So the leaders’ debates are over, and they have been both fascinating and revealing, especially this last one. Brown was much better than he had been but not good enough. Cameron was all smooth charm (is that where we get the word ‘smarm’ from?) but because he burnt his bridges on the Euro, forgetting the old adage “never say never”, he has placed the Conservatives firmly among the ‘little Englanders’. Indeed we can now legitimately ask, “is there a cigarette paper between the Conservatives, UKIP and the BNP?” Clegg stood up well to the massive assault from the other two who had reverted to the style and rhetoric of PMQs. Moreover, Clegg proved that he could argue for policies on both the Euro and immigration that he knew would not be popular with our increasingly isolationist and xenophobic media. Clegg is a man of courage and last night he proved it.
However, it was what was left unsaid that is probably more important than what was said. We got no clear statements on the magnitude of the economic problems which the incoming government would face, but rumours were circulating about a fascinating comment from Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England. Apparently in a private conversation, and Gordon Brown knows all about those, King is reported to have predicted that the austerity measures that any incoming government would necessarily have to take would be so severe and unpopular that the governing party, whether it be Labour, Conservative, or some sort of coalition, would subsequently be out of office for a generation.
I think Gordon Brown knows this and has known it for some time, and it is this knowledge that has coloured his, and Labour’s, approach to this election campaign. Gordon Brown and the Labour Party know that this particular general election is a good election to lose, and this is why they have been so coy about presenting the truth about our dire economic situation and the pain that will be necessary for all of us if it is to be turned around. This is why Brown was so scathing about the inheritance tax break offered by the Conservatives and the child tax credit reduction proposed by both the Conservatives and, to a lesser extent, by the Liberal Democrats.
Gordon Brown is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He clearly does not want to go down as a Prime Minister to lose an election after just two years in office, yet he sees the increasingly remote possibility of a Labour victory as nothing other than a poisoned chalice. Under such circumstances, you have to be particularly unfeeling not to have some sympathy for Gordon Brown and the predicament he finds himself in, not all of it of his own making.
Friday, 30 April 2010
Thursday, 29 April 2010
Fair-Weather Friends?
Today's Guardian has an interesting letter from Richard Reeves et al. A welcome, if somewhat belated, show of support. This is probably the most telling paragraph:
"The liberal surge has shaken the establishment to its foundations. The Liberal Democrats, a party that owes nothing to big business, the Murdoch press or the trade unions, could form the vanguard of a great, reforming parliament. You only need to look at the desperate attempts of the rightwing press to uncover some past indiscretion on Clegg's part to see what a revolutionary figure he could be. His only debt will be to the electorate. Clegg has argued that this is a "liberal moment". Sadly, that's probably not true. But it is certainly a democratic moment."
Let's hope that this support can endure the tough times that are sure to come and remain steadfast in the desire for a fairer and more democratic voting system.
"The liberal surge has shaken the establishment to its foundations. The Liberal Democrats, a party that owes nothing to big business, the Murdoch press or the trade unions, could form the vanguard of a great, reforming parliament. You only need to look at the desperate attempts of the rightwing press to uncover some past indiscretion on Clegg's part to see what a revolutionary figure he could be. His only debt will be to the electorate. Clegg has argued that this is a "liberal moment". Sadly, that's probably not true. But it is certainly a democratic moment."
Let's hope that this support can endure the tough times that are sure to come and remain steadfast in the desire for a fairer and more democratic voting system.
Gordon Brown's Aides Must Accept Responsibilty
An extract from John Prescott’s campaign blog has been taken up by the Guardian and in it he rightly castigates the Murdoch media empire for its anti-Labour frenzy. He emphasises that it was a Sky News microphone that facilitated the recording of Gordon Brown’s tetchy conversation with an aide as his car drove away from his original encounter with Mrs Duffy. The subsequent exploitation of this recording by a Sky News producer does leave a nasty taste. As I understand it, it was this Sky News producer who gleefully tells Mrs Duffy what was said by Gordon Brown as the car drove off, clearly anticipating the horrified response that was caught by a raft of TV cameras.
While it is true that News International does indeed exercise a pernicious influence over the policies and direction of both the Conservatives and the Labour Party, Gordon Brown’s aides - the political advisors and press officers - bear the greater responsibility for this particular incident. That they did not disconnect him from the microphone has allowed the country to have the doubts about Brown’s character, raised recently by Andrew Rawnsley, confirmed.
The later face-to-face apology was undoubtedly the right course of action, however Gordon Brown’s subsequent reporting of it on Mrs Duffy’s doorstep was little short of cringe-making. The fixed grin, the vacuous words were acutely embarrassing even to Labour’s opponents.
Brown’s performance in tonight’s Leaders Debate now becomes even more crucial. Anything less than brilliant simply won’t be enough.
While it is true that News International does indeed exercise a pernicious influence over the policies and direction of both the Conservatives and the Labour Party, Gordon Brown’s aides - the political advisors and press officers - bear the greater responsibility for this particular incident. That they did not disconnect him from the microphone has allowed the country to have the doubts about Brown’s character, raised recently by Andrew Rawnsley, confirmed.
The later face-to-face apology was undoubtedly the right course of action, however Gordon Brown’s subsequent reporting of it on Mrs Duffy’s doorstep was little short of cringe-making. The fixed grin, the vacuous words were acutely embarrassing even to Labour’s opponents.
Brown’s performance in tonight’s Leaders Debate now becomes even more crucial. Anything less than brilliant simply won’t be enough.
Wednesday, 28 April 2010
The Trick Is Knowing When To Stop
After years of trying to make us think that he was some sort of economics superman, Gordon Brown’s recent gaffe in Rochdale proves that he is only too human after all. He must really be as tired and fed up as he looks, and who can blame him, thirteen years of high office as both Chancellor of the Exchequer and more recently Prime Minister must takes its toll.
