned - I must have missed the meeting where it was announced that the gender pay gap had closed, that there was no glass ceiling any more, that women don't get raped and beaten just for being women any more, that degrading treatment of women can no longer be packaged up and sold as harmless fun in magazines, websites or clubs for men any more. Come to think of it, I must have also missed the meeting where it was announced that men were no longer also being denied certain opportunities, just because they are men, or coerced into joining the armed forces and becoming cannon fodder, just because they were men without other job opportunities, any more. Gender equality is good for us all and it doesn't deny us the opportunity to be women and men in the ways we want to be, it just stops us from being discriminated against for it. Simple as.

Donate and help them sue the government, we need this now more than ever...

Hot coffee news!

Quick update on the Fair Trade coffee saga: I have now received a lengthy, warm and encouraging email from the CEO of the coffee retailer I love the most. Sadly, though unsurprising, there was no immediate commitment to putting a Fair Trade coffee on their shelves but some possibilities and she was most certainly understanding of the value of the Fair Trade presence for her customers - a breakthrough. I won't be naming them till I see the logo on the right on one of the lines in her delightful outlet and then I will resume my overdraft maintenance activities with gusto. Till then, I may have to desist.


CEO says the issue for her is quality, that she hasn't found a Fair Trade registered coffee with good enough quality. Does anyone know of one? I mean really REALLY good? Yes, I have tasted the ones you can get ready ground but neither they nor the very few FT registered beans I have ever tasted even come close to this quality, it's a one way street and I may have to give up coffee completely if they don't find something Fair AND tasty from Peru soon (that seems to be the most likely candidate said CEO has got). I have heard rumours of fine coffe from Uganda - please share the love and pass on the information if you have it, my caffeine addicted bones won't rest till I can get my fix with squeaky clean conscience and taste buds as happy as does the champagne my champagne socialism occassionally tickles them with.


The main thing is I want to find out how much consumer power counts for in the modern day - we are supposed to be consumers and to exercise our political influence at the check out so I hope that this saga has inspired some to at least ask the question in their favourite shops; why don't they stock any (or more) Fair Trade goods. We do have some power, it may be small but when more of us ask for things that matter, our voices get heard. Or am I being naive? Answers in the comments box, or by carrier pigeon, or attached to a fine bottle of pink fizz (is there a Fair Trade champagne? Is there a call for one? or are champagne producers not in need of such a thing to protect them? I suspect the latter but would be grateful for further information).


It's too hot to rant. If it weren't, there would be words on GROWTH NOT CUTS. I might mention that the current proposed form of voting reform is NOT what a lot of people voted for and barely counts as proportional representation. I could ask, coyly, why there is a new line of comment around about, that the coalition agreement isn't actually giving anyone what they voted for (and it would be tempting to say I told you so...see previous blogs). I could rail against the ubiquity of football and hurl forwards the possibility that supporting INGERLAND is a rallying point for the reassertion of nationalistic heteronormative hegemonic narrative (but that wouldn't make me many friends at parties). Or I could point out, annoyingly, that in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon, over 6 turgid volumes, in 1776, pointed out that said decline was marked by a public obsession with celebrity and sport. He also did a fine job of denigrating organised religion. If you happen to be in Bentinck Street in London you can lay a copy of Heat magazine and your St George's flag themed memorabilia at the foot of his blue plaque in tribute and pray for the arrest of the Holy Father when his lips touch the tarmac in Heathrow this Autumn.


But like I said, too hot. I am taking to my chaise with three papers about domestic violence and a loose idea for a board game called choose a new labour leader snakes and ladders. And a yearning for a mint julep. I have no idea what they are but I think F. Scott Fitzgerald characters would be sipping on one right now. They certainly wouldn't be blowing unitone vuvuzuelas.

Rant free blog with coffee and biscotti

I said this blog would be rant free and this was partly a test, to see if this is possible. I am currently engaged in an email exchange with my preferred supplier of my two drugs of choice on the subject of Fair Trade registration, so I am doubling my hurdles if I want to write about this without ranting. And to be a person with no interest in sport (except for the Olympics -more on this another day) during World Cup month and Wimbledon fortnight would surely induce another rant fount?

But no. England can stay in the WC as long as it likes. When they play a football match I get zippy service from the library and the cafe supplier of all day breakfast and I am not taking my middle aged life into my hands whenever I don the helmet and mount the Raleigh Shopper (3 speeds, 1 basket, 43 years of existence) (that's the bike, not me) (no, actually, it's me as well), so there's no point not being appreciative. And converting my favoured coffee bean retailer to Fair Trade will clearly take time but will work better with charm rather than ranting. I am determined to bring her round, it's that or set up my own import-export business, THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE.

