tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-80067801099199574742024-02-20T20:50:33.961+00:00The Worcester LibertarianUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8006780109919957474.post-91869919419668121102012-08-29T14:06:00.001+01:002012-08-29T15:16:28.869+01:00The Slow Death of Investigative Journalism<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">With the public outrage over phone hacking, the spectacle
of Leveson, and the furore over <i>The Sun’s</i> printing nude pictures of Prince Harry,
there has been some debate of the role of the press in the UK, and whether investigative
journalism is now in terminal decline.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Traditionally it has been the job of reporters to
question those who hold positions of power, and to hold them to account on
behalf of society.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">This role as a
watchdog has been cherished by journalists since the origins of newspapers, and
reporters were described as ‘the Fourth Estate of power and the most important
of them all, by Edmund Burke in the Eighteenth Century.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Investigative journalism fulfils an important social
function, providing the public with the factual information about the
institutions of power that govern their lives. </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Without journalists providing this otherwise
unobtainable information, citizens would not be able to make rational economic
or electoral decisions.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Investigative journalism
can be best defined as acting in the public interest; detecting or exposing
crime, or serious impropriety; protecting public health and safety; preventing
the public from being misled; and protecting the freedom of expression itself.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Investigative journalism is in decline in the
British media, especially on television, which was for many decades a world
leader in this form of reporting, with programmes such as World in Action,
Panorama and The Cook Report.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">However
the decline in ratings for current affairs generally has led to fewer resources
and opportunities for investigative journalism, and led to replacement
programmes which critics have dubbed ‘investigative journalism lite’.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Since the 1980s, there has been an increased
emphasis placed on the profitability of news outlets.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">This has had a profound effect on
investigative journalism, as in the past reporters sought stories which were
newsworthy in their own right and this dictated whether a story was thoroughly
investigated.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Now journalism serves the
market place, and it is market concerns that control the content and operations
of reporters.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Investigative journalism
is expensive, and many outlets have shunned this type of reporting in favour of
less costly and populist news stories.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">
</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">This shift has had a negative effect on reporting and
stark consequences for democratic society, as journalists neglect the watchdog
role of the news media, instead concentrating on the commercial concerns of their
organisation.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Journalists are under immense time and financial
constraints.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Time and efficiency are
vital in modern investigative journalism; a reporter may have a brilliant
investigation, but if all the information cannot be gathered and translated
into copy for a financially viable cost, it is not likely to be approved by
management.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><i>The Guardian’s</i> Nick Davies suggests
that the economic constraints are now so severe that the modern reporter cannot
possibly meet the journalistic standards of accuracy or the truth seeking
imperative, and that most journalists today are reduced to simply regurgitating
press releases or public relations ‘spin’.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The convergence of media in recent times has created
a climate of confusion for news organisations.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">
</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">They are struggling to understand how to adapt to the changing requirements
of their consumers, and which strategies to adopt as new technologies offer a
variety of different platforms for disseminating news.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">This has led to different divisions of media
conglomerates competing against each other in some instances, and when one
platform becomes a profitable forum for content, it is adopted by traditionally
different media types.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Therefore a news
consumer is likely to find a newspaper, for example, will have a web-site which
will not only carry text from their publication, but videos which were once the
preserve of broadcasters.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The internet has become the ‘go to point’ to find
information, for the public as well as reporters.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">This has had a massive effect on journalism
in general, and to a certain extent has removed the power as a gatekeeper that
was once the preserve of news organisations.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">
</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">It is now possible for those who wish to disseminate information to the
public, to do so using web based distribution, thereby bypassing the filtering
of the gatekeepers.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The internet has had
some positive effects on investigative journalism, notably in providing
information for, or to base investigations on.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">
</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The emergence of sites like Wiki-Leaks has meant that previously hidden
information has become more readily accessible, and on the surface might appear
to threaten traditional reporting.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">
</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">However, the site’s creators have realised that the volume and crude
nature of the data they hold is difficult to interpret, and they have formed
partnerships with traditional media organisations, to utilise
the skills of investigative journalism to process the information and create
accessible stories for public consumption.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Investigative journalism has led to some of the most
important news stories in modern times and has proved the fourth estate title
claimed by journalists is still valid, even if such stories are less
frequent.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Perhaps the most famous
investigative story is that of the Watergate scandal, a story which has become
so well known that the ‘gate’ suffix is often added to large exposes ever
since. </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Another more recent example of
the value of investigative journalism is the MPs expenses scandal, which
culminated in the publication of embarrassing and in some cases illegal claims
made by British members of parliament in <i>The</i> <i>Daily Telegraph</i> during the summer
of 2009.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Journalism is a job which has responsibilities; to
provide the public with information, to verify the truth of that information,
and to hold the powerful to account.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">
</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">These responsibilities are essential to maintain a functioning
democratic society.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">As Watergate and the
MPs expenses scandal highlight, there is a constant necessity for journalists
to seek and expose those who abuse positions of power; however investigations on
the scale of Watergate would be unlikely today, and the MPs expenses were pursued
by an individual campaigner.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Investigative journalism is expensive, but it is
definitely not a luxury. It is vital to
safeguard our political and civic society, and is the only line of defence
against the erosion of democratic institutions; its decline should cause great
concern. It may be that the internet may
eventually compensates for this decline, but it will still need investigative
journalists to make wider society aware of corruption, and to fulfil the
watchdog obligations of the media.<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8006780109919957474.post-35019651219848660532012-04-20T23:54:00.000+01:002012-04-21T00:21:12.081+01:00The Falklands Conflict: Jingoism, Censorship and the Media<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Max
Hastings described the Falklands War as “a freak of history, almost certainly
the last colonial war that Britain will ever fight.” The conflict was complicated by the fact that
it took place at the height of the cold war.
The British government, preoccupied with the Soviet Union, had reduced the
size of the Royal Navy, reconfiguring it as a mainly submarine force
concentrated in the Northern Atlantic.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Although
this was a territorial dispute, military conflict was far from inevitable. The cause of the war had more to do with
diplomatic misunderstanding and bureaucratic ineptitude than
anything else. Almost everyone in
Britain was utterly unprepared for this war. The media, the government, as well as the
public were caught by surprise when the Argentineans invaded Port Stanley.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">There
has always been suspicion between soldiers and war reporters, and mistrust was
very evident during this conflict. These suspicions
were intensified by the isolated nature of the battlefield, which meant that
the British government was able to control access to the warzone and reports
from it. There was to be no foreign observer.
No journalist deemed by the MOD to be
unsympathetic or independently minded.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Robert
Harris claimed that the Falklands Conflict was the worst reported British war, since the Crimea in 1854. It was characterised
by poor communications as copy had to be sent by ‘ships radio’, which was only
permitted when the navy was not using the system. It took three weeks for television film to
get back to the UK, and it was then vetted by a MOD censor. This meant that no pictures of the land
fighting phase or images of injured British soldiers were seen by the public
until after the ceasefire.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">The
MOD’s control of information enabled the military to operate an effective
propaganda regime during the fighting.
The journalists on the scene were unable to report objectively because of
the censorship and denial of information. This was compounded by an editorial policy in much
of the UK press which was largely gung ho and non-dissenting. </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Indeed,
for the Sun, it was no longer acceptable to express any criticism for either the
Conflict or the Government’s handling of it. </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">They lambasted Peter Snow and the Guardian,
but their greatest venom was saved for the Mirror, who were accused of treason,
and appeasing the Argentine dictators.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Perhaps
one of the more significant consequences of the Falklands War was that it
changed the style and manner that the British press would report their county’s
wars in future. This change was instigated
by the Sun’s patriotic jingoism and sloganeering headlines, exemplified by the
infamous ‘Gotcha’ headline to report the sinking of the Argentine ship Belgrano.
The Sun covered the war as if it was a video
game or a comic strip, and as such, the jubilant and crass ‘Gotcha’ was their logical response. The Sun’s
reporting had come to represent a fantasy war, where plucky little Britain was
fighting an Argentine super villain.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">The
‘Gotcha’ headline appalled most media commentators, as well as many of the
British troops, who believed the Argentine soldiers were fighting a fair war,
and should therefore deserve respect. They
knew that it could be themselves who drowned tomorrow. A message was sent from the Canberra troop
carrier to the Sun’s offices, asking for a hundred copies of that day’s newspaper. They added that they had run out of toilet paper. Private Eye satirised the Sun’s jingoism with
the mock headline “Kill an Argie: Win a Metro!” to which the Sun's editor, Kelvin MacKenzie, responded by
saying: “Why didn’t we think of that?”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">The
viciousness of the Sun during the Falklands can be seen as part of wider social
and political change in Britain, of a new Conservatism, based on a muscular
economic model and distain of the liberal intelligentsia. As the chief cheerleader for this ‘new
order’, the Sun was eager to portray its opponents as unpatriotic or
treacherous, consequently suffocating their expressive creativity in the public
sphere. The legacy of this attitude
towards debate during a time of war has resulted in a media who tend to
uncritically identify with ‘our boys’ and report military action in a
sensationalist, populist and simplistic way.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">It
has been widely assumed that it was bureaucratic errors which led to the MOD
failing to give the public truthful facts during the fighting. However, the Falklands Conflict will be
remembered as a classic example of how a government and military can control news
during a war. During the fighting the
British government suppressed information and used the Official Secrets Act to
ensure that editors complied with censorship.
