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:
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.
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.
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”.
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”.
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.
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.
59 points did not flatter England and it was only the Italian’s obstinate pride which stopped the score being even greater.
England:
15 Ben Foden; 14Chris Ashton; 13 Mike Tindall (capt);
12 Shontayne Hape; 11 Mark Cueto; 10 Toby Flood; 9 Ben Youngs;
1 Alex Corbisiero; 2 Dylan Hartley; 3 Dan Cole; 4 Lois Deacon; 5 Tom Parker;
6 Tom Wood; 7 James Haskell; 8 Nick Easter.
Replacements: Steve Thompson (49 for Hartley); David Wilson (62 for Cole);
Simon Shaw (45 for Deacon); Hendry Fourie (62 for Wood);
20 Danny Care (55 for Youngs); 21 Jonny Wilkinson (55 for Flood);
22 Matt Banahan (49 for Cueto).
Italy:
5 Luke McLean; 14 Andrea Masi; 13 Gonzalo Canale;
12 Alberto Sgarbi; 11 Mirco Bergamasco; 10 Luciano Orquera; 9 Fabio Semenzato;
1 Salvatore Perugini; 2 Leonardo Ghiraldini; 3 Martin Castrogiovanni;
4 Carlo Antonio Del Fava; 5 Quintin Geldenhuys; 6 Valerio Bernabo; 7 Alessandro Zanni;
8 Sergio Parisse (capt).
Replacments: 16 Fabio Ongaro (66 for Ghiraldini);
17 Andrea Lo Cicero (49 for Bernabo); 18 Santiago Dellape (46 for Del Fava);
19 Robert Barbieri (56 for Lo Cicero); 20 Pablo Canavosio (78 for Parisse);
21 KrisBurton (79 for McLean); 22 Gonzalo Garcia (62 for Sgarbi).
Referee: Craig Joubert (South Africa).
Thursday, 17 February 2011
Saturday, 12 February 2011
The emergence of Social Liberalism
For a recent essay I had to answer the question 'was the new Liberalism simply a response to the emergence of socialism?' Here is a precis of some of the more interesting aspects:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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’.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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’.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bookmark this post: | 
|
Labels: liberalism, politics
Thursday, 9 December 2010
Do 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bookmark this post: |
|
Labels: coalition, Conservatives, journalism, Lib-Dems, Nick Clegg, politics
Thursday, 21 October 2010
Cuts: This is just the begining
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bookmark this post: |
|
Labels: pensions, politics, spending cuts
Sunday, 10 October 2010
Forget the cuts: tuition fees will be the first test of the Coalition’s resolve
Yesterday the Lib-Dem membership received an e-mail from Vince Cable ruling out “a pure graduate tax”, adding that “while it is superficially attractive, an additional tax on graduates fails both the tests of fairness and deficit reduction”.
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.
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.
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 “many times more than the cost of their course”. 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.
Quite how this fits with Nick Clegg’s speech on the 18th of August, where he said: “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”, is anyone’s guess.
This announcement will be of serious concern for the 57 Lib-Dem MPs, 54 of whom including Nick Clegg and Vince Cable, signed the NUS pledge to oppose any rise in tuition fees. If a graduate tax is dismissed, then tuition fees will undoubtedly have to rise, with some reports 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 “many times more than the cost of their course”. 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.
Quite how this fits with Nick Clegg’s speech on the 18th of August, where he said: “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”, is anyone’s guess.
This announcement will be of serious concern for the 57 Lib-Dem MPs, 54 of whom including Nick Clegg and Vince Cable, signed the NUS pledge to oppose any rise in tuition fees. If a graduate tax is dismissed, then tuition fees will undoubtedly have to rise, with some reports 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.
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.
Bookmark this post: |
|
Labels: Conservative, David Willetts, graduate tax, Lib-Dems, Nick Clegg, politics, tuition fees, universities, Vince Cable
Tuesday, 7 September 2010
The hypocrisy of the phone hacks
The last week’s news has been dominated by moral outrage. From the re-emergence of the News of the World phone hacking scandal to Pakistan’s cricket players allegedly taking bribes in a scheme to rig spot betting at the bookmakers - uncovered, ironically enough, by the News of the World.