Rant alert: the very mention of the TINA acronym lurches me dangerously close to the frothy edged precipice of indignant fury on the subject of how the deficit is suddenly the most important thing to tackle (not the environment, not child poverty, not looking after the sick and old, not global warming, not the Iraq war.....) and that this is the ONLY way to tackle it.....but here I am backing gently away.

It was Fair Trade Fortnight very recently (it was also recyclying fortnight and knitting month). Rather than spend my pennies on Fair Trade goods supplied in certain high street coffee chains (being fairly traded doesn't in and of itself make it taste any better, just slip past your conscience more easily) I decided instead to choose the rocky road of reformation, one which had the added advantage of supplying me with delicious coffee.

Whilst in the middle of a commercial transaction for coffee beans which involves me looking away when the assistant shows me how much money I am about to authorise to leave from my overdraft (my bank treats my money like it is theirs so I think it only fair I should get to do the same sometimes), I casually asked the lovely woman if there was a reason why they don't stock any Fair Trade registered lines of beans and if so, what that reason might be. (right, sugar and lemon zest for the recipe, both from Fair Trade suppliers)

I will shorthand the rest of the several exchanges which took place as a result of this simple question. The staff at this shop are lovely, they know all about coffee, they know all about their coffees and they make little taster cups for you to try if your favourite bean is not in season. They are also - and I salute this - so passionate (an overused word in public life but I think it is appropriate here) about their coffee that this propels them to indignant and illogical fury when asked a very simple question about Fair Trade.

Now, Fair Trade fortnight is over, but you don't have to stop buying FT registered goods, they are for life not just for late May and early June. If you, like me with this beans purveyor, don't want to give your favourite shop up but they are persisting in ignoring or even mocking or rubbishing the only truly independent global scheme we have with transparent standards and processes for ensuring that goods with their mark are traded truly fairly, with proper regard for things some of us have clearly learnt to take for granted like living wages, safe working conditions and reasonable time off for maternity or sickness (it's not just about the money), try these simple steps:

1. Ask them, charmingly and when you have just paid them a stonking amount of money (if possible - may not work with Poundrite or Greggs the bakers), if there is a reason why they don't stock a single Fair Trade line (or so few, according to the observable facts).
2. Be positive about them as a shop - I agreed with the people I talked to that of course I trust them in matters of the taste of the coffee and the chocolate and yes their judgement is impeccable. But the difference between trusting them on the goods and trusting them that they were fairly traded is that I can taste the end product, I can't check on the process that brought it to me. Others can, and I am willing to pay for this certification (though often Fair Trade goods are not more expensive than the unfair sort).
3. Make sure you are helpful - I offered to find out about the costs of Fair Trade, looked it up and came back with information about the whole process. Here is a link to their website.
4. Be clear about why it matters - yes, I replied, of course I am also concerned with the working conditions of the staff in the retail outlet, and would surely support them if they felt they were being illegally exploited. However, they are covered by UK employment law and right now (though give it about ten more minutes under the current coalition and......step away from the rant and get back to the point) that means staff in European shops are protected from unsafe conditions, can't be paid less than the minimum wage and have a right to maternity and sick leave.
5. Acknowledge that yes, many big companies are now following this trend, but that this doesn't make it a bad thing or a mere marketing bandwagon. Indeed, I would take it as a sign that it is commercially helpful for a big supermarket, chocolate manufacturer or coffee selling company to seek out Fair Trade brands, particularly in commodoties so renowned for their unfair conditions (coffee and chocolate being two of them, and as they are the only two mood alterants I am now allowed, it matters to me that there isn't blood on them). Fair Trade means more trade.
6. If they say that it is not in demand, you can always point out (still charmingly) that there is a demand, from you and your friends, family and colleagues.

Is this effective? to be continued. Meanwhile I am well stocked for not registered as Fair Trade coffee of such fine quality I am having to share it amongst my friends to dilute my guilt. I do realise that I could have gone to my local supermarket, a veritable cathedral of consumerism, it giveth and it taketh away and there found Fair Trade ground coffee and no doubt 54,687 other things I didn't want. But, donning the cloak of moral superiority on top of the worn rags of cowardice and possibly sloth, I chose to support the local independent small business (yes, and get the good stuff I wanted).