The MOD gave its own daily briefing in an attempt to circumnavigate the
free media to take control of the news agenda.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">The
Falklands Conflict was a pivotal event in war reporting. In subsequent Western wars, if possible,
correspondents would not be able to operate as independent and free witnesses
to events. The model that the MOD
applied: Controlling access to the battlefield; the exclusion of neutral or
unfavourable observers; vetting of journalists and censorship of their copy;
military manipulation of the news to generate patriotism; branding those who
question the official version of events as traitors. These are now the standard military
conditions that journalists must submit to report from a war zone.</span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8006780109919957474.post-1804483166429460232012-03-28T14:55:00.000+01:002012-03-28T14:55:08.244+01:00Paddy Ashdown: An Interesting Life<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>This is from Paddy Ashdown's talk at Malvern Theatres last October, which I forgot to post at the time. Better late than never I suppose!</i></span></span></div><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">As a commando; a member of the Special Forces; a spy, a Member of Parliament; formerly the leader of his party; and the UN’s High Representative to Bosnia; Paddy Ashdown has certainly led an interesting life. </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;">Lord Ashdown was at Malvern Theatres to promote his auto-biography, ‘A Fortunate Life’ and to raise money for the charity which he patrons, Hope and Homes for Children.</span></div><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">When asked why his book was called ‘A Fortunate Life’, Lord Ashdown quoted from the copy he was holding: </span></span>“<span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I was a soldier at the end of the golden age of soldiering; a spy at the end of the golden age of spying; a politician while politics was still a calling and an international peace-builder, backed by Western power, before Iraq and Afghanistan drained the West of both influence and morality.”</span></span></div><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><br />
</span></div><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;">He recalled his family’s move from India to Northern Ireland and joked about the complications of having a Catholic Father and a Protestant Mother: </span>“<span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">On my first day at school, the other children wanted to know whether I was Protestant or Catholic and I realised that I didn’t know.</span></span></div><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I asked my Father when I got home and he told me to tell the other children that I was a Buddhist. </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">They then wanted to know whether I was a Protestant or a Catholic Buddhist”.</span></span></div><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><br />
</span></div><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;">Lord Ashdown beams with obvious pride, when recalling his career in the Royal Marines and as a Commander in the elite Special Boat Service: </span>“<span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I loved my time in the forces, with the exception of parachuting; it just doesn’t seem rational to jump out of a perfectly serviceable aeroplane." </span></span></div><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">"In Malaya, I picked up the local language, so I managed to convince my superiors to send me to Hong Kong to learn Chinese." </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;">It was in Honk Kong that Lord Ashdown was approached by a shadowy figure who claimed to be from the Foreign Office with an offer of a job. </span>“<span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I found myself working for an organisation, which I’m not allowed to name, but they have a large office by the Thames. </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">We were taught to be discreet when entering the office, in case Soviet agents were keeping watch, however the conductor of the bus used to shout, ‘Lambeth Bridge, can all spies alight here’, which rather ruined the secrecy."</span></span></div><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><br />
</span></div><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;">He left a world of military service and espionage to enter politics in 1975 and became the Liberal MP for Yeovil eight years later. </span>“<span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Yeovil had been Conservative since 1910 and was considered such a safe seat that they weighed the vote. </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I was selected as a candidate for the reason that I was the only person foolish enough to put my name forward, but I don’t believe in people being MP for another area, I wanted to represent my own town. </span></span></div><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">"All my friends thought I was mad when I told them I was not only going into politics, but was going to be a Liberal as well. </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The ninth of June, 1983 was the night of my life; I would like my tombstone to read, ‘Paddy Ashdown, MP for Yeovil." </span></span></div><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><br />
</span></div><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;">Leader of the Liberal Democrats for 11 years, Lord Ashdown believes he achieved success from an uncertain start: </span>“<span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I’m the only leader of a party whose support in the opinion polls was recorded as an asterisk, we had no discernible support whatsoever, but when I left Parliament in 1999, I had doubled the number of our MPs. </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">It was the right decision to leave then, at a time of my choosing."</span></span></div><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><br />
</span></div><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;">Lord Ashdown became the UN’s High Representative to Bosnia-Herzegovina; a period he says changed his life. </span>“<span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The Balkan conflicts were terrible, some horrendous things happened there, it was the Spanish Civil War of modern times; it predicted what was to come. </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I met </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Radovan Karadzic</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">, I always thought you would be able to see evil in a man’s face but he was actually quite charming towards me. </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">It was in Bosnia that I met Colonel Mark Cook, he set up Hope and Homes for Children after coming across an orphanage there and they are doing tremendous things for children."</span></span></div><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><br />
</span></div><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;">Lord Ashdown left with an anecdote about a visit to the grave of a famous ancestor, Daniel O’Connell, a prominent Irish nationalist. </span>“<span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The Irish government provided a car to take me to the grave and on the way the driver asked, ‘You’re O’Connell’s Great Grandson then? You know what they used to say about him?’ </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I knew they called him the Great Liberator, but I wanted to hear the driver say it, so I shook my head. </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The driver told me, ‘It wasn’t that he had many kids, it’s just you couldn’t throw a stone over the orphanage wall without hitting one on the head. </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">They certainly didn’t call him the father of the nation for nothing.’”</span></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8006780109919957474.post-59980540688140324962012-01-28T21:33:00.001+00:002012-01-28T21:35:10.173+00:00Beware the False Prophets<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The world changed in 2011.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was a year when people-power allied to new technologies overthrew elites, with Facebook revolutions heralding an Arab Spring and toppling aging or ailing dictatorships.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it would be wrong for the Western Democracies to think they are detached from these events.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As Greece has so clearly shown, even relatively modern states are in peril, given enough economic instability, a furious electorate and weak political leadership.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The economists suggest that 2012 is going to be a tough year for Britain.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Financial ruin is probable, the collapse of the EU is possible, public sector strikes and the severest political discontent for a generation almost inevitable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Shades of grey will no longer suffice in such a divisive age, so it seems likely that this year will see a return to the old politics of left versus right in the UK.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">For the previous 30 years, governance has been dominated by bribing electorates with tax cuts, while the major parties have differed only in nuance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>New Labour under Blair and Brown abandoned the polarising rhetoric of class warfare and Old Labour values were deliberately forgotten.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When Cameron became leader, he dragged the Conservatives to the centre ground with his supposed modernisation of the ‘toxic’ Tory brand, and reassured voters he was the heir to Blair.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nothing too contentious would be attempted, all policies would be tested in focus groups and a consensual blandness smothered Westminster.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This was the politics of boom and borrowing.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Well, there are no longer any presents to give to swing voters and the distribution of our dwindling resources demands radical and unpopular political choices.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The economic prospectus for the foreseeable future is one of falling incomes, with rising unemployment, and deep cuts, mainly falling on the poor and middle classes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rather than an age of austerity, it is more likely to be an age of resentment, with a future which looks far worse than the dire predictions of just a year ago.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">There are no easy fixes for this government, an inherently fragile marriage of convenience between political opponents, and it now seems difficult to imagine that it can survive until the 2015 election.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They hoped the recovery would begin by 2014 and the public would reward the economic bravery of the Coalition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This will clearly not now happen.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">This raises some serious questions and challenges.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Conservatives are being dragged by their unappealing rightwing and Labour is unable to develop a coherent answer to the economy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Lib-Dems once offered a useful safety valve to disaffected voters, being a centrist alternative to register protest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With their perceived betrayal, disengagement has never been higher in Britain.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Economic crisis have historically been a catalyst for extreme right and leftwing parties. As politics becomes more polarised over the coming years, we need to remember that Britain is not uniquely immune to extremes and beware of political parties who offer simplistic solutions to our problems.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is hard work and our liberal traditions which will deliver us to a better tomorrow. </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8006780109919957474.post-83564317459044927872012-01-12T23:07:00.002+00:002012-01-15T13:15:57.042+00:00'Why Orwell Matters’ by Christopher Hitchens<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">(Basic Books, $15.95)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Why does George Orwell matter?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Frankly it depends who you listen to.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Was he hero or villain, socialist or conservative, patriot or traitor, modernist or misogynist?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It has become as fashionable for the Left, feminist, postmodernist and contrarian alike to denounce him, as it has been for those on the Right to claim him as their own.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is into this confused and contradictory mess that Christopher Hitchens provocatively steps to recue Orwell in a brilliant and logical book.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">For many journalists Orwell has become a revered figure, the patron saint of factual writing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The sycophancy that surrounds his name would have appalled him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He was a man who never shied from criticising his own heroes, and he was wary of any saint.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, Orwell once said of Mahatma Gandhi that “saints are always to be adjudged guilty until proven innocent.”</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Orwell may have been equally amused with those who have attacked his works as with those who revere it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hitchens does not hesitate to destroy some of the fawning mythologies that have built-up around Orwell’s memory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead he attempts to rebuild a more honest and rational legacy for perhaps the most influential of Twentieth Century writers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One cannot help but feel that while Orwell might not have always agreed with Hitchens, he would have approved of both his techniques and the endeavour.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">As a man of the Left who was denounced by his fellow travellers, Hitchens must have felt some empathy for the treatment Orwell received from his ideological brethren.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As an advocator of socialism whose roots lay in what he describes in ‘The Road to Wigan Pier’ as “an upper middle-class” upbringing, many of Orwell’s contemporaries viewed his politics with some scepticism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Being an Eton Old Boy would only have added to the mistrust.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Such a background undoubtedly left Orwell with some intellectual baggage, however perhaps it was these contradictions as the perpetual outsider which gave his writing its concise, analytical, compassionate and balanced style.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Hitchens describes “The sheer ill will and bad faith and intellectual confusion that appears to ignite spontaneously when Orwell’s name is mentioned” by some from the Left.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Maybe it was the scathing attacks on fellow socialist thinkers, who he described as so awful that they were likely to put off the working man, which has made him an ‘enemy’ to some.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The most common mistake made in order to denounce Orwell, is to take the phrases spoken by characters in his fiction and then attribute them as if he was speaking himself, a literary error that schoolchildren should know not to make.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hitchens takes these critiques and refutes them in a very compelling way.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Of the Right, Hitchens explains the numerous attempts made by conservative intellectuals to use or annex Orwell’s works.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As a writer who pioneered the opposition to Communism, championed individualism, disliked the instruments of government, believed in popular wisdom and who possessed a strong patriotic sense; it is easy to see how Orwell could be crudely painted as a Tory. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hitchens dismisses these claims in what he refers to as the ‘body-snatching’ of Orwell.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While he may have had some conservative tendencies he fought intellectually against them all of his life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You could by no stretch of imagination define his politics as being conservative.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">A brief but interesting chapter outlines Orwell’s dysfunctional relationship with women.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hitchens attributes this partially to an upbringing with a stern Mother and patriarchal Father, but generally concedes to the feminist arguments, except to show where they are overblown.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is also fair to say that condemning authors of the past for failing the standards of today is a fruitful, but intellectually pointless pastime.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">‘Why Orwell Matters’ is not only a well written, stimulating and informative book, it is also a necessary book, as his works needed to be rescued from his admirers and critics alike.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As Hitchens eloquently puts it, “Orwell requires extricating from under a pile of saccharine and moist hankies.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With some of the ridiculous claims exposed as intellectually defunct or mere humbug, we can perhaps exhume Orwell’s truthful legacy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is one of insightful observations from the past which are so valuable to understanding the present.