The trick for those who achieve high office is knowing when to stop. Arguably, most holders of high office go on too long, their enthusiasm for the job may still be there, their belief in their destiny may remain a driving force, but there ability to continue at the frenetic pace that these high offices of state require must inevitably diminish.
Presumably, Americans recognise this and that is why for American Presidents it’s two terms and no more, that’s two four-year terms and enough is enough, both for the incumbent and the electorate.
In theory, the UK’s system of cabinet government should be slightly less onerous. However, the recent trend towards executive, rather than collective, decision-making, the increased power acquired by the Prime Minister’s Office and the relegation of the Cabinet in the decision-making processes must put tremendous strain on whoever is Prime Minister. Add to that the role of Leader of an often fractious party with many colleagues enviously eyeing your job and constantly seeking opportunities to usurp your authority, and you begin to have a case for finding some way to limit the Prime Ministerial term.
I have no practical suggestion as to how this should be down, but I do think it needs to be discussed and should be included in a long overdue review of our system of governance.
The trick for those who achieve high office is knowing when to stop. Arguably, most holders of high office go on too long, their enthusiasm for the job may still be there, their belief in their destiny may remain a driving force, but there ability to continue at the frenetic pace that these high offices of state require must inevitably diminish.
Presumably, Americans recognise this and that is why for American Presidents it’s two terms and no more, that’s two four-year terms and enough is enough, both for the incumbent and the electorate.
In theory, the UK’s system of cabinet government should be slightly less onerous. However, the recent trend towards executive, rather than collective, decision-making, the increased power acquired by the Prime Minister’s Office and the relegation of the Cabinet in the decision-making processes must put tremendous strain on whoever is Prime Minister. Add to that the role of Leader of an often fractious party with many colleagues enviously eyeing your job and constantly seeking opportunities to usurp your authority, and you begin to have a case for finding some way to limit the Prime Ministerial term.
I have no practical suggestion as to how this should be down, but I do think it needs to be discussed and should be included in a long overdue review of our system of governance.
Come On Labour, Tell Us The Truth
Honesty is always the best policy, most of us learned this at our mother’s knee, and in this last week of the campaign we now need some honesty from the Labour party who have governed the United Kingdom for the last thirteen years.
We need some honesty about the size of the public sector deficit, the structure of it, how pressing are our creditors and whether or not our international credit rating is seriously under threat. No scaremongering, just facts. Next we need all parties contesting this election to give a clear indication of how they intend to restore fiscal balance should they be elected a week next Thursday.
I am moved to ask for this in the light of the downgrading of Greece’s credit rating to ‘junk’ status, and I see parallels between Greece’s plight and the potential for the United Kingdom if our politicians don’t level with the electorate.
In recent years both countries have experienced the availability of relatively easy credit. To an extent both countries have in their different ways embarked on significant public spending commitments, with Greece it was the 2004 summer Olympic Games, in the UK it ranged from projects like the Millennium Dome to military adventurism in Iraq. Both countries have been hit by the global economic downturn leading to increased spending on social welfare and a reduction in tax revenues, and certainly in Greece, as the former government attempted to disguise the extent of the problem, doubts were raised about the accuracy of the government’s economic statistics.
In Greece, this uncertainty about the extent of the economic problem and the government’s continued prevarication, resulted in higher interest rates being charged on government debt and possibly a greater incentive towards tax evasion. It is quite possible that in the UK there has been a more intense exploitation of tax loopholes which the Labour government has failed to address adequately. In Greece they have had riots in the streets as the incoming government has sought to implement a raft of austerity measures to show its determination to tackle its deficit and to allow it to access international financial support via the Eurozone and the IMF.
It is worth pointing out that the UK is spending significant sums of public money preparing for the summer Olympic Games in London in 2012, is still involved in a military adventure in Afghanistan and has recently had a government that appears to have steadfastly refused to come clean about the extent of the fiscal deficit.
What would really upset me, and I presume many others, is, if after May 6th, the incoming government finds itself forced to put in place a quite devastating raft of austerity measures in the face of a much worse economic reality than we currently appreciate and then exhorts us all to ‘tighten our belts’ and put up with an increased rate of VAT, increased National Insurance contributions, increased fuel duty etc and at the same time expects us to volunteer to contribute to the success of the Olympics. I think my honest answer would be, “On your bike!”
On a more serious note, it seems to me entirely possible that given the public’s disillusion with politics in the light of bankers’ bonuses and MPs expenses, and if the magnitude of our economic difficulties turns out to be much worse than Labour is currently letting on, there is the potential for public protests similar to those experienced at the time of the imposition of the Poll Tax and the invasion of Iraq. What price a successful Olympics then?
We need some honesty about the size of the public sector deficit, the structure of it, how pressing are our creditors and whether or not our international credit rating is seriously under threat. No scaremongering, just facts. Next we need all parties contesting this election to give a clear indication of how they intend to restore fiscal balance should they be elected a week next Thursday.
I am moved to ask for this in the light of the downgrading of Greece’s credit rating to ‘junk’ status, and I see parallels between Greece’s plight and the potential for the United Kingdom if our politicians don’t level with the electorate.
In recent years both countries have experienced the availability of relatively easy credit. To an extent both countries have in their different ways embarked on significant public spending commitments, with Greece it was the 2004 summer Olympic Games, in the UK it ranged from projects like the Millennium Dome to military adventurism in Iraq. Both countries have been hit by the global economic downturn leading to increased spending on social welfare and a reduction in tax revenues, and certainly in Greece, as the former government attempted to disguise the extent of the problem, doubts were raised about the accuracy of the government’s economic statistics.