I haven't yet told my target shop about another I have found which supplies fine coffee, not as fine as theirs, but coffee which is triple certified - Organic, Fair Trade and some quality control one. As I said, that last isn't so important, I am a fantastic quality control checker of chocolate and coffee, it's taken years of dedicated effort but I am an acknowledged expert on my own taste buds. My taste buds tell me that I should be trying to support my favourite (and very commercially successful) coffee and chocolate retailer to go for Fair Trade rather than switch drug supplier.

I am now waiting for the email reply I am promised from the CEO of this company, who has already (charmingly, briefly, but with a promise to reply in more length) replied to my email to her in which I made some of these points. This was a suggestion made by the manager of the local outlet after our last conversation, who took my email address and passed it on to the CEO, who contacted me within 24 hours. I have some hope that this may signal something positive in the long run. We will see and there will be news in this space. If successful I can cancel the plan to open a triple certified coffee and chocolate retailer and continue with weekly shocks to my overdraft.

If Fair Trade is a bandwagon, I think that like anti slavery, it's a bandwagon we should probably all want to be on. My taste buds are nervous that they may end up having their souls crushed by chain supplied beans. I am hopeful.

Coffee and biscotti (i cantucci di Prato)

This biscotti recipe is adapted from several, but mostly from "A Tuscan in the Kitchen" by Pino Luongo. Some great recipes, so very flowery writing and a ridiculous comparison between making risotto and wooing a woman. In the midst, some excellent food to be cooked.

Coffee: Buy Fair Trade Coffee beans. Go home. Sniff them. Grind them in a coffee grinder. If you haven't got one, buy the SIMPLEST sort you can find (try ebay if your local department store only sells fancy ones with flashing lights and dials, they are mere distractions). Grind coffee till it is as fine as caster sugar, not icing sugar. Warm your cafetiere. Put coffee into it. Pour some recently boiled water on to it, just to cover it. Stir and allow coffee to swell somewhat (you won't see it, just believe). Then pour the rest of the hot (recently boiled, but not boiling) water on to it. Stir again and allow to brew. Then, uttering the sacred text "je plonge" push the coffee plunger thing gently but firmly down to the bottom.

Biscotti: Separate 4 eggs. Whisk the egg whites until firm, add 500g sugar and finely grated zest of one lemon and stir well.

Whisk or blitz egg yolks and fresh vanilla seeds from one pod together, then stir into the mixture. Add 500g plain flour and 1 teaspoon baking powder. I tend just to tip the whole thing on to the worksurface and knead and combine in one go.

Knead the dough and as you knead, add 100g chopped hazelnuts and/or almonds or mixture. They can be in their skins though recipes do say blanched. Work hard to knead dough to fairly smooth consistency. You can always add a bit of juice or water if needed, but only if you are absolutely sure you need it, knead it first - it should be stiff, not moist, these are not cookies.

Roll out into tubes about 1 inch (2.5 cm) in diameter. Flatten slightly to make an elipse if viewed from the side. Place on greased baking tray or non stick tray. Bake for 10 - 15 minutes at 200c (400f) till slightly coloured. They will expand slightly. Take out and turn the oven down to 135c (275f). Allow the columns to cool for 5 minutes or so while the oven cools down. Slice diagonally into 1 inch (2.5cm) thick slices like the ones you have been served in fancy coffee shops. Place these back in oven. Bake for further 15 minutes. Check they have dried out - if not, put them back in and check again in a few minutes. When dried, remove and cool. Serve with coffee or after a meal with Vin Santo. Yum.

The machines are taking over...

This is not a blog entry so much as a question to the world - why did my Masala Omelette blog, clearly written post election and not containing any electoral related rants at all (a small welcome home gift for my mother, who does not need to hear them, she implanted them all electronically into my brain at or before birth) appear as written and uploaded in April?


Anyway, it's about Slumdog Millionaire-ification of documentaries about India, it contains a picture of the most beautiful cinema I have ever had the pleasure of drinking fizzy wine in and there are eggs.


It's under April ("Masala Omelette for one").


Coming soon, something possibly about rubbish, or possibly about emigration. And the recipe options include: egg-free chocolate muffins; Tuscan soup; cantucci biscotti (those hard almond biscuits you think you won't like but turn out to be as more-ish as a more-ish thing); risotto; aubergine curry.


More when the sun goes down.


The Baker.