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">This book also reminds us of Hitchens’ great strength as a literary essayist, something that is too easily overlooked because of his controversial polemics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Gore Vidal once declared Hitchens to be his dauphin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However there is a stronger case that when his work is viewed with perspective, Hitchens will be Orwell’s successor. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">I cannot recommend this book enough.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8006780109919957474.post-2209422034809232292012-01-04T22:46:00.000+00:002012-01-04T22:46:49.873+00:00The Argentine sabre rattles again<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Argentina is at it again!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One would have thought they would be remembering their dead as the 30 year anniversary of the Falkland Conflict approaches.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead they are engaged in their favoured nationalist pastime of sabre-rattling and intimidation of the Falkland population.</span><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Lately the Argentine president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, has been spending her time convincing the South American neighbours to join in the perpetual diplomatic bullying of the islanders.</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">In December, she managed to convince the Mercosur trade federation which includes <span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="color: windowtext;">Argentina</span></span>, Uruguay, Paraguay and Brazil to ban ships bearing the Falkland’s flag from entering their ports.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"></span></span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">It does raise the question of why the Mercosur have got involved in the nationalist obsession of Argentina.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Brazil should have more important problems to deal with, such as improving the living standards of their vast impoverished poor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Uruguay’s acquiescence to their powerful neighbour is not particularly unsurprising.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Paraguay is a landlocked country, so one may reasonably wonder how many ships of any nation will use their ports.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"></span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">At the Mercosur summit, the Falkland Islands were described as "a colonial British possession in South America”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This fits with Argentina’s favoured tactic of portraying Britain as an imperial aggressor predating the coast of Latin America.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Despite this depiction being at least 100 years out of date, it fits into the rhetoric of many of South America’s despotic leaders, who are feeling confident at the moment and want to shed the controlling hand of the United States.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Lacking the bravery to challenge a superpower, they are using the Falklands to attack America’s closest, but vastly weaker ally instead.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"></span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The only inhabitants to ever live on the Falklands have been European; there was no indigenous population.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Contrastingly, in Argentina, the Amerindian populations have fallen to less than 2% being supplanted by Spanish invaders and subsequent European immigration. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That the Argentine claim to the Falklands is based on that of their former Spanish colonial masters, gives a powerful suggestion of just who the real imperialists are.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"></span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Argentina’s actual argument is that as the Falklands are small islands near a larger country they should by default be theirs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Their desire for sovereignty based on nationalism and public diversion. </span></span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">If we follow this imbecilic logic, then maps will have to be redrawn and millions forcibly removed across the globe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Japan must belong to China and the Caribbean must be an annex of the United States.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"></span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">For all of the bluster and bullying, the fate of the Falklands always returns to the right of self determination, enshrined in article 1 of the United Nations Charter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Britain has historically seen the Falklands as a point of principle, it is for the islanders to decide their own fate, but following 1982 it would be a lie not to admit that the issue has now become a point of pride.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"></span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">No British prime minister for the foreseeable future could ever contemplate betraying the Falkland Islanders’ wishes to remain British citizens under British protection, and that principle will be defended; whatever the cost maybe.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8006780109919957474.post-11977832775520782432011-12-21T16:52:00.002+00:002011-12-22T00:29:43.938+00:002011: A review of the year's news<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The Arab Spring; intervention in Libya; the Japanese tsunami; the death of Bin Laden; phone hacking; riots; and the Euro crisis, for news junkies like me, 2011 has been the year that kept on giving.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">To band around terms like tumultuous or world-changing can be a foolhardy pastime. </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">It leaves a writer open to the charge of hyperbole, vulnerable to events. </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Something could emerge tomorrow, making everything else look like the librarian of the year awards. </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">That said, it would take an extraordinary set of events to surpass this year’s news – maybe a Godzilla attack on Tokyo – but 2011 was, well, interesting.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">It has been a year of protest. </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Greece appears more like an apocalyptic film set with each passing day of rioting. </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">There have also been tamer anti-capitalism protests in North America and Europe, seemingly composed of middle-class people in tents. </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In many ways it reminded me of camping holidays in Cornwall. </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">But the real cauldron of protest has been the Middle East and North Africa, the ‘Arab Spring.’ </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Dictators have fallen in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, but still cling to power in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen. </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">How each of these uprisings will pan-out is unclear, and while optimism is always a virtue, history suggests virtually all revolutions ultimately lead to tyranny.</span></span><br />
<br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Intersecting the falls of Mubarak and Gaddafi, the Japanese tsunami reminded us of nature’s terrible power and man’s incredible penchant for short-sightedness. </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Building nuclear power plants along one of the most geologically active coasts in the world seems foolhardy enough, but building inadequate sea defences to cut costs demands incredulity. </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The explosions at Fukushima revitalised the anti-nuclear lobby, leading the earthquake and tsunami ravaged country of Germany to announce the closure of all atomic power plants. </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Who cares about global warming anyway?</span></span></div><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"> </div><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The Arab Spring emboldened the West, who dug up the corpse of interventionism that they had buried after Iraq, and they started bombing for peace in Libya. </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Napoleon once said: “I have plenty of clever generals, but just give me a lucky one.” </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Fortunately David Cameron has so far been lucky. </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The country was delivered into the hands of the opposition and Colonel Gaddafi to a murderous lynch mob.</span></span></div><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"> </div><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In any other year, Bin Laden’s death would have dominated the news for months. </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Instead, the death of the man who helped define the previous decade has become something of a footnote, popping up occasionally in newspapers or television shows like a hazy half forgotten memory.</span></span></div><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"> </div><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The phone hacking scandal had been slowly brewing since 2007, but in 2011 it delivered a different tyrant to the hands of his enemies. </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">News International’s claims that illegality was limited to a ‘rogue’ reporter was obvious hogwash, but it seemed that they were going to get away with it until <em>the Guardian</em> revealed Milly Dowler’s phone had been hacked. </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Coming shortly after the conviction of her murderer, public outrage ensued, giving Murdoch’s enemies, then belatedly his friends, the courage to attack both him and his publications. </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Murdoch took the desperate decision to shut the News of the World, but not before he lost his political influence and was even hauled before the Media Select Committee. </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The real shock for those who had built Murdoch into a bogey man was that he gave an admirable impression of a rather pathetic and tired old man. </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Perhaps more significant were the revelations of widespread corruption at the Metropolitan Police, with officers being paid by journalists and close relationships existing between senior officers and Murdoch’s newspapers.</span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Just when it began to look like the rest of the year would be dominated by phone hacking, along came the English riots. </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Much has been spoken without anything being said on this subject. </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">There has always been an element of society prepared to riot, for various reasons, and they have done sporadically during summers for at least thirty years. </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">After each of these disturbances the government announce some draconian knee-jerk responses, which are later quietly forgotten. </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Perhaps the difference this time was the proliferation of smart phones used by rioters to organise and bystanders to document every action in minutiae to feed to an increasingly ravenous media.</span></span><br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"> </div><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Rumbling in the background throughout the year was the Euro debacle, highlighting the political inadequacies of the EU. I</span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">t seems that the UK’s economic future will either be very bleak, or non-existent, depending on which commentator’s vast unfathomable procession of depressing numbers you care to listen to.</span></span></div><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"> </div><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">If these prophesies of doom are correct, then maybe we should expect a tumultuous or world changing 2012.</span></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8006780109919957474.post-64598947517701101162011-09-03T17:38:00.002+01:002011-09-03T17:42:04.662+01:00Last Empire by Gore Vidal<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">I’ve recently read <span class="uistorymessage">Gore Vidal's ‘Last Empire’, a very interesting book which has been constructed by collating a collection of essays published from 1992 to 2000.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The book covers a variety of subject matter; however it was the political content which most interested me.</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><span class="uistorymessage"></span></span><span class="uistorymessage"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">Vidal predictably promotes his sceptical and disdainful social critique on American politics and government. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is Vidal’s radical and strong opinions which make him such a compelling author, and whilst the work is now dated, his analysis in this book is often persuasive.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span class="uistorymessage"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"></span></span><span class="uistorymessage"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">One of the more poignant essays covers the Republican Party’s outrageous and protracted smear campaign, to discredit and overthrow President Clinton during the 90s.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is interesting to see them using the same oppositional tactics again, now to eliminate President Obama. History can often cause me to muse as to whether time is cyclical, rather than linear. It is certainly very evident that political elites seldom learn anything from the past.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span class="uistorymessage"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"></span></span><span class="uistorymessage"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">To see how the Grand Old Party’s activists and politicians have behaved over the previous 20 years, it is a wonder to the non-American that they can ever get elected at all – but then nearly all of America’s political discourse, so far as I’m concerned, seems to defy any attempt at rationalisation.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span class="uistorymessage"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"></span></span><span class="uistorymessage"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">In an age of hyper polarisation, and a slew of literature (for want of a better term) from the deranged Tea Party set, it is most refreshing to read from an American author who doesn’t write partisan bollocks.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is fair to say that Vidal is most scornful of the political right, but the left comes a very close second.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span class="uistorymessage"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"></span></span><span class="uistorymessage"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">Much of the emphasis of ‘Last Empire’ is on how American elites have been accumulating power for themselves by coercing the public through deceit and fear.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The creation of a mythical, or at least exaggerated Soviet threat in 1945 and the largely mythical Al Qaida threat today, have been used justify the corruption and degradation of liberty</span></span><span class="textexposedshow"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"> by the ruling powers and most importantly, their sponsors.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span class="textexposedshow"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"></span></span><span class="textexposedshow"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">It is hard to read ‘Last Empire’, and not to share Gore Vidal’s scorn of the elites who dominate our lives.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Maybe one day, the people may recognise their true potential and we might be governed for the greater good; rather than being oppressed by sectional and self interested cliques. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Until then, at least there are authors like Gore Vidal to read.</span></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8006780109919957474.post-22622172553568503422011-07-06T17:58:00.002+01:002011-07-06T18:06:33.251+01:00Hacking scandal reaches 'tipping point'<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A dark brooding storm cloud is gathering over News International's imposing fortress at Wapping and senior officers at the Metropolitan Police are assumedly watching with some unease, as inappropriate relationships between the two organisations begin to be uncovered.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The revelations that Milly Dowler's phone was hacked by the <em>News of the Screws</em>, her messages deleted, false hope given to her distraught parents and the police enquiry hampered, have proven to be what media advisers call a 'tipping point.' This is where a story goes from being of interest to a section of society, to universal public awareness and in this instance abhorrence.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The recent trial and conviction of the vile perverted oaf Levi Bellfield, Milly's murderer, had reopened the national consciousness of this case and the actions of the <em>NOTW</em> have rightly been described as grotesque and despicable. This was then followed by the revelations that the <em>NOTW</em> hacked into the parents of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells, and the victims of the 7/7 terrorist attacks. There are certain to be many, many more instances of this behaviour.