The phone hacking scandal was reignited by the New York Times, which claims to have sources who tell them that Andy Coulson (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 ‘dark arts’ 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.
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.
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 Guardian, the Independent and the BBC have followed the story, but everywhere else an uncomfortable silence resides; which Charlie Brooker so eloquently described in yesterday’s Guardian as ‘an elephant in the room’. I’m inclined to believe Brooker’s assumption that maybe it is hard to criticise the dark arts when you have practiced them yourself.
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 Benjamin Franklin’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.
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?
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 ‘Tory sleaze’ in the 1990s and Labour’s inability to avoid it themselves in the 2000s.
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 the accompanying sanctimonious commentary by the News of the World when defending its stings and the mealy mouthed response to phone tapping scandal highlights remarkable double standards.
The phone hacking scandal was reignited by the New York Times, which claims to have sources who tell them that Andy Coulson (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 ‘dark arts’ 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.
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.
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 Guardian, the Independent and the BBC have followed the story, but everywhere else an uncomfortable silence resides; which Charlie Brooker so eloquently described in yesterday’s Guardian as ‘an elephant in the room’. I’m inclined to believe Brooker’s assumption that maybe it is hard to criticise the dark arts when you have practiced them yourself.
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 Benjamin Franklin’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.
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?
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 ‘Tory sleaze’ in the 1990s and Labour’s inability to avoid it themselves in the 2000s.
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 the accompanying sanctimonious commentary by the News of the World when defending its stings and the mealy mouthed response to phone tapping scandal highlights remarkable double standards.
Bookmark this post: |
|
Labels: Andy Coulson, David Cameron, journalism, News of the World, Pakistan cricket scandal, phone hacking scandal, politics
Friday, 13 August 2010
In favour of a graduate tax
The Business Secretary, Vince Cable, and Universities Minister, David Willetts, look to have pre-empted the Browne report 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.
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.
“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 students - 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.
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 “third way”, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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 students - 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.
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 “third way”, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bookmark this post: |
|
Labels: David Willetts, graduate tax, tuition fees, universities, university funding, Vince Cable
Tuesday, 27 July 2010
A Tale of Two Wars
David Cameron and Barack Obama met last week in Washington for their first bilateral talks. 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.
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 Sierra Leone 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 Kosovo 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.
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 Al Qaeda and What It Means to Be Modern 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.
In his polemic three part documentary, The Power of Nightmares, 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.
David Cameron has already betrayed a poor grasp of history, when he described Britain as “America’s junior partner in 1940”; 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 “the illegal invasion of Iraq” as “Labour’s most disastrous decision”, 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.
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.
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 Sierra Leone 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 Kosovo 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.
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 Al Qaeda and What It Means to Be Modern 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.
In his polemic three part documentary, The Power of Nightmares, 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.
David Cameron has already betrayed a poor grasp of history, when he described Britain as “America’s junior partner in 1940”; 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 “the illegal invasion of Iraq” as “Labour’s most disastrous decision”, 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.
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.
Bookmark this post: |
|
Labels: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, cold war, David Cameron, George W Bush, illegal war, Iraq War, Nick Clegg, politics, Tony Blair
Friday, 18 June 2010
Flaming June
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Mirror and the Independent who urged you to vote tactically – not us.
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 Guardian seems to provide them succour, so I will wish them the best of British luck with that strategy.
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.
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.
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.
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 Mirror and the Independent who urged you to vote tactically – not us.
Bookmark this post: |
|
Labels: 2010 general election, alistair campbell, Barack Obama, BP, coalition, Conservative, journalism, Labour, Lib-Dems, Nick Clegg, peter hain, peter mandleson, politics, USA
Sunday, 9 May 2010
Uncertain times
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Here's John Cleese explaining PR from a 1987 Aliance broadcast.
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.
If you would like a fair voting system please sign the petition here.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Here's John Cleese explaining PR from a 1987 Aliance broadcast.
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.
If you would like a fair voting system please sign the petition here.
Bookmark this post: |
|
Labels: David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Hung parliament, Labour, Lib-Dems, Nick Clegg, prison, proportional representation, stv, Tories
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