The electorate has spoken apparently, or have we?

To go straight to the recipe, avoiding the politics scroll down the page to a yummy sweet mascarpone tart, written with help from a Miss I. Debbonaire of this parish


One of the more irritating cliches being peddled over the last 3 days is that the electorate has spoken, as if we have all got together in a room, thrashed it out amicably (with not a hint of negative campaigning, just everyone being nice) and agreed unanimously that we would vote in such a way as to produce the confusing chaos we are in now. How is that possible? Why would we do that? And yet so many people apparently did, seemingly, get together in a room somewhere in Broxtowe or St Andrews and find some way of controlling the voting system, persuading their friends to vote against their political views, failing to deliver sufficient ballot papers to polling stations in Sheffield, send the wrong postal ballot papers out in Bristol, find some bigot in Rochdale who can pass for a sweet old lady and then set up Gordon Brown to identify her correctly, etc. until we have the results and consequent situation we Brits are in now.




POLITICS FREE PARAGRAPH FOLLOWS
Apologies now to all non Brits and any Brits who aren't convinced that politics has been the most interesting story in town over the last few weeks not days. There will be something else shortly, involving mascarpone tart and my niece Imogen making her first ever pastry (a proud moment for us both, there were tears and photos and then complaints that the tart filling wasn't sweet enough) (or smooth enough - Imogen was not happy that when the smug-market down the road failed to supply ricotta to blend with the mascarpone and we had to make do with organic cottage cheese and a cup of thick cream instead; she correctly concluded that cottage cheese is too gritty).






AND NOW BACK TO THE POLITICS FOR A PARAGRAPH or two or three or seven
Am I alone in thinking that harping on about proportional representation is slightly weird? At least at the moment? At a time of an economic crisis we are all hiding behind the sofa from, increasing animosity towards so-called immigrants stoked up by misinformation, no, let's call a spade a spade, lies and yes, racism (I could be forgiving and call it ignorance but this is my blog so I can call it as I see it), impending back to the future re-runs of the 1980s if the Tories have their hands on the till (sorry, did I say on the till? I meant in the till, that's how you take the money AWAY from POOR people and give it TO the RICH people), why on earth are so many people getting together to demonstrate about our voting system? The Greeks are on the streets about public services and unemployment, we are shouting "what do we want? proportional representation by one of the many possible systems, but probably the Single Transferable Vote! When do we want it? As soon as we can say it quicker!"




Priorities?
Whether or not it needs changing, it seems pretty pointless to change it now, when we have already got the lack of overall majority which would surely result, and apparently that's what the voting reform supporters wanted anyway? The only party that benefits from this will always be the party of the centre, their supporters the only beneficiaries. They came third and that includes all the votes of people who said that they were voting Lib Dem to keep the tories out. Contrary to popular opinion, moving politics to the centre does not inevitably bring about a more representative government. It doesn't represent the interests of the poorer pensioners, the low paid workers, the single mothers, the working families, the worker thrown out of work in a recession. Come to think of it, it doesn't represent the interests of the blindingly rich, the bankers, the workshy shareholders or the premier league footballers but they will probably manage to get by whoever is in power. It represents the views and interests of those who are politically at the centre or those from small fringe parties such as UKIP or the BNP. That's a minority of us. How can that be representative?


First past which post? Where is the post?
Our European colleagues and friends can look on aghast or amused at our quaint system but at least first past the post means that we have local MPs who have to know their constituency in order to win, as they will have had to pound the streets themselves, understand local concerns and also make the case strongly for the electorate in their constituency that their political values best serve the majority of their interests. It also means that we get to vote for who we want - yes it does! I get my ballot paper, and I mark a cross next to the person I want to represent me. If he or she hasn't made the case strongly enough to my neighbours, or is plagued by missing ballot papers or closing polling stations, or if I live in a constituency where most of my neighbours have very different priorities to me, then someone other than the candidate I wanted will get more crosses and she or he will win. She or he will represent the whole constituency and will do so knowing that the majority of her or his constituents will agree with most of the decisions they make. My vote isn't wasted, in my opinion, simply because the person I voted for didn't win. My rights will be wasted, however, if the British National Party gets a foot in the corridors of Westminster, because we have come up with some voting system which allows this.