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The actions of News International's staff shows such contempt for the law, basic human decency and morality, that it beggars belief. Rupert Murdoch has today described his staffs' behavior as "deplorable and unacceptable", however he may want to look at the relentless commercial pressure and business culture that he personally has imposed onto his his executives and reporting staff, rather than pretending he is somehow removed from the implications of this scandal.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Murdoch made a huge strategic mistake by not sacking Rebekah Brooks earlier this year when he had the chance. How Ms Brooks can head an inquiry which will have to investigate her own alleged misconduct would be comical, were it not such an insult to the public intelligence.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This scandal has a great distance to run. It will probably extend to other news groups, it seems highly probable that it will engulf a number of police forces as well as prominent individual officers, it will highlight questionable behaviour from people in public and elected office, and it surely is the end of the toothless Press Complaints Commission.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This saga also emphasises the vital need for plurality in the Fourth Estate. The relentless efforts of <em>the Guardian, the Independent, the BBC, Channel 4</em> and <em>the New York Times</em> should be congratulated. It is at least an opportunity to redress what appears to the outside observer to be a rotten culture of corruption at the top of British society. However, I wont hold be holding my breath.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8006780109919957474.post-23451659868899463402011-05-13T19:05:00.003+01:002011-05-15T07:33:47.115+01:00In praise of the British Camp<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There is something strangely majestic about the Malvern Hills, which belie their diminutive stature in purely geographical terms.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These hills seem to possess more than the simple sum of their parts. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Perhaps it is their sheer and unexpected rise from the Severn Valley on the eastern flank, or maybe it is the ridged linear straight-edge of peaks, which contrasts with one’s expectations of a rolling and gentle English countryside.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The rocks which make up the Malvern’s ‘bones’ are among the oldest known on Earth and it seems that you can almost smell the history as you walk along them, but as you wearily approach the summit of the Herefordshire Beacon, you are faced with one of the most arresting sights in Britain. We have all seen a mountain top, and Iron Age forts are not so uncommon that most people are unaware of them, but here the 2 combine in what is sadly one of the rarest of feats: mans' endeavour has managed to enhance natural splendour, rather than obliterating it.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In its natural state, the Herefordshire Beacon must have been an unusual sight, a steep sided pinnacle which brings to mind a malformed Egyptian pyramid, covered in bracken, verdant green grasses, and rare wildflowers being serviced by even rarer butterflies, birds of prey and even the odd snake. The Herefordshire Beacon achieves its mountain status by a measly 15 feet – 1000ft being the traditional measure of these things - and it is the second highest peak of the Malvern Hills.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Built around 2,200 years ago, the British Camp was sculpted from the hillside for what was originally believed to be a defensive refuge in times of peril, but archaeological excavations now suggest it was the permanent home to about 4000 inhabitants who lived there for some 500 years. What life must have been like for these distant ancestors is hard for a twenty first century sophisticate to imagine. It must certainly have been a hard and rugged existence, but with such a magnificent view, almost any hardship seems worth the enduring.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Local legend tells of Caractacus, the last chieftain of the British Camp who made his final stand at the fort against the conquering Roman Empire. The legend speaks of a savage battle in which the Ancient Britains fought ferociously, but were eventually defeated, albeit with their honour left intact. Caractacus was captured and sent to Rome as a trophy, but he impressed the Emperor Claudius so much, that he was made a Roman Citizen and comfortably ended his days there.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Sadly, as is so often the way with local legends, this tale contradicts virtually all the archaeological and historical evidence. It seems much more likely that Caractacus’s last stand happened elsewhere, and far from ending his days in Rome, it probably came at the blunt end of a Roman sword, in or shortly after the battle.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">However legends die hard, especially such a good one, and it inspired Edward Elgar to compose a cantina entitled Caractacus to honour the ancient Chieftain. Elgar’s association with the Malvern Hills is well documented, he is buried near to the British Camp at St Wulstan churchyard in Little Malvern, but it is less known is that this inspirational scenery has inspired many of England’s great artists over the years. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This a landscape which is linked to works of such figures as the 14<sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">th</span></sup> century author William Langland, the 17<sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">th</span></sup> century diarist John Evelyn, the 19<sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">th</span></sup> century poet Lord Macaulay – who pays tribute to Malvern’s role during the Armada,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>the poet and dramatist John Drinkwater and perhaps most famously the poet WH Auden.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There is one last surprise for visitors to the Herefordshire Beacon; there are signs in the rocks around the British Camp which can inform the initiated of an earlier history which makes the Ancient Britains seem almost modern. By the entrance to Giant’s Cave, once used as a medieval hermit’s retreat, there are distinctive rock formations known to geologists as pillow lavas, caused when molten lava is released under water. These rocks were formed in a time before the continents had formed and the Earth was a global ocean; it was these volcanic processes which are viewed today as being so destructive, which gradually coalesced into the land on which we rely.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So remarkably, when visiting the British Camp, we can see evidence of the birth of the continents and the death of an Ancient British culture in the same place. If that does not inspire the imagination, it would still be worthwhile making the climb to the summit to bathe in a view which takes in twelve counties, the Severn Valley, the Welsh Marches, the Black Mountains, the Brecon Beacons, the Cotswolds and, of course, the Malvern’s.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Failing all that, there is a wonderful pub next to the car park.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1hdqdYOXDMQX0o3RGoj8x9oKJW-As9r1VJn4pvKqPa_15OJk-6upB2WU1EPw5rQBUE_v3V8hhQz03nAK6ZjmmPvAS2lT_Ee0vQZTX1elgem0Rfem1_v4tYQN1g3F20tee273cEDtJp2k/s1600/herefordbeacon2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1hdqdYOXDMQX0o3RGoj8x9oKJW-As9r1VJn4pvKqPa_15OJk-6upB2WU1EPw5rQBUE_v3V8hhQz03nAK6ZjmmPvAS2lT_Ee0vQZTX1elgem0Rfem1_v4tYQN1g3F20tee273cEDtJp2k/s640/herefordbeacon2.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8006780109919957474.post-10200407069081223852011-04-08T09:15:00.001+01:002011-04-08T09:59:50.805+01:00AV, or not to be?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/s7tWHJfhiyo?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The time has now come for the UK population to come together, make a momentous decision and take part in a national referendum. “But the ‘X-Factor’ has finished and ‘Britain’s got Talent’ has yet to begin”, I hear you all cry. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">No, this national vote isn’t as interesting as dancing dogs and emotionally unbalanced singers; but it will decide whether we change the way we elect our political masters in the future. So on balance, it is probably worth taking a look at the debate.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The current voting system is called First Past the Post (FPTP) and is pretty simple to explain. You put an X next to the person you want to win and the person with the most votes is declared the winner. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">FPTP works very well in a system where two political parties dominate the election process, but where several parties compete, as is increasingly the case in the UK, it becomes more problematic.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The downside to this system is if you support, for example the Green Party, and your area is dominated by Labour and Conservative voters. Then voting Green is in all probability a wasted vote. Green voters in that area would have to decide whether to vote with their conscience, or to vote tactically for either the Labour or Conservative candidate.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Another failing of FPTP is that if there are more than two parties with broad support in a constituency, then the person elected could be chosen by as few as 20% of the voters; the remaining 80% are in effect ignored. In 2005, for example, George Galloway polled the votes of only 18% of his constituents, yet ended up in the House of Commons.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">FPTP favours parties who concentrate their support in geographical areas. So Labour from the urban conurbations and the Conservatives, from large rural counties, have many more seats in Parliament than their votes would otherwise justify. The Lib-Dems, whose support is spread evenly across the country, have far fewer seats than they might otherwise expect.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Alternative Vote (AV) has been proposed to remedy some of these problems. Under AV a voter has to rank candidates in order of preference, so 1 next to their favourite, and 2 next to their second choice and so on. Listing preferences is optional, if a voter only approved of 1 candidate; they could just put 1 next to their favourite.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If after the votes have been counted, one of the contenders has over 50% of the vote, they are declared the winner. If not, the last placed candidate is eliminated and their second preference votes are distributed to the remaining candidates. This is repeated until one person gets over half of the votes.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So taking the example of our theoretical Green voter under an AV system, he or she could vote Green with their first preference. They may decide that the next closest party to their views is the Lib-Dems and rank them as their second preference and their third choice may be Labour.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">When the votes are counted, none of the candidates passes the 50% mark and the Green in last place gets eliminated. In the next round of counting, our voter’s second preference is added to the Lib-Dems, but still no one has passed the half way line. In the third round, our Green voter’s support is transferred to Labour, who this time receives over half the votes and is declared the winner.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is worth reiterating that each round of the process is a new vote. Those people who voted Labour have done so three times in this example, and our Green only voted Labour in the third round. It is a method to stop the big parties hovering up tactical votes and then ignoring those voters and pretending they are their own.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This sounds more complicated than it actually is, but it has the effect of forcing the main parties to broaden their support to people who vote for smaller parties. It also means that people who, under FPTP, vote tactically can now register their support for their closest ideology and use their preference votes for their tactical choice.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">AV is certainly not a great panacea to cure our democratic ills, but it is in my opinion a small change which can make a significant improvement. I have been told that AV is not proportional representation, and that it should therefore be opposed. Is this not letting perfection be the enemy of the good (to mangle Voltaire)? It is much better than the status quo, and all reformers should support this change. It is not that AV is so good, but that FPTP is so damn bad.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I have lost count of the times that I have heard Labour supporters tell me they are going to vote no, to give Nick Clegg ‘a bloody nose’. Really? Some Labour supporters are planning to vote against a system that they proposed, to spite the Lib Dems, and thereby miss the opportunity to give the Conservative Party a broken jaw. If that is the case, then Labour really has now become an irrelevance to political discourse.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As the No campaign has been busily peddling a quote from Churchill where he criticises AV, I’ll close with his thoughts on FPTP. Speaking in 1909, he said: <em>“The present system [FPTP] has clearly broken down. The results produced are not fair to any party, nor to any section of the community. In many cases they do not secure majority representation, nor do they secure an intelligent representation of minorities. All they secure is fluke representation, freak representation, capricious representation”.</em></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now that’s sorted, we can get back to more popular elections. I wonder if there will be a dancing dog again this year?</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8006780109919957474.post-1632904158025942302011-03-03T23:32:00.003+00:002011-03-04T03:20:54.962+00:00Evesham United 2 Stourbridge 3Evesham’s manager Paul West will look back on this game and wonder where his team were in the first half. With a litany of defensive errors and an absence of attacking competence by the Robins, the game looked to be a decidedly one sided affair. <br />
<br />
A passage of smart interplay carved the Evesham backline apart and Zac Costello’s clumsy lunge left the referee with little option but to point to the spot. Linden Dovey dusted himself down and calmly sent the keeper the wrong way.<br />
<br />
Evesham were restricted to hopeful long-balls and Stourbridge’s goal was rarely threatened. Stourbridge were playing with purpose and occasional style, however it was a long ball from the Glassboys which led to their inevitable second goal, scored by Ryan Rowe.<br />
<br />
Evesham were poor and made two changes on 37 minutes, and a third at a half time where Stourbridge looked good value for their 2 goal lead. The introduction of Evesham’s Ghanaian trio produced a very different second period, and David Accam pulled a goal back almost immediately. <br />
<br />
The Robins pushed for an equaliser, but their lacklustre defence allowed an unmarked Nathan Bennett to head home at the back-post, against the run of play.<br />
<br />
Evesham continued to press, but it took until the 86th minute for Accam to add his second goal, teed up by a mishit shot by Shaze which wrong footed the keeper. In the 5 minutes of injury time, Evesham could, perhaps should, have levelled this game but Lewis Solly would not be beaten again.<br />
<br />
After the final whistle, Sam Mensah’s offensive gesture to the ref earned him a straight red card, much to the delight of the vocal Stourbridge fans.<br />
<br />
Paul West said after the game: “I’m disappointed with the result, with the penalty decision, with the sloppy goals and I’m very disappointed with Mensah’s sending off”. He added: “In the first half we were simply not good enough and defended poorly, we were making under 13’s errors. Rowe has been prolific for Stourbridge this year and we could not contain him”.<br />
<br />
He said: “At half time I told the lads to stand up and make it difficult and that it was imperative that we got the next goal. All credit to them, they were much better in the second half”.<br />
<br />
When pressed about the red card incident, he said: “I believe he gave the ref ‘the finger’, so he deserved his sending off. I can’t condone what he did, he’s young and a bit naive and I’d put it down to frustration. We will deal with this internally and he will be disciplined, I already have to make 6 or 7 changes a game and this has made my job harder”.<br />
<br />
West paid tribute to Dean Richards, his best friend and former Bradford teammate who sadly passed away on Saturday following a long battle with illness. “We were very good friends and I spent his last week with him. I hope the world of football gives him the recognition that he deserves and my thoughts are with his wife and children”.<br />
<br />
<strong>EVESHAM: </strong><br />
Vaughan, Costello (Shaze 37), Hyde, Daniel, Jones, Spencer (Mensah 37), Blake, Wilding, Palmer (Accam 45), Brown, Noubissie Subs not used: Skyers, Dinsley. <br />
<br />
GOALS: Accam 48, 86. <br />
<br />
<strong>STOURBRIDGE:</strong><br />
Solly, Dovey, Oliver, McCone (Connor 41 (Cooper 57)), Smith, Bennett, Lloyd, Broadhurst, Rowe, Drake (Plinston 89), Craddock Sub not used: Slater. <br />
<br />
GOALS: Dovey (pen) 13, Rowe 34, Bennett 62.<br />
<br />
<strong>REFEREE:</strong><br />
Robert EllisUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8006780109919957474.post-80072570089677939162011-02-23T16:17:00.006+00:002011-02-23T16:27:03.752+00:00The Observer Years: Orwell<p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1>(Observer Books, £8.99)<br />
</p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1><br />
<p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1>Students of the English language, and for that matter politics, will be well aware of George Orwell’s published books. Orwell was, after all, kind enough to leave us some essays which outlined his thoughts on the literary process, and sets for us some rules on good composition. </p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1><br />
