The election campaign is in full swing now, with the parties unveiling their manifestoes last week. Even the Monster Raving Looney Party brought out theirs a couple of days ago. They deserve a few votes for sheer nerve. Hell, I’d vote for them if they had a candidate standing in my constituency. At least they’re different.

“The problem with people today is apathy,” I say, when someone asks me to explain why voter turnout is so low. I’m the same myself; in 2001, I voted for no-one, despite it being my first general election. In council/by-elections, I’ve not voted. What would be the point? I never knew anything about politics, nor anything about the people standing. They didn’t do much to get their point across to me, either. A poster saying “Vote Joe Bloggs!” doesn’t really provide much information, does it?

Of course it’s different with the general election. We know about Labour, and the Tories, and the Lib Dems, and possibly even some of the fringe parties. Except, you’re not really voting for them, are you? Your vote goes to the person you want to represent you in your local constituency. You should select the person you think will do the best job. I don’t know of anyone who actually votes this way though; they base their decision on the party manifestoes. I say manifestoes, I really mean the media. Opinions are formed by the newspapers and TV shows for a lot of people.

So in the end, it comes down to a choice between the parties, not the people. What’s the difference between them though? Party A says they’ll improve this, that and the other, whilst reducing taxes. Party B says Party A won’t improve this, that and the other, and their spending plan will reduce the country’s economy to ruin. Party B say they’d do a much better job, whilst Party A say the exact opposite. Party C sits there and says both Party A and Party B are wrong, but A & B just ignore C because he gate-crashed the party, and if they ignore him he might just go away.

The Liberal Democrats are doing their best to present themselves as the Real Alternative™. Good luck to them – at least they’re honest. “We want to spend more on the NHS, police, and schools. This will cost money of course, so we’ll raise taxes, but only on rich people, since they can afford it.” Oh dear, fatal error. Increase taxes? Tsk, don’t you know you’re supposed to lie about that part, and instead introduce stealth taxes! God forbid we elect a Government that tells us the truth.

So it comes down to a choice between A, B or C. If there’s one thing we all know, however, it’s that no matter who is in power, we’ll all continue much the same, we’ll be paying out more and more of our earnings, and we’ll all complain about this, that and the other.

“Apathy is on the rise!” I cry, but they just shrug their shoulders. Nobody cares.

Finally the farce has come to a confirmed end. It shouldn't have gone on this long - it was never an option in the minds of Liverpool. Sharing a stadium with our Merseyside rivals is so laughable an idea, it shows how far out of touch with the fans certain ex players are. I believe Mark Lawrenson said in his BBC column that "it makes sense" to share a stadium. Perhaps sharing can work with smaller clubs, or between clubs of different sizes, but not Liverpool and Everton, two of the biggest English clubs. It would also damage the pitch, having matches every weekend and more, not to mention the traffic jams in the city on match days.

By far the biggest gripe about sharing a stadium is the sense of pride a home instils in its supporters, staff and players. Would it mean anything to a Liverpudlian to touch the fabled "This Is Anfield" sign if Everton ran out under it every other week?

A few days ago it was reported that the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, remarked that US aid efforts in South East Asia would help them win the war on terror.

"It turns out that the majority of those nations affected were Muslim nations," Powell said. "We'd be doing it regardless of religion, but I think ... [U.S. aid] does give the Muslim world and the rest of the world ... an opportunity to see American generosity, American values in action."

This is just typical of the Bush administration. The tsunami is perhaps the worst natural disaster in recent memory and we should all do what we can to help in the aftermath of such a cataclysm. To politicise such an act is abhorrent enough, but to bring in race, religion and the incredibly stupid "War on Terror" into it, is even worse. 50% of Americans have a lot to answer for.

On a related note, the nanny state rears its head once more. The BBC have postponed a docu-drama about a supervolcano erupting in London. Consider that in the past week or so, Bruce Almighty has been shown without complaint on Sky Movies, in which there is one scene where the eponymous neo-deity pulls the moon closer to Earth, causing a tsunami in South East Asia. Rather than rescheduling, Sky simply issued a warning before each screening that, in light of recent events, some scenes may cause distress. Perhaps the BBC should take note.

We're quite lucky here in Britain. We have sprawling urban areas pumping out thick pollutants into the air, but equally we have some stunning natural scenery. If you'd seen the recent television programme "British Isles" you may even have seen some of it. One of the best places we have are up in Cumbria - The Lake District.

The Lake District is something everyone should see, and fully explore. Indeed, volunteer rangers give free guided walks around the park, enabling everyone to sample the delights of the natural world. Yet these, along with a magazine, informative talks and slide shows are to be axed by the National Park. Why? Because they attract too many white people.

Apparently, not enough people from ethnic minorities or inner city slums are going on these walks. How incredibly assinine this is! It's yet another example of political wrongdoings - sorry, I mean 'correctness' - gone too far.

There's this argument that PC types have, called 'Positive Discrimination'. They favour the minorities over the majority to make sure they're well represented. For an example of this, I cite the ratification process for societies at the university I attended. The committee needed to include at least one woman and often one other minority - LBG, black, whatever. The same sort of thing occurs in the job sector too, with companies needing to show they have a good quota of minorities amongst their staff.

This isn't positive. It's discrimination against the white male. It's every bit as bad as discrimination against black people, against women, against asians. A job should go to the best person for that role, regardless of their skin colour or background. Positive discrimination makes their skin colour or background the issue.

We should do what we can to encourage all people to see the beauty of the world we live in, not discourage those that do.

On BBC2 tonight they showed this faux documentary/drama about a Doctor being taken to court for illegal research on embryonic stem cells. Following this there was a half hour debate, before the results of a viewer phone vote decided whether the jury would find the Dr guilty or innocent.

The cutoff period for study of embryonic stem cells is 14 days, because apparently after this the embryo starts to develop sentience. This cut off is extremely arbitrary, especially considering abortions are legal in this country up to 24 weeks after conception...

The main point of issue was the morality of using embryos for therapeutic stem cells - i.e. treating a patient. Reproductive stem cell research - cloning a whole human - is, in my opinion, something that should be completely outlawed.

I believe it is right for therapeutic stem cell research to take place, as the potential benefits are enormous. We have this developing technology, and we should fully explore the opportunities open to us.

The result of the viewer vote was 81% say Not Guilty. Strangely enough, the show ended with the Dr being completely acquitted by the court, and promptly arrested by and FBI agent and extrudited to the US. I'm not too sure what point the BBC were trying to make there.

So, it got to number one easily enough, outselling the rest of the top 40. Not that it's really much of an achievement; anyone who buys singles are being serious ripped off. It's also a really, really poor remake - nobody sounds like they're in tune. Look guys, there's a reason nobody remembers Band Aid II...

However, I did catch the programme the other night on TV showing the making of the new single, and I have to say I was quite impressed. The attitude of most of the people taking part was spot on, and Bob Geldof has put an awful lot of effort into making a difference.

Also on the programme was Richard Curtis, talking about his new project, "Making Poverty History". It's an extremely worthwhile cause, and I think everyone should sign up to it. With Britain as head of the EU and G8 next year, it's time to make a difference. There's absolutely no reason why anyone in the world should be living in such abject poverty as they do in certain places in Africa, especially when you see fat cat "businessmen" rolling around in vats of liquid gold.

Anyone can make a difference. It's about time we all started doing it.