Some proportional representation systems someone invented earlier
Under proportional representation, I could mark the candidates in order (Alternative Vote) - very difficult for anyone who genuinely doesn't support or share the priorities outlined by most or all of the other candidates - or I have my vote transferred if the candidate I like the most has enough votes to pass a certain quota and win a seat in my area or not enough to stand a chance (not actually my own constituency, my area, from and for which a number of MPs will be chosen) (Single Transferable Vote or STV). Again, lots of us really do not want to have our votes transferred to another party other than the one we are members of or whose principles, priorities and practices we most agree with most of the time or are prepared to argue about. And actually I am not that keen on simply voting for all the candidates from my preferred party in my area - which is what I would personally do - because I want the mixture of party and local representation which our current system gives us. I am not alone.


Can sarcasm dilute the strength of a good argument?
The Electoral Reform Society (http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/index.php) recommends the STV and amongst the very curious reasons it includes "Candidates don't need a majority of votes to be elected, just a quota, or share of the votes, determined by the size of the electorate and the number of positions to be filled". Don't need a majority of votes to be elected? Then how, pray, are they really representing their electorate? If I am represented by a collection of people, whose constituency surgery do I visit to get my illegal eviction notice dealt with? If it is a group of people, this is highly likely to mean my case gets lost somewhere in the middle, as so often happens in social care organisations without a named key worker system - when I am everybody's problem I am also nobody's problem.


Warning, may contain left wing ranting against the press, what a surprise


If I sound angry, it is because I am. I am as angry that the ERS published a map with certain seats marked as unwinnable for two parties - including the one I was campaigning in, so admittedly I am biased (or emotionally charged and footsore) on this matter - as I am at the party leaders (of all parties) for failing to back great candidates and leaving them open to the vagaries of protest and tactical votes. I am angry that polling data gets to influence how people make up their minds, rather than actual policies and track records. I am angry that the party leader TV debates took over the campaign and reduced it to three white middle aged men, who would be no more representative of us under PR than they are now. I am furious at the biased, inaccurate, racist, ill-informed and often badly written sraps of paper which pass for newspapers, many of which are owned by not just non-doms but non UK citizens. There is a law against foreign money influencing our election. I think this should mean that any newspaper or TV channel owned by Rupert Murdoch should not be allowed to report on politics at any time, but that's just me, call me a bad loser if you like just don't call me a Guardian reader.


Fairness in voting does not equal fairness in general
Finally, some people appear to be confusing a so called fairer voting system with more fairness in society in general. If you want progressive politics, with more equality of opportunity, you generally vote for a progressive party. If the voting reform gives a platform for a wider range of politicians to get elected from, this does not necessarily result in more fairness, a progressive society. If more right wing politicians get a space at the table, particularly in systems where the smaller parties wield disproportionate amounts of power because there is no overall majority (the hung parliament we are in now or the results of most elections by proportional representation), this means more right wing power in politics and an increased public platform from which they grow, simple as that.
So here are the Bakery Window Suggestions for a fairer voting system:

1. Candidates from any party and none can stand for election. They have to set out their stall on policies, their working histories, their track records in local or national government or on the school governing body or local neighbourhood action group. They do this on the doorstep, at public meetings, by phone, blog, facebook, email or carrier pigeon.
2. We have a total ban on any opinion polls during the election or before it. At least on overtly political subjects, although I think that covers everything really.
3. Respected organisations such as the ERS or any political party and less respected organisations alike are not allowed to publish maps, diagrams, bar charts or anything else which contain the words "this seat is safe" for any party.
4. Our polling stations have enough ballot papers for the number of voters in that area, our postal votes go out well in advance so that people who asked for them, responsibly, because they knew they wouldn't be near their polling station that day or their home that week (it was a bank holiday on the Monday, lots of people went on holiday before their ballot papers arrived on the Saturday) can vote.
5. We promise each other we will never EVER go over to a system which relies on computers or buttons or mobile phones or anything more technically sophisticated than a pencil and a piece of paper with the names of the candidates on, counted by trusted people who are watched by others who are allowed to say if they make a mistake.
6. The electorate listen to the policies, pay attention to the arguments, take the time to read something and ask questions of the candidates - in person, on their blog, by twitter or phoning them up, it's not like they aren't accessible any more.
7. Then we vote. And the votes get securely delivered to a counting station where they are counted by trusted people etc as stated in 5 above.
8. That's it. The person with the most votes in one constituency earns the right to represent it. Fringe parties get to express their (sometimes hateful, sometimes beautiful) views and thereby influence other parties or in time, gather more experience and exposure so that they gradually stop being fringe parties and start getting elected (Green Party or for that matter the LibDems themselves, but dear me hopefully never the BNP).