<br />
<p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1>A wise man once told me that Orwell’s ‘Politics and the English Language’ and ‘Why I Write’, should be part of all aspiring non-fiction writers’ essential collections and memorised to heart before their pen has ever been set to paper.<br />
</p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1><br />
<p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1>Those who have read Orwell’s books may be less familiar with his work as a journalist and as a prolific critic of literature. Writing for an eclectic range of titles, including: The Adelphi, The New Statesman, New Writing, Horizon, Tribune and Contemporary Jewish Record; Orwell’s collection of articles and essays should be regarded with the same reverence that his polemic books enjoy.<br />
</p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1><br />
<p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1>In the ‘Observer Years’, Orwell’s insightful contributions to the Sunday newspaper from 1942 to 49 have been comprehensively compiled. In 2 sections, divided between articles and reviews, this book is ideal to dip into for brief distraction - what I term as a bathroom book - but it should be noted that it is difficult to put down.<br />
</p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1><br />
<p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1>The first part of the book contains Orwell’s articles, which range from Indian independence, the threat of Communist Russia, to political profiles. The larger part of this section, however, is a series of war reports dispatched from Europe as the Allies made their bloody way to Germany following D-Day. It is these that particularly catch the eye, as Orwell observes with his unnerving sharpness <p$1>of thought, the complex post-liberation muddle of French politics. With his unswerving attention for detail, he regards the ruinous state of occupied Germany and the difficulties ahead in reconstructing this obliterated nation. He also looks ahead to the 1945 General Election and curiously for <p$1>Orwell, a man known for his strong convictions, does not make any firm prediction for the outcome.<br />
</p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1><br />
<p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1>The second part of this book concerns itself with Orwell’s book reviews, and whilst not as informative as his war reporting, does illuminate a keen intellect and an analytical mind. His reviewing style does not become mired with the miniature of the books detail, but instead Orwell analyses the themes and contrasts them with other authors’ ideas. In many cases he looks at two contemporary books which tackle the same issue, with either similar or opposing conclusions. It is clear that Orwell must have been a fertile reader, and whether tackling poetry, politics or potholing, among much else, his background knowledge was remarkable.<br />
</p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1><br />
<p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1>It is easy to understand how Orwell gained his reputation as a free thinking and uninhibited critic, as he does not shy from rebuking renowned authors. He dismisses ‘Vessel of Wrath’ by H G Wells as a collection of overpriced scraps, which are littered with tired and discredited ideas. Many critics would have been more reticent when reviewing a book from a feted author like Wells, and Orwell’s closing <p$1>paragraph which acknowledges the prior greatness of his works, serves to rather emphasize the lack of esteem with which he held this particular offering.<br />
</p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1><br />
<p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1><p$1>The main virtue of ‘The Observer Years’ is to remind the reader that George Orwell was first and foremost a journalist. It was his abilities in the art of reporting which shaped all of his works, including his fiction. He had the gift of being able to describe what he saw with clarity, interpret a confusing world for his readers and then project the implications into the future. This book may not be for everyone, but it is well worth reading.</p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1></p$1>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8006780109919957474.post-89548010265888324452011-02-17T21:57:00.003+00:002011-02-17T22:57:06.880+00:00England 59 Italy 13<em>As a change of pace from recent posts, and to show that there is more to life than politics, here is a match report from the England Italy game on Saturday:</em><br />
<br />
Memories of the World Cup winning team of 2003 may seem a distant memory to most England fans. To reach the long envied heights of your sport playing ‘total rugby’, only to plunge so far and so fast, was a difficult adjustment for the Twickenham faithful to bear.<br />
<br />
The stilted progression of both players and coaching staff through this lean period has attracted much criticism, none more so than Martin Johnson’s elevation to the top job. His belief in bringing young players into the set-up has at last been vindicated and the emergence of Chris Ashton’s raw talent will lead to greater expectation for this team.<br />
<br />
This was Ashton’s day. He was always in the right place and his eagerness to play positively seems to have galvanised a back line which has often shown promise but lacked imagination. His four tries, the first time since 1914 this has been achieved, takes his tally to 6 after just two games and his ninth in 9 games. Here is a man in form. Ashton said: “I thought the time was right to do it”, when questioned about the continuance of his controversial swallow dive and played down his individual performance. He said: “I’m just glad to be in the team. A winning team and I hope to go on winning”.<br />
<br />
Mark Cueto broke his run of 19 tests without a score and Ashton expressed his happiness for him, joking: “he’s getting on and needs to get tries while he still can”.<br />
<br />
Toby Flood looks to be a new man. Against the Italians he was the play maker and most of the inventive play was initiated by him. His kicking now looks as assured as Jonny Wilkinson’s did a decade ago.<br />
<br />
The forwards, up against the powerful Italian pack, dominated from the start. They have at long last stopped the chronic indiscipline which has plagued their performances over recent years. With the procession of needless penalties which keep the opposition’s score flowing now stemmed, England can now concentrate on their attack.<br />
<br />
59 points did not flatter England and it was only the Italian’s obstinate pride which stopped the score being even greater.<br />
<br />
<strong>England:</strong><br />
15 Ben Foden; 14Chris Ashton; 13 Mike Tindall (capt); <br />
12 Shontayne Hape; 11 Mark Cueto; 10 Toby Flood; 9 Ben Youngs; <br />
1 Alex Corbisiero; 2 Dylan Hartley; 3 Dan Cole; 4 Lois Deacon; 5 Tom Parker; <br />
6 Tom Wood; 7 James Haskell; 8 Nick Easter.<br />
<br />
<em>Replacements</em>: Steve Thompson (49 for Hartley); David Wilson (62 for Cole); <br />
Simon Shaw (45 for Deacon); Hendry Fourie (62 for Wood);<br />
20 Danny Care (55 for Youngs); 21 Jonny Wilkinson (55 for Flood); <br />
22 Matt Banahan (49 for Cueto).<br />
<br />
<strong>Italy:</strong><br />
<br />
5 Luke McLean; 14 Andrea Masi; 13 Gonzalo Canale; <br />
12 Alberto Sgarbi; 11 Mirco Bergamasco; 10 Luciano Orquera; 9 Fabio Semenzato; <br />
1 Salvatore Perugini; 2 Leonardo Ghiraldini; 3 Martin Castrogiovanni; <br />
4 Carlo Antonio Del Fava; 5 Quintin Geldenhuys; 6 Valerio Bernabo; 7 Alessandro Zanni;<br />
8 Sergio Parisse (capt).<br />
<br />
<em>Replacments:</em> 16 Fabio Ongaro (66 for Ghiraldini); <br />
17 Andrea Lo Cicero (49 for Bernabo); 18 Santiago Dellape (46 for Del Fava); <br />
19 Robert Barbieri (56 for Lo Cicero); 20 Pablo Canavosio (78 for Parisse); <br />
21 KrisBurton (79 for McLean); 22 Gonzalo Garcia (62 for Sgarbi).<br />
<br />
<strong>Referee:</strong> Craig Joubert (South Africa).Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8006780109919957474.post-32653307557690363142011-02-12T00:38:00.001+00:002011-02-12T00:44:15.767+00:00The emergence of Social LiberalismFor a recent essay I had to answer the question <em>'was the new Liberalism simply a response to the emergence of socialism?</em>' Here is a precis of some of the more interesting aspects:<br />
<br />
Liberalism’s evolution during the latter half of the Nineteenth Century can be defined as what John Stuart Mill describes the ‘struggle between liberty and authority’. He argued that individuals should be free from the state, provided they do not harm another’s liberty; they should even be free from control if they cause harm to themselves.<br />
<br />
Mill went on to warn against the consensus of majorities and assumed wisdom within society, which he believed leads to an assumption of infallibility in dominant ideas and a suppression of free thought. Mill suggests that this creates conformity which stifles progress, and therefore that individualism is desirable in society.<br />
<br />
William Gladstone’s Liberalism was characterised by support for free trade, mistrust of imperialism and a desire that the ‘state withdraw where it had no business to meddle’. As the ‘franchise’ extended and clerical workers gained political influence, the Liberal Party became divided between the conflicting interests of property and supporters for various reforms.<br />
<br />
The party’s politicians became more concerned with notions of rights and justice; the Radicals were particularly interested in social equality, ending Britain’s urban deprivation and extreme poverty. Gradually during this period British Liberalism evolved from being predominantly the champion of individual rights, to an ideology which was concerned for the rights of the many, leading to the first elements of welfare.<br />
<br />
New Liberalism somewhat evolved from the progressive Liberals desire to reunite the Liberal Party with a socialistic and individual liberty agenda. However they rejected socialist theory in its ‘universal’ application as they were deeply sceptical of the Labour Party, which they believed to be uninterested in the rights of the individual.<br />
<br />
The economist John Hobson’s work became influential with the Progressive Liberals as he argued for a new economic strategy which sought for the government to take a greater role managing both the public’s consumption, as well as encouraging the public to save. This would ultimately lead to a shift in ideology for the Liberal Party, away from a Laissez-fair to more interventionist policies. <br />
<br />
Hobson went on to argue that he believed that there were ‘compatibilities’ between socialism and Liberalism, however he did not believe there were ‘interconnections’. He believed that the ideologies of Liberalism, which take personal freedoms as its aim and socialism, which to varying extents, seeks to ‘subordinate’ the individual towards a collective state effort are not as contradictory ideals as they may appear on first inspection. Hobson thought that a compromise which could unite these two ideologies of the individual and the state, could lead to a ‘rationalisation’ of capitalism and build a more ‘cooperative’ society in Britain.<br />
<br />
Leonard Hobhouse’s vision of a Liberal rationalisation became known as ‘social liberalism’ and was designed as an answer to the philosophical issue of whether any connection between Liberalism and socialism existed in reality. Hobhouse argued for three principles of ‘rational reconstruction’. These consisted of an effective social system, the liberation of individuals, and a ‘philosophic socialism’ which sought a government which operated for the ‘common good’.<br />
<br />
The Twentieth Century has paradoxically seen Liberalism decline across most of the world as a political force exclusive to Liberal Parties; whilst liberalism has become the dominant background theory which pervades political thought across the political parties and is now the accepted ideological framework for most modern societies.<br />
<br />
It is to this curious contradiction that ‘new’ or ‘social’ Liberalism developed, being characterised by a strong moral and social ethos, concerned that society reflects the efforts of individuals and eliminates illegitimate advantage. There is a desire for fairness and welfare; but with a central theme of supporting the moral significance of the individual. There can be no liberty, if the individual does not have decent housing, is not given a good education, and is not protected from exploitation. This new Liberalism accepts the intervention of the state, to provide fair conditions so that every individual has the opportunity to enjoy and explore their liberty. <br />
<br />
This therefore perhaps explains the peculiar situation in Britain, whereby political parties of the ‘left’ and ‘right’ appeal to the ‘centre’ in general election campaigns; as the public now feel so secure in their liberty that they believe that so long as these freedoms are not challenged, then a party which is defined by personal freedom is somewhat irrelevant.<br />
<br />
It is inaccurate and simplistic to describe new Liberalism as simply a response to socialism. New Liberalism is influenced by similar aims and shares the principles of equality and social justice with socialism; however its abhorrence of authoritarianism and class conflict combined with a strong belief in liberty with individual personal freedom, creates a coherent and independent political ideology which is in itself distinct from socialism.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8006780109919957474.post-68341679227385332092010-12-09T22:24:00.001+00:002010-12-09T23:14:01.813+00:00Do the Lib-Dems need media tuition?Ed Miliband recently told Labour MPs that being in opposition is crap. After 60 years out of office, many Liberal Democrats would no doubt sympathise with that sentiment, but it has to be said, that being a Liberal Democrat has lately been a bit crap too. <br />
<br />
On the whole, I have been fairly pleased with the Coalition, which has delivered a number of policies I have wanted to see for some time: from a less authoritarian state, taking low paid workers out of tax, reform of political institutions, changes to the benefit system, prison reform, to the pupil premium. For the party which finished third in the General Election, this is a good return.<br />
<br />
Tuition fees however, is the hot topic which looks likely to cause the Lib-Dems serious and long term political damage. This is especially galling, because the policy negotiated has some really positive aspects. If the Coalition had bothered to ‘go on the offensive’ rather than talking to themselves, then the spin from Labour and the NUS could have been exposed.<br />
<br />
Aaron Porter: President of the NUS, member of the Labour Party, and if he follows the path of many of his predecessors, recipient of a safe Labour seat sometime in the not too distant future, has been eager to play down any progressive elements of the policy Instead he chooses to express it in as much inflammatory language as he can muster. The NUS have proposed a graduate tax, (as have I), but they have not explained to students that they would pay as much, if not more, under such a system. In essence, both systems are virtually identical.<br />
<br />
The problem for the Lib-Dems is not that they are proposing this policy, but that they were naive enough to sign those NUS pledges. The leadership desperately tried to discard the albatross of scrapping tuition fees, on the grounds that it was impossible to implement in the real world of government. But the Lib-Dems are democratic, and activists insisted they kept this policy – it was popular on the door steps and they were realistically unlikely to get into government. The leadership made the same assessment and the MPs signed the NUS pledges. The fact is that the Lib-Dems did get into government and now have been ‘mugged’ by the realities of power.<br />
<br />
Let’s be clear. If Labour had won the election, they would be implementing this exact same policy. They promised there would be no tuition fees in 1997, won the election and brought in tuition fees. They promised they would not bring in top-up fees in 2001, won the election and gave us top-up fees. They created the Browne Report, to push the decision to raise fees until after the election, and a graduate tax was not even part of its remit. Under Labour, the Browne Report’s only possible recommendation could have been to raise fees. Labour’s policy now, is rank and naked opportunism – they have twice made election promises about higher education funding, and then broke them whilst in majority governments. They now are pillorying the Lib-Dems for not keeping to their manifesto commitment, as the party which finished third in the General Election. <br />
<br />