In Greece, this uncertainty about the extent of the economic problem and the government’s continued prevarication, resulted in higher interest rates being charged on government debt and possibly a greater incentive towards tax evasion. It is quite possible that in the UK there has been a more intense exploitation of tax loopholes which the Labour government has failed to address adequately. In Greece they have had riots in the streets as the incoming government has sought to implement a raft of austerity measures to show its determination to tackle its deficit and to allow it to access international financial support via the Eurozone and the IMF.
It is worth pointing out that the UK is spending significant sums of public money preparing for the summer Olympic Games in London in 2012, is still involved in a military adventure in Afghanistan and has recently had a government that appears to have steadfastly refused to come clean about the extent of the fiscal deficit.
What would really upset me, and I presume many others, is, if after May 6th, the incoming government finds itself forced to put in place a quite devastating raft of austerity measures in the face of a much worse economic reality than we currently appreciate and then exhorts us all to ‘tighten our belts’ and put up with an increased rate of VAT, increased National Insurance contributions, increased fuel duty etc and at the same time expects us to volunteer to contribute to the success of the Olympics. I think my honest answer would be, “On your bike!”
On a more serious note, it seems to me entirely possible that given the public’s disillusion with politics in the light of bankers’ bonuses and MPs expenses, and if the magnitude of our economic difficulties turns out to be much worse than Labour is currently letting on, there is the potential for public protests similar to those experienced at the time of the imposition of the Poll Tax and the invasion of Iraq. What price a successful Olympics then?
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
Why Is Class Still Relevant?
During election campaigns is a good time for politics anoraks, and I include myself in this description, to take a few moments to reflect what it was that first stimulated their interest politics. I am fairly sure that if you are a genuine anorak, there was a distinct moment, an identifiable issue that set you thinking and eventually comparing what the various parties were offering, searching for the one that provided the best fit with your emerging political awareness.
For me it must have been in 1962 when, on the spur of the moment I decided to accompany my father to a Liberal meeting that was to be addressed by the then MP for Montgomeryshire, Emlyn Hoosen. This meeting was held, I think, in Builth or Brecon and I remember that it was quite packed and that I was a lot younger than anyone else present.
If I remember correctly Emlyn Hoosen talked about the merging of the North Wales and South Wales Liberal Federations and the creation of the Welsh Liberal Party, not merely a regional section of the national Liberal Party based in London, but a distinctive Welsh political party. Apparently, at that time, this was quite an innovation. He proceeded to outline his vision for the Welsh Liberal Party and much of this concerned devolution of government powers to Wales within a federal United Kingdom. However, what struck a chord with me was his analysis of the class based origins of both Labour and the Conservatives and, importantly, that Liberals were not bound by such tribalism but were genuinely classless.
It was this notion of a political party completely devoid of any class consciousness that I found compelling. Reflecting on that moment it wasn’t simply that the Liberals were class-less, they totally rejected the notion of categorising groups in society on the basis of class origin. Not only was this notion of class divisive, it was both demeaning and pointless. Having spent part of my childhood living with relatives in Switzerland where class seemed to be totally irrelevant, a classless society seemed to me to be so obviously right and sensible that I could not conceive why anyone want to pursue political objectives to promote or protect a particular class, (it was some years later that I had occasion to read Burke’s Reflection of the revolution in France and Marx and Engels’ The Communist Manifesto).
One of the sad things about the build up to this election campaign, and in a recent by-election campaign, has been the re-emergence of class as a political issue. Dominic Lawson in today’s Independent seemed to be similarly saddened. Few other modern European countries today are so class-obsessed as Britain continues to be, and I fail to understand why a person’s class origins are still considered to be relevant to British society.
For me it must have been in 1962 when, on the spur of the moment I decided to accompany my father to a Liberal meeting that was to be addressed by the then MP for Montgomeryshire, Emlyn Hoosen. This meeting was held, I think, in Builth or Brecon and I remember that it was quite packed and that I was a lot younger than anyone else present.
If I remember correctly Emlyn Hoosen talked about the merging of the North Wales and South Wales Liberal Federations and the creation of the Welsh Liberal Party, not merely a regional section of the national Liberal Party based in London, but a distinctive Welsh political party. Apparently, at that time, this was quite an innovation. He proceeded to outline his vision for the Welsh Liberal Party and much of this concerned devolution of government powers to Wales within a federal United Kingdom. However, what struck a chord with me was his analysis of the class based origins of both Labour and the Conservatives and, importantly, that Liberals were not bound by such tribalism but were genuinely classless.
It was this notion of a political party completely devoid of any class consciousness that I found compelling. Reflecting on that moment it wasn’t simply that the Liberals were class-less, they totally rejected the notion of categorising groups in society on the basis of class origin. Not only was this notion of class divisive, it was both demeaning and pointless. Having spent part of my childhood living with relatives in Switzerland where class seemed to be totally irrelevant, a classless society seemed to me to be so obviously right and sensible that I could not conceive why anyone want to pursue political objectives to promote or protect a particular class, (it was some years later that I had occasion to read Burke’s Reflection of the revolution in France and Marx and Engels’ The Communist Manifesto).
One of the sad things about the build up to this election campaign, and in a recent by-election campaign, has been the re-emergence of class as a political issue. Dominic Lawson in today’s Independent seemed to be similarly saddened. Few other modern European countries today are so class-obsessed as Britain continues to be, and I fail to understand why a person’s class origins are still considered to be relevant to British society.
Monday, 26 April 2010
There Will Be Blood!