Yes I can see the flaws. Particularly in step 6. But I am a crazy dreamer and I do think that politics makes a difference and if we move it to the centre by creating a system where no party is given a mandate to follow a coherent and thought through manifesto or be held to account at the next election if they fail to do what they said they would do without a decent enough note from their mum, we will end up representing only those people whose priorities and values lie in the centre or on the extremeties, such as the BNP, who will no doubt benefit highly from the STV. If you don't believe me, just have a look at some of the countries which have Proportional Representation. Our far right has not got any seat in parliament and has just lost all their local seats. But their votes added or encouraged by proportional representation could mean they get a cushion and perhaps even a name tag in the big house.
I have pored over the results of last week's election and one thing is clear to me: most people's priorities and values do not lie in the centre, most of us did not vote for the centre and at a time when the predictions through the campaign had been for the party of government to be thoroughly thrashed by the party of the posh boy and getting a fairly firm spanking from the party of the other posh boy. If so many people support voting reform how come most people didn't vote for the party which can't stop going on about it, the one which scored THIRD in votes but appears to have the most power in the current negotiations? People, with proportional representation, this awful insult to democracy would happen MORE OFTEN - my Euro colleagues assure me that this is normal to them, is this what we want? Do the people who voted LibDem because they wanted PR understand that this will also help the BNP to get elected? Are they OK with that? For more fairness, vote for a party with progressive politics at the core, periphery and surrounding atmosphere. If you can find one...I know there was one here somewhere...is that it coming back into view? To be continued...
and BACK TO THE RECIPE
Mascarpone and fruit tart, using Imogen's first sweet pastry - in her own words, as dictated by her


First of all, you measure 250g flour (plain) but you don't have to seive it if you don't want to. Then you add 50g caster sugar. Next you cut up 125 block of butter and chop it up into little pieces on the chopping board. And then you tip it into the bowl which has the flour and sugar in and then chop it up into more little pieces. Once you have got it into as little lumps as you can, you have to rub, using only your finger tips as they are the coldest part of your body. It's important to keep it cold, so that the butter doesn't melt and go funny. It's something about a chemical reaction.


Question: How do you know when you have done enough rubbing in? Answer: when you shake the bowl there aren't any big lumps on top.


So after you have done that, you have to make it into a bowl, no a ball, using only a spoon, because of the whole heat thing, oh adding cold water to make it stick. ONly a bit at a time. You get all of the flour/butter rubbed in mixture that's not been added together and bring it together, using spoon or knife to press it into a ball. Only add the water a little bit at a time, because although it can be solved (the problem which occurs if you add too much) you are less likely to make mistakes.


Then, once it is in a firm smooth ball, you have to wrap it up in greasproof paper and put it in the fridge. Then you make the mascarpone stuff and then you can take it (the pastry) out.




Mascarpone stuff


First of all you get a seive and you get 200g of cottage cheese or really it should be ricotta. You get the cottage cheese or ricotta in the seive and you use the back of a spoon to push it down so that it comes out all smooth. You have to keep on doing that until all of it has gone through and is a smooth paste in the bowl.




Then you add your mascarpone (200g) and your double cream (100g). And you scrape out the seeds from half a fresh vanilla pod and you scrape the zest of a lemon (that's the skin, but not the white stuff under it) with a good zester or a fine grater and you mix it all together. You add about 50g icing sugar (check that it doesn't have any egg whites in it if you have brothers or sisters allergic to eggs), or some more if you want it sweeter. YOu can add some sweet dessert wine or perhaps some grape juice but we didn't.


Pastry shell - see previous blogs


The rolling, lining and baking has been explained before. For this much creamy stuff you will need the amounts listed above and a 12 inch tart tin with removable bottom. Just remember, 20mins with the baking paper and baking beads on, then remove beads and paper and bake for 10 mins more till just golden. Allow to cool fully.


Smooth the creamy stuff in.


Then put loads of fruit on the top - raspberries or strawberries or something like that - make it pretty. Put it in the fridge for a while to chill and firm. You should then be able to remove the tart from the tin and onto a pretty plate.


And serve with a raspberry coulis (squish raspberries through a seive and add icing sugar to taste) or if you have finished the raspberry coulis a raspberry sorbet will do nearly as well.


By Imogen D.


NEXT TIME ON BAKERY WINDOW: Will there be a government to rant about? Or will I change the subject? In any case, there will be food....