How Clegg must regret those pledges. It feeds the strong narrative in the leftish media of ‘Tory cuts and spineless Liberal lickspittles’, or simply the ‘Con-dems’. The Tories are indifferent about all this, they are supported by the vast majority of the media, but for the Lib-Dems this is damaging. Much of this could have been avoided by better leadership; talking to the voters rather than concentrating on Coalition management and the party taking better control of its media image. The Lib-Dems are still operating as a second opposition, not as a Coalition partner in government and if this does not change soon, the Labour spin machine will crush them.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8006780109919957474.post-39600375195393547292010-10-21T19:53:00.002+01:002010-10-27T08:31:40.817+01:00Cuts: This is just the begining<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So we have now had the Comprehensive Spending Review. Gideon has swung his axe - with half a million public service workers set to lose their jobs and perhaps another half a million jobs at risk in the private sector. There has been an interesting game going on in the media, trying to pin down just who exactly is responsible for the position the UK now finds itself in.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Coalition tells us it was all Labour's fault; they were profligate with public money during a boom. Labour on the other hand, say that the Tories are cutting for ideological reasons; they want a smaller state and are making the cuts for this reason alone. The Trade Unions say that this mess was caused by the banks; the banks created this crisis and it is public service workers who are paying the price.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">For the state to do something it needs money and therefore must raise taxes. Historically, governments have been able to gather slightly less than 40% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Conservative, as well as Labour governments have tried to increase this tax yield from time to time without success. They ultimately failed due to tax revenues reducing during recessions. Government spending over this period has been generally slightly higher than 40 % of GDP, and during Gordon Brown’s tenure, this rose to 48% of GDP. Some of this rise is directly due to the recession and some the ‘stimulus package’, introduced as an emergency measure to stop this recession spiralling into a depression. If we ignore this spending, there is still a 6% difference between what the government raises and what it spends, known as the ‘structural deficit’. This does not include PFIs or the bank bailouts, which are conveniently not on the government’s books.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There is a valid argument that Labour needed to run this structural deficit to repair the public services and infrastructure following 18 years of Thatcherite neglect. How well Labour spent its money is a contentious issue. Sir Philip Green’s review of government spending makes for interesting reading, and his conclusion that there was extravagant waste is supported by a decade of Private Eye articles.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There is a much deeper problem facing public services and government spending in the UK, which politicians have occasionally mentioned over the last 20 years, but have failed to properly address. We have an ageing population. The generation of ‘Baby Boomers’ are now approaching retirement and collecting their state pensions. As they leave work taxes will fall and government spending will rise. If we are to keep our pensioners out of poverty, then we will have to pay an ever larger slice of tax revenue on the state pension. This will mean that governments will have to do much less in other areas or take a lot more in taxes from a smaller working population.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What we have come to expect as the Welfare State has been facing this impasse from almost its creation, yet repeated governments have not faced the issue. I was taught about greying populations in a GCSE geography lesson in 1993, with all its obvious economic implications. It is perhaps the greatest weakness of democracy that politicians will always follow the path of least resistance. You don’t get many votes telling people the truth, asking for more money or reducing benefits. The politicians and the voters have instead thought only in the short term, preferring tax cuts and empty rhetoric about world class public services full of consumer choice. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The banking crisis was the trigger, but it is not as the unions are arguing, the cause of this mess. Blame lies with successive governments who have failed to reasonably prepare for an easily predicted problem. They were aided and abetted by a generation who have taken from the Welfare State, without adequately paying towards its sustainability. Their children and their grandchildren will have to pay higher taxes for inferior public services. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This spending review is merely the tip of the iceberg. The state will be reduced and the UK population is going to have a bleak few decades to endure. Many Tories will take pleasure in shrinking the size of the state, but where are the other options? They will probably go too far, too quickly, and we will need to be vigilant in protecting the most vulnerable in society and the most cherished of our public services. It is certainly unlikely to be fair and we are definitely not all in this together – however there seems to be few viable alternatives available. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8006780109919957474.post-13100850061171983492010-10-10T22:35:00.004+01:002010-10-12T10:32:44.838+01:00Forget the cuts: tuition fees will be the first test of the Coalition’s resolve<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yesterday the Lib-Dem membership received an e-mail from Vince Cable ruling out <em>“a pure graduate tax”</em>, adding that <em>“while it is superficially attractive, an additional tax on graduates fails both the tests of fairness and deficit reduction”. </em></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What this actually amounts to, is that despite the best efforts of Vince and David Willetts, the Treasury would not wear a graduate tax. It was always going to be tough to get a ‘tax’ past the Conservatives, especially one which would disproportionately affect upper middle-class families. It would have also been difficult, as there would be an interim period between tuition fees being phased out and graduate tax funding paying into the system.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Vince cited three problems of a graduate tax, which he maintains would make it unviable. Some graduates would end up paying more than the cost of their education; UK taxes would not be able to be collected from foreign students; and a graduate tax would not help reduce the deficit over the next five years.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The first two reasons do not seem particularly insurmountable. I suspect that it would only be a minority of graduates on obscene salaries who would pay “<em>many times more than the cost of their course”.</em> Foreign students could pay the cost of their studies, in full, upfront. However it is the last problem which has decided government policy, a graduate tax would indubitably add to government spending over this parliament - but it would be progressive in the longer term. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Quite how this fits with <a href="http://www.libdems.org.uk/latest_news_detail.aspx?title=Nick_Clegg_delivers_speech_on_social_mobility&pPK=38cf9a88-0577-403e-9dcb-50b8e30ed119">Nick Clegg’s speech</a> on the 18th of August, where he said: <em>“governing for the long-term means thinking not only about the next year or two, or even the next parliamentary term. Governing for the long-term means recognising that the decisions of one generation profoundly influence the lives and life chances of the next”</em>, is anyone’s guess.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This announcement will be of serious concern for the 57 Lib-Dem MPs, 54 of whom including Nick Clegg and Vince Cable, signed the <a href="http://www.nus.org.uk/News/News/Lib-Dem-and-Labour-MPs-would-vote-together-to-oppose-tuition-fee-rise/">NUS pledge</a> to oppose any rise in tuition fees. If a graduate tax is dismissed, then tuition fees will undoubtedly have to rise, with some <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/oct/10/tuition-fees-students-overseas-universities">reports</a> of students being charged £10,000 a year. Each of those MPs will have to decide whether abstaining will honour that pledge, or whether they will have to vote against the government. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This is a major headache for the Lib-Dem leadership, and if it is not handled well, Nick and Vince may find their party in open revolt. The abolition of tuition fees is a policy which has support from virtually all activists and by signing the NUS pledge, the MPs have no space for manoeuvre. They will either be disloyal rebels or proven hypocrites. Either way, this will provide a large stick for their opponents to beat them with.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8006780109919957474.post-77095493955039698642010-09-07T11:12:00.003+01:002012-02-21T23:45:54.785+00:00The hypocrisy of the phone hacks<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The last week’s news has been dominated by moral outrage. From the re-emergence of the <em>News of the World</em> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/04/news-of-the-world-phone-hacking-editorial">phone hacking scandal</a> to Pakistan’s cricket players allegedly <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/sep/02/pakistan-cricket-scandal-suspended">taking bribes </a>in a scheme to rig spot betting at the bookmakers - uncovered, ironically enough, by the <em>News of the World</em>.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The phone hacking scandal was reignited by the <em>New York Times</em>, which claims to have sources who tell them that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Coulson">Andy Coulson</a> (editor of the News of the World at the time and now the Prime Ministers ‘spin doctor’) was not only aware of the practice, but was actively involved in it. It has always struck me as eminently believable that the editor of the paper was unaware of the ‘<a href="http://www.virsanghvi.com/CounterPoint-ArticleDetail.aspx?ID=541">dark arts</a>’ employed by his reporters on some of their biggest stories. He has adopted a position of outright denial and provided that he is telling the truth, all is well – if he is shown to be lying on the other hand, then he is finished.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">All of which is fascinating, not to mention a headache for David Cameron. If Coulson should start sinking in this scandal, he should not expect a lifeline from the Prime Minister. I noted that 10 Downing Street has referred to him latterly as a ‘media advisor’ rather than his grander title of ‘Head of Communications’ which may be a subtle distancing, just to play it safe.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The fact that this story petered out initially is at first a little puzzling. You would think that the rest of the press would unite to strike a blow at the Murdoch Empire and pursue this story relentlessly. The <em>Guardian</em>, the <em>Independent</em> and the <em>BBC</em> have followed the story, but everywhere else an uncomfortable silence resides; which Charlie Brooker so eloquently described in yesterday’s <em>Guardian</em> as ‘<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/06/charlie-brooker-phone-hacking">an elephant in the room</a>’. I’m inclined to believe Brooker’s assumption that maybe it is hard to criticise the dark arts when you have practiced them yourself.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This story now represents a battle between the remnants of independent and left leaning quality news outlets, with Murdoch and his perceived influence with the seats of power. They have perhaps decided to follow <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#Declaration_of_Independence">Benjamin Franklin</a>’s advice at the signing of the Declaration of Independence - that it is preferable to ‘hang together’ rather than ‘most assuredly hanging separately’. They have found a line of weakness that strikes through to both the heart of Murdoch’s media operations and the Conservative Prime Minister whom he has supported and they are determined to draw some blood.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There is however a broader lesson to be drawn from this episode, neatly summed in the old proverb that ‘people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones’. Everyone was quick to condemn Pakistan’s cricketers, but was what they did really any worse than the office worker who helps them self to the stationary cupboard's contents or the plumber who does ‘cash in hand’ jobs at the weekend, other than scale? Was what they did worse than hacking into peoples phones, breaching their human right to privacy in order to sell gossip and tittle-tattle?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Labour leadership candidates have been quick to jump on to this story, but as usual, for the wrong reasons. As long as politicians seek to score cheap points against their opponents in sleaze stories, they should expect their careers ruined when inevitably they fall foul themselves in the future. They would be advised to remember their party’s relentless pursuit of ‘<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scandals_in_the_United_Kingdom">Tory sleaze</a>’ in the 1990s and Labour’s inability to avoid it themselves in the 2000s.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The phone hacking scandal isn’t a political points scoring opportunity – it is about ending a culture where certain journalists believe (or are encouraged to believe) that any means justify the end. That Coulson is now part of ‘Team Cameron’ should be a marginal aspect in this story. It is of more interest that the same organisation which illegally breaches people’s privacy to fish for scoops feels it is perfectly justified in entrapping dumb ‘celebrities’ in its sting operations. Stings have their place in journalism; but t</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">he accompanying sanctimonious commentary by the <em>News of the World</em> when defending its stings and the mealy mouthed response to phone tapping scandal highlights remarkable double standards.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8006780109919957474.post-79185328738386813982010-08-13T17:18:00.006+01:002012-02-21T23:44:49.975+00:00In favour of a graduate tax<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Business Secretary, Vince Cable, and Universities Minister, David Willetts, look to have pre-empted the <a href="http://www.blogger.com/:%20http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browne_Review">Browne report</a> on the future of university funding by declaring their preference for a graduate tax - or ‘contribution’ as they would prefer it to be termed. The disagreement over how higher education is to be funded and where the burden of that cost should fall has been raging for two decades now. Perhaps, if wisely implemented, a graduate contribution could at last settle this issue and provide a fairer method of paying for higher education.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There are three models of higher education funding. The comprehensive system, wholly subsidised by the treasury - as it was in the heady days prior to tuition fees - where all taxpayers contribute. The current tuition fee system; where a student pays an ‘upfront fee’ towards part of the cost of their education. And the graduate tax system where a student pays either part of, or the total cost of their education, over their working life through a change to their personal income tax allowance.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“Why should the bin man pay for the doctor’s education?” was the argument against universally funded higher education, albeit if somewhat paraphrased. I suspect that if the bin man’s life was saved by that doctor, he’d think the money was well spent. However it does also seem a reasonable argument that a doctor, earning a vast salary, should pay back the cost of their education. The increasing number of <a href="http://www.le.ac.uk/economics/to20/greenaway03.pdf">students</a> - four hundred thousand in the early 1960s rising to 2 million by 2000 - has seen the cost of higher education to the state soar. In this ‘age of austerity’ it seems unlikely that we will be returning to a comprehensive system anytime soon – as appealing as that may be to the student body.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">New-labour seemed reluctant to break this universal model, but recognised the cost to the Treasury was untenable. The tuition fee could perhaps be an example of Tony Blair’s “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_(centrism)">third way</a>”, which implied a compromise between left and right wing political ideologies. The problem with tuition fees is that a teacher or librarian has to pay the same amount towards their education as a doctor or stock broker, even though the financial rewards are hugely disproportionate. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">By presenting tuition fees as a loan, rather than as a short term higher tax rate, students from poorer backgrounds are deterred from university due to debt aversion. To the disproportionately large number of public school students in British universities, the tuition fee must seem laughably small when compared to their school fees and constitutes a subsidy to the wealthiest section of British society, therefore acting as a barrier to social mobility.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The merit of the graduate tax is that it does not seem like a debt. In reality of course, it is identical to tuition fees. Both are paid automatically from your wages when you are earning above a certain level. The majority of students are financially better off under tuition fees, but this does not equate to a fair system and does not protect higher education in the long run.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Our higher education establishments require more money to survive and it seems fair that those students who gain the largest financial reward from their studies should pay the most back. Those vocations which require highly trained staff but will never be able to pay wages that reward that educational investment – librarians being an apt example – could be protected. A graduate tax could also enable a level of social engineering by rewarding ‘worthy’ careers – such as teaching or nursing (currently totally subsidised) – by applying a lower rate until their earnings pass a suitable salary mark. The previous government’s suggestion that degrees should be tailored to the market ignored this argument entirely. It seems to me that education should be more than just supplying business with fresh meat as it were. They also have a role to protect Britain’s cultural and intellectual traditions, not just creating legions of lawyers and brokers. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The graduate tax is not without its critics. It has been suggested that it would lead to a ‘brain drain’ as British students will work abroad once qualified to avoid repayment; most students will end up paying significantly more towards their education; and universities will lose direct control of the finances that tuition fees currently deliver to them. The brain drain argument is weak. Britain is an importer of graduates and has been happy to strip the developing world of skilled workers for 50 years. It seems unlikely that the highly paid graduate will abandon the UK on the basis of several thousand pounds repaid over a lifetime of earnings. As already argued, it seems fair that the more a graduate is rewarded on the basis of their qualifications, the more they should pay back to safeguard the future of higher education. The last criticism is perhaps the strongest. A graduate tax can only work if the money raised is ring fenced and ploughed back into universities. As with all taxes, there is always the risk that sticky Treasury fingers will divert funds from their original purpose. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The graduate tax should be a deal between graduates, higher education providers and government. Graduates need to recognise that qualifications in the majority of cases will lead to higher wages over their lifetime, but also offer more than just financial reward. Higher education has the potential to open and develop minds as well as providing the potential to add to our intellectual heritage and contribute to our societal well being. Universities will be financially secure, but must prepare students suitably for the workplace. Government must protect funding and apply a graduate tax in a fair manner which recognises worthy and specialised vocations and see that it is applied in a redistributive way.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Should the graduate tax – sorry, contribution – be applied in the way I have suggested, then I would welcome it. It is certainly better than ever increasing tuition and proposed top-up fees. Most importantly, it will change the perception of higher education as a financial gamble and could then perhaps encourage greater social mobility in this country.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8006780109919957474.post-42397495410589137842010-07-27T23:14:00.001+01:002012-02-21T23:44:24.360+00:00A Tale of Two WarsDavid Cameron and Barack Obama met last week in Washington for their first <a href="http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/Obama-Cameron-Discuss-Afghanistan-BP-at-White-House-98865494.html">bilateral talks</a>. At the top of their agenda was how to extricate themselves from the wars they have inherited. With the announcement of a phased withdrawal from Afghanistan by 2015, it would seem that neither administration is willing to stay any longer than expediency allows. The terrible cost in blood and treasure has turned public opinion firmly against the war, and both will be eager that they do not pay a political price. It is likely that Iran and North Korea also formed part of their discussions, but both men would do well to learn the lessons that their predecessors provided and should be wary of any future interventionist adventures.<br />