"Vote Clegg, Get Brown" shout some, "Vote Clegg, Get Cameron", shout others, "Vote Cameron, Get Murdoch" defines a Facebook group. All speculating how a deliberate vote for a particular candidate/party leader might have unintended consequences. Is this simply an indication of the classic third party squeeze, or is there more to it than that? Is it perhaps the death throes of the duopoly that has dominated British political life for so long? We may have some sort of answer on May 7th.
What is clear is that both Labour and Conservative parties have made serious errors in this campaign. Labour have made a serious mistake in going into this general election campaign with Gordon Brown as its leader. Most of the animosity towards Labour is directed more at the person of Gordon Brown than it is against Labour per se. The trouble is that most Labour stalwarts have believed the hype that Gordon Brown is the only British politician capable of leading the country out of the severe economic problems the country faces, and this is blatantly not true. Gordon Brown has become an electoral liability for Labour and almost every time he appears in front of the cameras, his failings become ever more obvious.
The Conservatives have made an even more calamitous mistake in believing that it is their turn to govern, and naively thinking that the electorate can be duped into believing that they represent change, real change, that is, not simply the cosmetic change of swapping the opposition benches for the government benches. Cameron, Osborne, Hague and Clarke are all guilty of pushing the notion of change for change sake, instead of presenting real change in their policy offer. If they win this election it really will be a triumph of style over substance. Conservative claims to be radical, progressive and different have been brutally exposed as they are forced to concentrate on their core support who by their very nature don’t want change. The last thing the Turnip Taliban in the shires want is genuine change, they want an alternative to Gordon Brown, who has become a serious hate figure for them, but the change they want is traditional conservatism viewed through their rose-tinted spectacles.
I think that the recriminations after May 7th will be even more interesting than the remaining few days until May 6th. There will be blood on the carpets at the party headquarters.
What is clear is that both Labour and Conservative parties have made serious errors in this campaign. Labour have made a serious mistake in going into this general election campaign with Gordon Brown as its leader. Most of the animosity towards Labour is directed more at the person of Gordon Brown than it is against Labour per se. The trouble is that most Labour stalwarts have believed the hype that Gordon Brown is the only British politician capable of leading the country out of the severe economic problems the country faces, and this is blatantly not true. Gordon Brown has become an electoral liability for Labour and almost every time he appears in front of the cameras, his failings become ever more obvious.
The Conservatives have made an even more calamitous mistake in believing that it is their turn to govern, and naively thinking that the electorate can be duped into believing that they represent change, real change, that is, not simply the cosmetic change of swapping the opposition benches for the government benches. Cameron, Osborne, Hague and Clarke are all guilty of pushing the notion of change for change sake, instead of presenting real change in their policy offer. If they win this election it really will be a triumph of style over substance. Conservative claims to be radical, progressive and different have been brutally exposed as they are forced to concentrate on their core support who by their very nature don’t want change. The last thing the Turnip Taliban in the shires want is genuine change, they want an alternative to Gordon Brown, who has become a serious hate figure for them, but the change they want is traditional conservatism viewed through their rose-tinted spectacles.
I think that the recriminations after May 7th will be even more interesting than the remaining few days until May 6th. There will be blood on the carpets at the party headquarters.
Sunday, 25 April 2010
Concerned About Education? Now's Your Chance
For those few readers I might have in the Llandrindod area, PACE (Powys Against Cuts in Education) are organising a general election hustings focussing on education at 7pm on Tuesday next, 27th April at Llandrindod High School. All eight candidates in Brecon and Radnorshire have been invited.
Although education is a devolved issue this forum nevertheless provides an opportunity to send appropriate messages to our politicians about how we think our education service should be organised and run.
So come and ask your questions, put the candidates on the spot about possible school closures, class sizes, the teaching of Creationism and bussing children miles for vocational options.
Although education is a devolved issue this forum nevertheless provides an opportunity to send appropriate messages to our politicians about how we think our education service should be organised and run.
So come and ask your questions, put the candidates on the spot about possible school closures, class sizes, the teaching of Creationism and bussing children miles for vocational options.
Saturday, 24 April 2010
Onward Christian Soldiers, Marching Up The Hill
My remote control button let me down last night and accidentally allowed me to catch some of the Welsh Christian Party election broadcast on ITV. At least I caught three sequences of it, I missed the beginning.
Firstly, someone whom I took to be Rev David Griffiths, the party’s candidate in Clwyd West, talking to camera with a background of a curtain partly covering a window. Secondly, the really funny bit, with Cllr Jeff Green in a military camouflage jacket, struggling purposefully up a Mid Wales hill carrying a furled St David’s standard, on reaching the summit he unfurls his flag and adopts his “medieval knight” pose. Then we see boots of various types also struggling purposefully uphill. These boots were gradually revealed to be a minibus-load people including another person in a camouflage jacket, joining Jeff at the summit. Was this an allusion to Onward Christian Soldiers, I wonder? Finally we had Jeff and his family being greeted in Middleton Street, Llandrindod Wells by the expansive David Griffiths with pieces to camera from Jeff’s wife, Sue, and eventually Jeff himself.
The voice over was bland and its substance indistinguishable from the UKIP or BNP agenda. Strangely, there was nothing about their stance on not allowing the redefinition of marriage; nothing about introducing the teaching of Creationism in schools and nothing about raising the motorway speed limit to 90mph, all of which had been in their draft manifesto.
In 2009, The Christian Party tried to persuade us that Y Draig Goch flag of Wales should be dropped in favour of the flag of St David which the Christian Party regards as a more appropriate allusion to a Christian Wales than the allegedly satanic dragon. This presumably explains why the gold cross on a black background seems to have been purloined by the Welsh Christian Party and why they made so much of it in their election broadcast.