<br />
In 1989 the world changed. The Berlin Wall was torn down, bloodless revolutions swept Central and Eastern Europe and by 1991 Boris Yeltsin rode on a tank into Red Square. The Cold War dissolved with the preconceptions of how global politics worked. The problem with this post-cold war idyll was that it took from our governments their raison-d’être, as leaders of the ‘free’. Into this vacuum entered Tony Blair, whose path to interventionism it would seem was initially an organic one. British troops were sent to <a href="http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA475595">Sierra Leone</a> to free UK hostages from the rebel forces, but once on the ground they quickly realised they could end the civil war with ease, and did so, apparently without explicit government consent. Buoyed by this success, Blair turned his attention to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War">Kosovo</a> and led Bill Clinton’s America reluctantly to the conflict. It is hard to criticise either of these interventions, and in so far as any wars can be called good, these were. <br />
<br />
After Kosovo, Mr Blair became a firm believer in interventionism as a force for good and when George W Bush’s hawkish Republican administration took office in 2001, he found a leader who shared this world view. The Republicans dreamt of creating a global democratic free-market utopia and they believed that US military power should be deployed to impose it, especially in the troublesome Middle East. The Muslim hardliners who preached of ‘The Great Satan’ - with its imperialist pretensions in the Arab world - felt vindicated and Bin Laden attacked the Twin Towers. The philosopher John Grey, in <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Al-Qaeda-What-Means-Modern/dp/0571220355">Al Qaeda and What It Means to Be Modern </a>suggests that the ideologies of both the Western interventionists and Al Qaeda were born of contradictions and false premises - nonetheless they led us to war.<br />
<br />
In his polemic three part documentary, <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4933960062431353720#">The Power of Nightmares,</a> Adam Curtis argues that the ‘war on terror' lies largely in the imagination of our elites as a post cold war narrative, and the resultant actions of British and American foreign policy have made the world less safe than it was before. He believes that Western governments were emasculated by the ending of the cold war, but by deluding themselves of a global terrorist nightmare and saving us from it - they could become powerful once more. The real threat to Britain lies in the disenfranchisement of youth from minority ethnic Europe, the oppression of Palestine, the manipulation of Pakistan, the nation building in Afghanistan and that we have ended up fighting a morally dubious conflict as part of a deeply misguided post colonial doctrine. These actions have created a discontented Islamic world, and a minority have been drawn to violence - but to characterise this as a replacement threat equal to the Soviet Union simply does not stand scrutiny. <br />
<br />
David Cameron has already betrayed a poor grasp of history, when he described Britain as “<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10719739">America’s junior partner in 1940</a>”; one might have thought an expensive Eton education would have taught him that Britain stood alone in that year - America would not join the conflict until December 1941. It is however a more recent history that Obama and Cameron must learn from if the damage to America and Britain’s reputations in the international community are to be repaired. When Nick Clegg stood at the dispatch box on Wednesday and denounced “<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100721/debtext/100721-0001.htm#10072126001937">the illegal invasion of Iraq” as “Labour’s most disastrous decision</a>”, he may or may not have been materially correct, but he accurately articulated the deeply held view of a great many across the globe. It is a timely reminder that we must face up to what has been done ‘in our names’ to make sure that it can never happen again - and that the rule of law extends not just to citizens but to our leaders as well. <br />
<br />
It would be naive to think endless peace is credible, but I believe that it is fundamental that Britain should only ever fight ‘the good fight’ in the future.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8006780109919957474.post-88436783753112476872010-06-18T14:34:00.004+01:002012-02-21T23:43:50.684+00:00Flaming June<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Well, it’s been over a month since I last wrote a blog; for you see I’ve been busy writing essays, making a radio feature and working extra nights at the petrol station (the things I will do to put bread on the table!). It has certainly been an interesting month and I’ve rued not having the time to pontificate on a number of events. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">My last offering correctly predicted The Supreme Leader’s end and the absurdly titled ‘Rainbow Coalition’ which seemed to exist only in the minds of left leaning daydreamers; however I didn’t guess it would be the Scottish Old Left Dinosaurs who would snuff out such an outcome. It seemed that opposition was preferable to having to compromise with their despised SNP counterparts. It was a remarkable sight, to behold Mandleson and Campbell running like demented schoolboys to the Sky/BBC news circus on College Green, one day fawning over the Lib Dems and then within 24 hours castigating them. It was enlightening to see how our country had been run for the last decade, only for once being conducted in the glare of the TV cameras. This has however provided us with the ‘spectacle’ of a Labour ‘leadership’ contest, which seems to highlight to the uninitiated an amazing lack of talent in the ranks of the party; I have tried to imagine any of the contenders in the role and can only see disaster ahead for those of a Labour bent. We have seen Diane Abbott given her place in the contest, an act which smacked of unbelievably patronising tokenism from the other contenders and it would serve them right if she won. To be fair to Ms Abbott, she at least has a little integrity, which is notably lacking in the others, even though she is woefully unqualified for the role which she seeks. The belief of many Labour activists that when the coalition becomes unpopular, they will waltz back into government regardless of policy or leader, which seems to be somewhat optimistic in my humble opinion. However its endless reassertion in the <em>Guardian</em> seems to provide them succour, so I will wish them the best of British luck with that strategy. </span></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We have also seen BP unleash the greatest environmental disaster on the world ever. Well, the largest to affect a Western country anyway. Who gives a toss that there has been a strikingly similar event going on, unreported for years, in the Niger Delta. Rule one of news – a hundred dead Africans is no news; ninety-nine dead Africans and one dead Anglo-Saxon and it leads the ten o’clock news. Still, this has given the increasingly suspect Obama the opportunity to rant and rave with high hyperbole about this being a new 9/11, and to exercise his barely concealed Anglophobia. Never mind that the rig was operating under licence for BP by an American company; never mind that it was Halliburton (of course it was!) that was responsible for the failed blow out preventer; never mind the criminally lapse US regulatory body, which it would seem didn’t regulate anything other than signing off contracts; never mind the fact that the US is the largest polluter on the globe by a very large margin and have done their utmost to block any attempts to modify their excesses, and that their insatiable craving for oil has caused untold misery across the globe for the last hundred years. Why take an uncomfortable look at yourself, when you can whip up xenophobic sentiment against ‘British Petroleum’ to mask your own impotence in the situation and the subsequent drop in the approval ratings. We’ll ignore the fact that BP is 40% US owned and Britain has been America’s staunchest, loyalist and some would say slavish ally for a century, even when that has meant British leaders damaging themselves to defend America’s interests. We’ll ignore all that, because you’ve got those midterms coming up, oh brave and principled leader of the free.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We also had a mad man go on a killing spree in Cumbria. Whilst this is a thankfully rare event in the UK, it didn’t stop the media going into overdrive, with all its phoney soul searching and seeking answers to unanswerable questions. BBC news24 and Sky take the prize though, for their usual brand of insensitive reporting. Did they really still need to be camped on the street 48 hours later, interviewing people with no connection to the events? Is it only me that finds the mawkish and intrusive way that rolling news treats these events so distasteful? These were real people whose lives were cut short in a brutal way by a man who clearly had severe problems. It wasn’t an episode of Midsummer Murders or CSI. It should be possible to report the news in restrained and respectful manner; I suspect there is just too much emphasis on ratings and too much technology available to these rolling news shits. I half expected a reconstruction of events by day two to star Robert Carlisle as the gunman being stalked by PC Dick van Dyke with Cracker providing psychoanalysis back up, leading to a final confrontation at the top of Scarfell Pike.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now to the much maligned coalition. I am growing somewhat weary of people telling me that the Lib Dems are somehow sell-outs, I have been told we should have, for some reason yet to adequately be explained to me, put the national interest behind some narrow ideological standpoint, which isn’t what we stand for anyway. This probably stems from the woeful and lazy media coverage we have received for the last two decades, where we have unfairly been labelled as Labour-lite. We are now the little-Tories, which of course is equally inane and un-descriptive of our politics. We are a liberal party. That we have areas that overlap with Labour and at the same time with the Conservatives shouldn’t be that hard to grasp, unless you have a very low intellect. We believe in protection for those who have fallen through the gaps of society, we agree with the welfare state (to a degree) and it was the Liberal Party of Asquith, Lloyd-George and Churchill who instigated the state pension, unemployment payments and National Insurance. It was Beverage, a Liberal, who drew up the welfare plans adopted by Labour after the war, and which we have supported ever since. We also deplore bureaucracy, government waste and seek value for money; we believe that the free market is the best way to deliver economic freedom; however that it requires regulation to reduce inequality and to produce stability. Above all else, we believe in personal freedoms in all its forms, the state should be limited in its interference in personal affairs; only to prevent individuals from impeding on another’s freedoms. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As a Liberal, the idea that you can have welfare provision which offers value for money and reduced bureaucracy and that you can have a government which doesn’t spy, pry or dominate individuals, whilst seeking to restrain the free market to reduce the inequality gap doesn’t seem inalienable positions. We have much in common with the liberal wing of Labour and the One Nation Conservatives – at the same time! It would have been just as difficult to form a coalition with Labour, as we Liberals despise the authoritarian Old Left Labourites as much as we despise the ‘unreformed right’ of the Tories. I believe Clegg made the best of the options available to him. We have an amazingly liberal set of policies for the coalition – and for the record, coalition doesn’t mean the Lib Dems have ‘joined’ the Conservatives, it is an agreement between the two parties forming a joint government of Lib Dems AND Conservatives – but the fact remains the country is bust and some unpopular choices will have to be made. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What this will mean for the Lib Dems in the future is difficult to guess, however I strongly believe that any other choice made by Clegg would have led to an even worse outcome. If we lose votes, so be it. If we lose the more demented of our activists, to Labour or the Greens, good riddance. Finally, I would like to counter a repeating charge that the Lib Dems have betrayed Labour supporters, who voted Lib Dem to ‘keep the Tories out.’ As a party, we could not have been any clearer. Repeatedly in the last week of the campaign, Nick Clegg urged voters to not vote tactically: “vote with your heart, for what you believe in” he said maybe a little too frequently. It was Peter Hain, Alistair Campbell, the <em>Mirror</em> and the <em>Independent</em> who urged you to vote tactically – not us.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8006780109919957474.post-24851959128064825182010-05-09T17:57:00.007+01:002012-02-21T23:43:26.514+00:00Uncertain times<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If one thing appears certain in this period of uncertainty, it is that Mr Brown's days are numbered. I have to admit that I have a grudging admiration for the Supreme Leader - his resilience is nothing short of phenomenal. He had to live in Blair’s shadow for thirteen long years, he has faced down a number of coup attempts from his own party, and has suffered a sustained character assassination from the right wing press which most of us mere mortals would have found difficult to survive. By the end of the campaign it was beginning to show on his time wearied face. But the die is cast and the daggers are poised, Mr Brown can fall on his sword or he will be decapitated. For the good of his party and the good of the country and for his own good, he must go.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Mr Brown and Mr Darling will be much better treated by historians than by us, because of the vital job they did stopping this country from folding during the banking crisis, which nearly caused the Western financial system to collapse and which certainly wasn’t Labour's fault. Britain plc came within a hair’s breadth of going bust, something a great many still do not seem to fully grasp and something which we will still be paying for perhaps two decades from now. Our bile should be directed at the bankers who bet the house and lost, taking us down with them and who are now dictating demands for cuts in public services for those of us who bailed them out. Our politics however dictated that Brown and Labour had to take the flak. It is a repeating feature of our history that the British public may be thankful for your services, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they will vote for you come polling day. Churchill was beloved by the nation after the war, but he was still swept away by a Labour landslide. Mr Brown was by no stretch of the imagination Churchill and he was most defiantly not beloved, however he will be shown to be the longest serving and most successful Chancellor in our long history.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The election has delivered the hung parliament that we were vociferously warned about by Ken Clarke and the poisonous right wing press – and so far the sky hasn’t fallen in. Welcome to ‘grown up politics’ everyone, where a fraction of the population aren’t able to exercise a five year tyranny over the rest of us. It is worth noting that Britain and the Vatican City are the only states in Europe to not have a proportional system, so one assumes the rest of Europe are watching the media whirlwind here with mild amusement – or they would be if Greece wasn’t weighing so heavily on their minds.