The electorate will judge what the broadcast meant and how effective it was. For me, it lacked style, substance and conviction. It was as remarkable for what it didn’t say as it was for what was said. I’m not at all sure that efforts like this election broadcast are actually enhancing the cause of Christianity in Wales, it seems to me that they are more likely to detract from it. This broacast served onlt to confirm my secularist inclination.
Firstly, someone whom I took to be Rev David Griffiths, the party’s candidate in Clwyd West, talking to camera with a background of a curtain partly covering a window. Secondly, the really funny bit, with Cllr Jeff Green in a military camouflage jacket, struggling purposefully up a Mid Wales hill carrying a furled St David’s standard, on reaching the summit he unfurls his flag and adopts his “medieval knight” pose. Then we see boots of various types also struggling purposefully uphill. These boots were gradually revealed to be a minibus-load people including another person in a camouflage jacket, joining Jeff at the summit. Was this an allusion to Onward Christian Soldiers, I wonder? Finally we had Jeff and his family being greeted in Middleton Street, Llandrindod Wells by the expansive David Griffiths with pieces to camera from Jeff’s wife, Sue, and eventually Jeff himself.
The voice over was bland and its substance indistinguishable from the UKIP or BNP agenda. Strangely, there was nothing about their stance on not allowing the redefinition of marriage; nothing about introducing the teaching of Creationism in schools and nothing about raising the motorway speed limit to 90mph, all of which had been in their draft manifesto.
In 2009, The Christian Party tried to persuade us that Y Draig Goch flag of Wales should be dropped in favour of the flag of St David which the Christian Party regards as a more appropriate allusion to a Christian Wales than the allegedly satanic dragon. This presumably explains why the gold cross on a black background seems to have been purloined by the Welsh Christian Party and why they made so much of it in their election broadcast.
The electorate will judge what the broadcast meant and how effective it was. For me, it lacked style, substance and conviction. It was as remarkable for what it didn’t say as it was for what was said. I’m not at all sure that efforts like this election broadcast are actually enhancing the cause of Christianity in Wales, it seems to me that they are more likely to detract from it. This broacast served onlt to confirm my secularist inclination.
Friday, 23 April 2010
A Vote For Democracy?
Unlock Democracy has an interesting website that helps people to decide on the various merits of all the parties on issues to do with democracy. Well worth a quick look.
Europe: It's Good To Talk
What next, I wonder? This fascinating general election will undoubtedly have more surprises for us over the next two weeks. I have to admit that in the long, slow phoney war that seem to start before Christmas and intensified afterwards, I had thought that this general election campaign was going to be the most boring ever. I also have to admit that I had great reservations about the appropriateness of the televised leaders’ debates given our British parliamentary system, after all we are not, and should not be electing a President/Head of State. We are electing MPs from whom will be drawn a Prime Minister to head up a cabinet government that is nominally, at least, accountable to parliament.
Well boring it certainly is not, although I still have misgivings about the cult of personality that is being promoted by the leaders’ debates, I am not at all sure that this enhances the notion of parliamentary democracy which is, after all, the cornerstone of what makes Britain distinctive and what makes most of us proud when we are in conversation with people from other countries.
The most interesting aspect of this particular election campaign is how closely every twist and turn is being followed by commentators and public in both the United States and in mainland Europe, and this interest has been generated by Nick Clegg rather than by David Cameron or Gordon Brown. In the States, the unusual aspect of a genuine three-party contest seems to be a revelation. In Europe, the idea that Britain, the EU's most awkward member state, may be led by someone who has been both an MEP and worked for the European Commission seems too good to be true, (and probably is).
I am beginning to hope that after years of hiding on the fringes of the European Union, we are ditching the tacit understanding among all three main parties that if you want electoral success the one thing you must never do is talk about Europe.
Of course we must talk about Europe, if we are ever going to reform the institutions that comprise the European Union, we have to talk about it. For far too long Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have been running scared of the issue of Europe and our membership of the European Union. We have let the fanatical right parties, mainly UKIP and the BNP but with encouragement from the William Hague wing of the Conservatives, dominate the centre stage on European issues with their rabid rhetoric and their factual distortions. The time to redress this balance has come. It’s good to talk, it’s particularly good to talk about Europe.
Well boring it certainly is not, although I still have misgivings about the cult of personality that is being promoted by the leaders’ debates, I am not at all sure that this enhances the notion of parliamentary democracy which is, after all, the cornerstone of what makes Britain distinctive and what makes most of us proud when we are in conversation with people from other countries.
The most interesting aspect of this particular election campaign is how closely every twist and turn is being followed by commentators and public in both the United States and in mainland Europe, and this interest has been generated by Nick Clegg rather than by David Cameron or Gordon Brown. In the States, the unusual aspect of a genuine three-party contest seems to be a revelation. In Europe, the idea that Britain, the EU's most awkward member state, may be led by someone who has been both an MEP and worked for the European Commission seems too good to be true, (and probably is).
I am beginning to hope that after years of hiding on the fringes of the European Union, we are ditching the tacit understanding among all three main parties that if you want electoral success the one thing you must never do is talk about Europe.
Of course we must talk about Europe, if we are ever going to reform the institutions that comprise the European Union, we have to talk about it. For far too long Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have been running scared of the issue of Europe and our membership of the European Union. We have let the fanatical right parties, mainly UKIP and the BNP but with encouragement from the William Hague wing of the Conservatives, dominate the centre stage on European issues with their rabid rhetoric and their factual distortions. The time to redress this balance has come. It’s good to talk, it’s particularly good to talk about Europe.