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Lib-Dem bubble was blown by our old nemesis, First Past the Post and when it came to it, the charge of ‘vote Clegg get Brown’ from the Tories and ‘vote Clegg get Cameron’ from Labour, coupled with anti-Tory tactical voting made liars of the opinion pollsters. We increased our share of the vote and those sneering from the Labour ranks should note they got just six percent more than us, or two million more votes from an electorate of forty five million. The Conservatives with two million more than Labour, or four million more than us, do not under any definition have a mandate from the nation.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I have deep, deep misgivings about any suggestion of a coalition with the Tories. I have been impressed by the conciliatory nature of their leadership’s rhetoric since the negotiations, but the vile hot air blowing from the party’s right wing mean that we would get bugger all from Cameron et al, other than sharing the blame for the inevitable savage cuts and punitive tax rises that have to come. I do not think cabinet jobs are in anyway worth the cost without a cast iron guarantee for a Single Transferable Vote PR system – something Cameron cannot deliver. As for a ‘rainbow coalition’, as much as I would like to see it ideologically and as Labour would give us whatever we wanted, it doesn’t seem likely and it would not go down well with the nation. The charge of a stitch up would be difficult to defend.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There is a growing movement for electoral reform, a so called 'purple revolution' which possibly before too long could force this issue out of the politicians’ hands – it has outgrown being simply the ‘third’ party’s concern, there is deep anger and resentment bubbling beneath the surface. The current system is indefensibly corrupt. More people didn’t bother to vote than those who voted Tory. Those of us not voting for red or blue account for 35% of the electorate and we got 85 seats. The Tories got 36% and were entitled to 307 seats, Labour with 29% are somehow allowed 258. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The current system is a Victorian relic which only works in a two party state, something Britain hasn’t been for thirty years. I believe that the whole of our politics needs to be restructured and that it would be beneficial for those trapped in the charade ‘parties’ of Labour and the Conservatives, which are in reality coalitions of competing ideologies. The lurches from left to right lead to instability, each gleefully tearing up the others legislation as soon as the pendulum swings. Society is more complex than this false system and everyone has the right to have their voice heard in a democracy. The real world is one based on compromise, where people have different opinions and consensuses are built. A system where our politicians seem to behave like children is not in the national interest. It is time for Britain to enter the 21st century.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSUKMa1cYHk">Here's John Cleese explaining PR from a 1987 Aliance broadcast.</a></span> <br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The British establishment should be warned, if it thinks that stealing 35% of the electorate’s representation is permissible and that they will keep getting away with it forever, then they are very much mistaken. We will not go away, we will not give up. We demand a fair voting system. Nick Clegg should also be warned, ‘getting into bed’ with the Tories whilst failing to deliver a fair voting system would not be easily forgiven either.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">If you would like a fair voting system please sign the petition <a href="http://www.takebackparliament.com/">here</a>.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8006780109919957474.post-74709560707138309702010-04-28T21:48:00.003+01:002012-02-21T23:42:58.774+00:00Liberal principals<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Reading the newspapers this week, one would be forgiven for thinking that the Liberal Democrats were a collection of unprincipled opportunists, or a gang of miscreants who happened onto the political stage last month, to scupper the old parties ‘battle of ideas.’ This has come from hacks on both sides of British politics and ignores a number of facts which are worth mentioning. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the last general election the Lib-Dems got over a fifth of the vote. They have increased their share of the vote in every general election since 1997 and polling has consistently shown that there is a significant number of people, who given the opportunity of Lib-Dem success, say they would support them. So they have been a growing presence on the political landscape; albeit one hampered by a corrupt voting system, ignored largely by the press, and patronised by Labour and the Tories.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As for the charge of not having an ideology; it’s a bit rich coming from Labour commentators. If ‘new’ Labour has an ideology, it is a particularly muddled and contradictory one. The Conservatives represent what they have always held dear; featherbedding the wealthy, inwardly looking, with fear, loathing and contempt of the poor. ‘People in glass houses’ maybe springs to mind?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The press are clearly worried about this election and it would seem that its influence may be on the wane. We have changed a great deal in the last ten years and the establishment hasn’t kept pace with either technology or the zeitgeist. It doesn’t like what it sees, and it is terrified the old way of doing things may be at an end. We will see a concerted effort to scare the voters back into line next week and the headlines will be interesting on May 6th should the polls remain as they are; who knows whether they will succeed.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As for what the Lib-Dems believe in, I cannot put it any more succinctly than the preamble to the Liberal Democrat constitution (below). Read it, and then tell me that they do not stand for anything, that they don’t believe in anything and that they have no ideological beliefs. It sounds pretty good to me.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><em>Preamble to the Liberal Democrat Federal Constitution:</em></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We look forward to a world in which all people share the same basic rights, in which they live together in peace and in which their different cultures will be able to develop freely. We believe that each generation is responsible for the fate of our planet and, by safeguarding the balance of nature and the environment, for the long term continuity of life in all its forms.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Upholding these values of individual and social justice, we reject all prejudice and discrimination based upon race, colour, religion, age, disability, sex or sexual orientation and oppose all forms of entrenched privilege and inequality. Recognising that the quest for freedom and justice can never end, we promote human rights and open government, a sustainable economy which serves genuine need, public services of the highest quality, international action based on a recognition of the interdependence of all the world's peoples and responsible stewardship of the earth and its resources.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We believe that people should be involved in running their communities. We are determined to strengthen the democratic process and ensure that there is a just and representative system of government with effective Parliamentary institutions, freedom of information, decisions taken at the lowest practicable level and a fair voting system for all elections. We will at all times defend the right to speak, write, worship, associate and vote freely, and we will protect the right of citizens to enjoy privacy in their own lives and homes. We believe that sovereignty rests with the people and that authority in a democracy derives from the people. We therefore acknowledge their right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs and commit ourselves to the promotion of a democratic federal framework within which as much power as feasible is exercised by the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. We similarly commit ourselves to the promotion of a flourishing system of democratic local government in which decisions are taken and services delivered at the most local level which is viable.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We will foster a strong and sustainable economy which encourages the necessary wealth creating processes, develops and uses the skills of the people and works to the benefit of all, with a just distribution of the rewards of success. We want to see democracy, participation and the co-operative principle in industry and commerce within a competitive environment in which the state allows the market to operate freely where possible but intervenes where necessary. We will promote scientific research and innovation and will harness technological change to human advantage.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We will work for a sense of partnership and community in all areas of life. We recognise that the independence of individuals is safeguarded by their personal ownership of property, but that the market alone does not distribute wealth or income fairly. We support the widest possible distribution of wealth and promote the rights of all citizens to social provision and cultural activity. We seek to make public services responsive to the people they serve, to encourage variety and innovation within them and to make them available on equal terms to all.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Our responsibility for justice and liberty cannot be confined by national boundaries; we are committed to fight poverty, oppression, hunger, ignorance, disease and aggression wherever they occur and to promote the free movement of ideas, people, goods and services. Setting aside national sovereignty when necessary, we will work with other countries towards an equitable and peaceful international order and a durable system of common security. Within the European Community we affirm the values of federalism and integration and work for unity based on these principles. We will contribute to the process of peace and disarmament, the elimination of world poverty and the collective safeguarding of democracy by playing a full and constructive role in international organisations which share similar aims and objectives.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">These are the conditions of liberty and social justice which it is the responsibility of each citizen and the duty of the state to protect and enlarge. The Liberal Democrats consist of women and men working together for the achievement of these aims.”</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8006780109919957474.post-50251951059516009392010-04-25T17:47:00.010+01:002012-02-21T23:42:13.504+00:00A very British revolution?<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I’m a member of the Liberal-Democrats, my football team is Newcastle United and I’m a fan of Worcester Warriors in the rugby. I can speak with some authority on false dawns, raised expectations and ultimate disappointments; although on the flip-side it has also taught me to enjoy the good times along the way. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The second leaders’ debate seems to suggest that the increase in the Lib-Dem poll position would appear to have traction, leaving us in second place with Labour just behind and the Tories slightly ahead. But whether that will transfer into votes and how this national trend will play out locally, with all the vagaries of the ‘First Past the Post’ system appears to be quite unfathomable. It has at least been refreshing to see the political map shifted and the conservative press have a collective nervous breakdown.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Labour and the Tories are both clearly surprised and unsettled by the yellow surge, which begs the question why? Was it arrogance, a sense of entitlement or were they just hoping two party politics would always remain, even though we’ve had three party politics for thirty years? The position the old guard find themselves in, is not in itself merely an infatuation with Clegg –a honeymoon which the voters have foolishly foisted upon them caused by the leader’s debates. We may be witnessing something entirely different, a revolution in the grand old traditions of all British revolutions since our bloody civil war – simmering and gradual and bloodless ones being led by improbable characters.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There are many parallels in the 2010 election with the one in 1924 – Britain’s last gentle revolution - Lloyd George had destroyed the Liberal party seeking his own personal power at any cost, there was an amicable toff trying to recast the Tory party from a ‘nasty’ image which was still haunting it and a wily operator casting himself as outsider against ‘the two old parties’ and presenting himself as ‘real’ change. Does that sound familiar to anyone?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I’ve spent much of the last decade wondering what the point of Labour is (and to a lesser extent the Conservatives), in the 21st century. The Labour Party was a rational expression of the socialism that the then large and recently emancipated working classes justifiably demanded. They wanted reform more quickly and radically than the Liberals of the middle classes were offering, and by the 1924 general election they overtook the Liberals to become the dominant progressive force in British politics. The Liberal agenda of individual freedom was swallowed by ideas of collectivism, but have we not now come full circle?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now that old the working class is now largely part of the middle there seems to not be so much desire for socialism anymore - social democracy maybe, but not socialism. This was in my opinion what accounted for the 1983 Alliance splitting the progressive vote causing Labour to have to redefine itself, and if the Falkland’s war hadn’t luckily changed the game for Thatcher, could have ended in a very different result. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The ‘new’ Labour rebrand promised so much, but I think history will remember it harshly for being nothing but a cynical mirage. Blair and Brown built a government which seems to have had only one driving ideological principle – namely to win power and then to cling to it at any cost. They shamelessly bought favour from the right wing press, and whilst promising change to liberal voters, their leadership leapt straight over their heads to the left wing of the Conservative party. They told their core vote to shut up, for they had ended Labour’s time in the wilderness, threw a few bribes to floating voters at elections and failed to deliver much in the way of the progressive policies that the British liberal majority clamours for.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Conservatives – despite their laughable change rhetoric – are exactly the same old Tories they always have been and always will be. They are there for the wealthy, the traditional, the little Englander, the xenophobic and big business, dreaming dreams of non-existent golden yesteryears; in fact all that has changed is that Labour have become unpopular, so they have assumed that means power is theirs to claim again.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Whether the public really want a Liberal-Democratic government is questionable. What, however is crystal clear, is that over a third of the electorate are indicating that they don’t want either a Conservative or a Labour government. They want the Lib-Dems to be there when the next government are discussing cuts, or taxes, and most importantly on political reform – looking over their shoulders and interjecting on the public’s behalf. The First Past the Post system has been shown to be exactly what those of us outside of the duopoly have said it was for decades. It is undemocratic, unrepresentative, corrupt, and delivers this country five year tyrannies that only a fraction of the electorate have voted for. No British government has actually had a mandate since Atlee in 1945.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There needs to be huge and sweeping changes to our system of government. We need to have a stronger and fully elected second chamber. That there are still hereditary peers in the House of Lords is frankly disgusting. That our constitution is so vague and malleable, combined with a corrupt voting system which means that we live in only a notional democracy is utterly unacceptable. In fact we would not be able to join the EU if applying today, as we would fail its democracy criteria. Hooray I hear the right-wingers shout – but even they would have to admit that this is a sorry state of affairs that cannot continue indefinitely? </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I can understand that the Conservatives and Labour (the consequence seemingly has only slowly dawned on Labour this week) want to protect this corrupt system, for strong third parties and proportional voting systems mean an end to them forming elected dictatorships. I passionately believe that a plurality of parties is far more democratic, if over half the electorate vote for a coalition, then it has a real mandate. We could work together, cooperating to get things done and the vested interests would have less influence in our governance. People could go and vote for what they believe in, not for what they dislike least. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A proportional system would ultimately result in a Labour split along the lines of the SDP and old Labour traditionalists. The Conservatives would split along their European divisions and would see the Greens entering parliament. It may well perversely split the Lib-Dems as well. We would see much higher turn out when every vote counts and everyone can potentially make a difference. If nothing else can be learnt from this election, let it be this: when people can see that they have a voice, they become engaged with the political process. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Surely even the most partisan and biased Tory or Labour supporter can see that the time for reform has come? Whether we get that reform this year or not – it will come sooner rather than later – the great British public always get their way in the end.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2