Thursday, 22 April 2010
Parliaments: Hung or Balanced
"Political parties in Britain generally misunderstand each other: Labour MPs tend to believe that Liberals are as keen to hold office and to cling on to their seats as they are. Liberal MPs fail to comprehend the intensity of the socialist faith which still burns within some Labour MPs. To the average Labour cabinet minister, the concerns and beliefs of an Ulster Unionist are as strange and unfathomable as the initiation rites in his Ballymena Orange Lodge. The Conservative Party provides as many mysteries as any Brazilian forest tribe or Tibetan monastery. Nor are the parties particularly keen to understand one another, since like all institutions the subject they find most fascinating is their own internal politics. Other parties chiefly exist as targets off which points may be scored…" This is an extract from the opening paragraph of a book entitled The Pact: The inside story of the Lib-Lab government, 1977-8 by Alistair Michie and Simon Hoggart (1978).
It serves to remind us of the immensity of the task that is likely to be faced by those successful candidates from May 7th. Notwithstanding the alleged desire by many of the electorate for a hung (or if you prefer, ‘balanced’) parliament, attempting to create common ground between Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats is not going to be easy. Throw into this melting pot minority and special interest groups such as the DUP, the SDLP and Scottish and Welsh Nationalists, and even a sprinkling of far right UKIP or BNP representatives, and you begin to realise that achieving political consensus in Britain, if it can be done, will be akin to the miraclulous.
OK, so we have had coalitions in the regional assemblies/parliaments in recent years, and to an extent, these may be regarded as broadly successful, but the fact remains as far as Westminster is concerned, coalitions of either a formal or informal kind is simply not the way they do things. Coalitions require a quite different mindset on the part of our politicians.
The biggest problem after May 7th is likely to be that, just as Tony Blair didn’t "do God", Conservatives don’t do coalitions. As far as I recall, none of the recent coalition administrations in various parts of the UK have included Conservatives. They don’t appear to be regarded as suitable coalition partners by other parties. I am not sure why this is so, but I suspect it is to do with trust. The Conservatives, by their very nature, cannot be trusted to abandon their propensity for confrontation in order to build consensus, and the further the Conservatives move to the right, the more difficult it becomes for others to even contemplate coalition with them.
This is perhaps the real reason why the David Cameron, Ken Clarke and others are so vitriolic in warning against a hung parliament, they know that their own prospects in that eventuality are not good.
It serves to remind us of the immensity of the task that is likely to be faced by those successful candidates from May 7th. Notwithstanding the alleged desire by many of the electorate for a hung (or if you prefer, ‘balanced’) parliament, attempting to create common ground between Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats is not going to be easy. Throw into this melting pot minority and special interest groups such as the DUP, the SDLP and Scottish and Welsh Nationalists, and even a sprinkling of far right UKIP or BNP representatives, and you begin to realise that achieving political consensus in Britain, if it can be done, will be akin to the miraclulous.
OK, so we have had coalitions in the regional assemblies/parliaments in recent years, and to an extent, these may be regarded as broadly successful, but the fact remains as far as Westminster is concerned, coalitions of either a formal or informal kind is simply not the way they do things. Coalitions require a quite different mindset on the part of our politicians.
The biggest problem after May 7th is likely to be that, just as Tony Blair didn’t "do God", Conservatives don’t do coalitions. As far as I recall, none of the recent coalition administrations in various parts of the UK have included Conservatives. They don’t appear to be regarded as suitable coalition partners by other parties. I am not sure why this is so, but I suspect it is to do with trust. The Conservatives, by their very nature, cannot be trusted to abandon their propensity for confrontation in order to build consensus, and the further the Conservatives move to the right, the more difficult it becomes for others to even contemplate coalition with them.
This is perhaps the real reason why the David Cameron, Ken Clarke and others are so vitriolic in warning against a hung parliament, they know that their own prospects in that eventuality are not good.
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
The First Leaders Debate
Many thanks to Rob for sending me this clip. Let's hope for a soft landing.
Tuesday, 20 April 2010
The Revenge of the Undead
Yes, they are definitely out to get the Liberal Democrats. Anthony Barnett, writing on the blog Liberal Conspiracy, gives us a taste of the storm to come.
"The two ‘big parties” will now collaborate in a dance of the undead to belittle the Lib Dems, intimidate the public and insist that the only choice is Brown or Cameron. Later in the day Liam Fox was let loose on the BBC’s World at One to give version of what we can expect. He said the Lib Dems wanted to get rid of our deterrent and give asylum to illegal immigrants. I am not a Liberal Democrat. But I thought Martha Karney should not have let these two assertions go unchallenged as both were clearly lies, i.e. Fox knew he was mis-describing the two policies."
And this is the rub, both Labour and Conservatives are clearly willing to lie their way to power and they are going to do it by scaring the electorate into believing that the Liberal Democrats are in some ways unsound in their policies. This is going to be difficult to counter. As I write this listening to the Today programme and Liam Fox and Peter Mandelson are falling over themselves to misrepresent the detail of Lib Dem policies and belittle the radical thinking underlying these policies while at the same time claiming to be unrelentingly positive.
The plain fact is that both Labour and the Conservatives, having spent decades convincing the electorate that Britain has a two-party system of government, are now quite astonished that they have at last been rumbled, and that all they can do is to focus negatively on the Liberal Democrat programme rather than project their own sterile policies.
Anthony Barnett concludes thus:
"This is just an early taster of the fear tactics and distortions that will be used to try and destroy the Lib Dem challenge. It’s important that the Lib Dems keep pressing home the larger picture. The political system is broken and the two main parties are collaborating with each other to protect its central powers of “strong government” by presenting themselves as proponents of ‘change’. This is the politics that the Lib Dems have now challenged. It’s a democratic politics, not an anti-politics, and it has broken through the spin. Stand by for every kind of counter-assault that can be dragged from the gutter in the next two weeks."
"The two ‘big parties” will now collaborate in a dance of the undead to belittle the Lib Dems, intimidate the public and insist that the only choice is Brown or Cameron. Later in the day Liam Fox was let loose on the BBC’s World at One to give version of what we can expect. He said the Lib Dems wanted to get rid of our deterrent and give asylum to illegal immigrants. I am not a Liberal Democrat. But I thought Martha Karney should not have let these two assertions go unchallenged as both were clearly lies, i.e. Fox knew he was mis-describing the two policies."
And this is the rub, both Labour and Conservatives are clearly willing to lie their way to power and they are going to do it by scaring the electorate into believing that the Liberal Democrats are in some ways unsound in their policies. This is going to be difficult to counter. As I write this listening to the Today programme and Liam Fox and Peter Mandelson are falling over themselves to misrepresent the detail of Lib Dem policies and belittle the radical thinking underlying these policies while at the same time claiming to be unrelentingly positive.
The plain fact is that both Labour and the Conservatives, having spent decades convincing the electorate that Britain has a two-party system of government, are now quite astonished that they have at last been rumbled, and that all they can do is to focus negatively on the Liberal Democrat programme rather than project their own sterile policies.
Anthony Barnett concludes thus:
"This is just an early taster of the fear tactics and distortions that will be used to try and destroy the Lib Dem challenge. It’s important that the Lib Dems keep pressing home the larger picture. The political system is broken and the two main parties are collaborating with each other to protect its central powers of “strong government” by presenting themselves as proponents of ‘change’. This is the politics that the Lib Dems have now challenged. It’s a democratic politics, not an anti-politics, and it has broken through the spin. Stand by for every kind of counter-assault that can be dragged from the gutter in the next two weeks."
Monday, 19 April 2010
No More Wallflowers
It is what Liberal Democrats have thought all along, the British print media is biased and partisan, and it is so because the newspaper owners seek to gain political influence in order to feather their own nests. Now we have clear confirmation from a former editor of the Sun, David Yelland.
Now what is really interesting following the Leaders’ Debate, the Conservatives and Labour have suddenly woken up to a politics of ideas rather than trite soundbites and tit-for-tat, airbrushed posters, and have been found wanting. So now what do these two dinosaurs of the British political system do? Instead of coming up with new, workable ideas of their own, they decide to rubbish long-held and well-developed ideas of the Liberal Democrats.
Brown talks about ‘exposing’ Liberal Democrat policies, too right let the LibDems have their moment in the sun, while Cameron is going to be ‘relentlessly positive’. That will be day! Cameron must be dreading next Thursday’s leaders’ debate where he will have to explain his U-turn on a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, why he withdrew his MEPs from the dominant Centre-right European Peoples Party and ordered them into a grouping with fascists and ultra-right nationalists from Eastern European countries, and most importantly why he and his MPs supported the illegal invasion of Iraq?
As for Labour, their so-called ‘ethical’ foreign policy of the last thirteen years has involved kowtowing to the White House and being led into stupid foreign adventures on the coat tails of the American religious right. They proclaim loose support for membership of the European Union while running scared of the nutters like UKIP’s Nigel Farage and the Conservative extremists Daniel Hamman. When will the British establishment learn that if you want to get the best out of your membership of a club, you have to take an active interest in that club’s affairs and put yourself at the centre of the club’s decision-making processes, not sit on the edges like some blushing wallflower at the local dance?
Now what is really interesting following the Leaders’ Debate, the Conservatives and Labour have suddenly woken up to a politics of ideas rather than trite soundbites and tit-for-tat, airbrushed posters, and have been found wanting. So now what do these two dinosaurs of the British political system do? Instead of coming up with new, workable ideas of their own, they decide to rubbish long-held and well-developed ideas of the Liberal Democrats.
Brown talks about ‘exposing’ Liberal Democrat policies, too right let the LibDems have their moment in the sun, while Cameron is going to be ‘relentlessly positive’. That will be day! Cameron must be dreading next Thursday’s leaders’ debate where he will have to explain his U-turn on a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, why he withdrew his MEPs from the dominant Centre-right European Peoples Party and ordered them into a grouping with fascists and ultra-right nationalists from Eastern European countries, and most importantly why he and his MPs supported the illegal invasion of Iraq?
As for Labour, their so-called ‘ethical’ foreign policy of the last thirteen years has involved kowtowing to the White House and being led into stupid foreign adventures on the coat tails of the American religious right. They proclaim loose support for membership of the European Union while running scared of the nutters like UKIP’s Nigel Farage and the Conservative extremists Daniel Hamman. When will the British establishment learn that if you want to get the best out of your membership of a club, you have to take an active interest in that club’s affairs and put yourself at the centre of the club’s decision-making processes, not sit on the edges like some blushing wallflower at the local dance?
Friday, 9 April 2010
The Bankers' Friend
Interesting piece in today’s Guardian by David Cameron. In it he announces that if the Conservative Party is able to form the next government, then it would seek to introduce pay limits for the heads of public sector organisations and set up a review body to ensure that the pay of the heads of public sector organisations could receive no more than twenty times that of the lowest paid worker in that organisation. So far, so good, all very noble.
However, if you follow the logic of this argument a little further, the likely effect of this kind of pay restriction is that the really good quality public sector bosses, seeing their pay rates slipping behind those of comparable private sector bosses, will leave their present employment for more lucrative jobs elsewhere, but probably in the dynamic, wealth-generating, private sector.
Soon the government will start to moan about the poor quality of the remaining senior management in the public sector and tell us that the real remedy is to attract proven managers from the dynamic, wealth-generating, private sector into the public sector, all in the name of achieving “efficiency savings”, you understand. To do this however, the pay of public sector bosses will have to be raised to attract the ‘right’ sort of people from the private sector. After all, these people shouldn’t be expected to have to take a pay cut in order to sort out problematic public sector organisations. And so it goes on…
The real issue here is that the Conservatives are being advised by their many friends among the senior levels of business, including the recently discredited and much maligned bankers, who firmly believe that they all run the most effective and efficient organisations in the country and that if only all organisations were was just like theirs, then everything would be hunckadory.
Are our memories really that short? Have we really forgotten whose excesses and greed caused the biggest run on the banking sector since 1929? Have we forgotten that less than two years ago, a huge portion of this allegedly efficient and effective private sector, had to be bailed out by the government, supported by every taxpayer in the land?
These are the same people, whose outrageous pay levels and bonuses have been protected by compliant and deluded shareholders, are now presuming to advise the Conservatives that the real problem doesn’t lie with them but with the allegedly inefficient, wasteful public sector. They have conveniently forgotten that over the last five years or so most public sector organisations have already made huge efficiency savings, and that each round of such savings has become progressively more difficult to achieve. Further savings in this sector can only now be achieved by swingeing cuts in the numbers of people employed in delivering frontline services of those organisations and the consequent withdrawal of those services. This is the real Conservative agenda, and its consequences will be devastating.
However, if you follow the logic of this argument a little further, the likely effect of this kind of pay restriction is that the really good quality public sector bosses, seeing their pay rates slipping behind those of comparable private sector bosses, will leave their present employment for more lucrative jobs elsewhere, but probably in the dynamic, wealth-generating, private sector.
Soon the government will start to moan about the poor quality of the remaining senior management in the public sector and tell us that the real remedy is to attract proven managers from the dynamic, wealth-generating, private sector into the public sector, all in the name of achieving “efficiency savings”, you understand. To do this however, the pay of public sector bosses will have to be raised to attract the ‘right’ sort of people from the private sector. After all, these people shouldn’t be expected to have to take a pay cut in order to sort out problematic public sector organisations. And so it goes on…
The real issue here is that the Conservatives are being advised by their many friends among the senior levels of business, including the recently discredited and much maligned bankers, who firmly believe that they all run the most effective and efficient organisations in the country and that if only all organisations were was just like theirs, then everything would be hunckadory.
Are our memories really that short? Have we really forgotten whose excesses and greed caused the biggest run on the banking sector since 1929? Have we forgotten that less than two years ago, a huge portion of this allegedly efficient and effective private sector, had to be bailed out by the government, supported by every taxpayer in the land?
These are the same people, whose outrageous pay levels and bonuses have been protected by compliant and deluded shareholders, are now presuming to advise the Conservatives that the real problem doesn’t lie with them but with the allegedly inefficient, wasteful public sector. They have conveniently forgotten that over the last five years or so most public sector organisations have already made huge efficiency savings, and that each round of such savings has become progressively more difficult to achieve. Further savings in this sector can only now be achieved by swingeing cuts in the numbers of people employed in delivering frontline services of those organisations and the consequent withdrawal of those services. This is the real Conservative agenda, and its consequences will be devastating.
Friday, 2 April 2010
Pure Speculation, Of Course
This is pure speculation, but checking the websites of two doctrinaire Christian organisations, Christian Voice and the Welsh Christian Party we find two remarkably similar Statements of Faith, too similar to be a simple co-incidence, perhaps?
Christian Voice
We believe in one creator God, eternally existent in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as stated in the historic creeds of the Christian church.
We acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord over all creation.
We believe the Holy Bible to be the inspired, infallible, written Word of God to whose precepts, given for the good of nations and individuals, all man's laws must submit.
We believe all government to be under the authority of God and that its purpose is the maintenance of freedom and justice solely in accordance with Biblical principles.
The Welsh Christian Party
We believe in one creator God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit as stated in the apostles teaching.
We acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord over all creation.
We believe the Holy Bible to be the inspired, infallible, written Word of God to whose precepts, given for the good of nations and individuals, all man’s law must submit.
We believe all government to be under the authority of God and that the purpose of government is the maintenance of freedom and justice solely in accordance with biblical principles.
Jesus Christ will come again to the earth - personally, visibly and bodily - to consummate history and the eternal plan of God.
Could the Christian Party “Proclaiming Christ’s Lordship” simply be a political front for the far more extreme fundamentalist Islamophobe Christian Voice? Both of them are led by a Mr Green originating from ‘sarf’ London.
I wonder if all those electors in Llandrindod South and West realised what precisely they were supporting when they put their crosses against the names of Jeff Green and Martin Wiltshire in the recent by-elections?
Christian Voice
We believe in one creator God, eternally existent in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as stated in the historic creeds of the Christian church.
We acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord over all creation.
We believe the Holy Bible to be the inspired, infallible, written Word of God to whose precepts, given for the good of nations and individuals, all man's laws must submit.
We believe all government to be under the authority of God and that its purpose is the maintenance of freedom and justice solely in accordance with Biblical principles.
The Welsh Christian Party
We believe in one creator God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit as stated in the apostles teaching.
We acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord over all creation.
We believe the Holy Bible to be the inspired, infallible, written Word of God to whose precepts, given for the good of nations and individuals, all man’s law must submit.
We believe all government to be under the authority of God and that the purpose of government is the maintenance of freedom and justice solely in accordance with biblical principles.
Jesus Christ will come again to the earth - personally, visibly and bodily - to consummate history and the eternal plan of God.
Could the Christian Party “Proclaiming Christ’s Lordship” simply be a political front for the far more extreme fundamentalist Islamophobe Christian Voice? Both of them are led by a Mr Green originating from ‘sarf’ London.
I wonder if all those electors in Llandrindod South and West realised what precisely they were supporting when they put their crosses against the names of Jeff Green and Martin Wiltshire in the recent by-elections?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
