Rupert Murdoch was a candid supporter of Margaret Thatcher’s government, and he appears to remain firmly sympathetic toward the UK Conservative party (his papers The Times and The Sun supported the Tories at the last general election). Vince Cable has just been divested of his responsibility for media competition after, apparently, making effusive anti-Murdoch overtones. Ministerial responsibility for these matters has now shifted to Jeremy Hunt who has variously made pro-Murdoch comments and mooted large cuts in the BBC.
After considering this, one can’t help speculating as to how much this latest development has transpired by design: Cable had voiced his concerns over News Corporation’s bid to increase its ownership of Sky from 39% to 100%, earlier this year, and, I for one, no matter what kind of language is being used, struggle to understand why the opinions given by the likes of Jeremy Hunt are any less subjective (or more objective) than those provided by Cable.
The decision, we are told, is a quasi-judicial one: ultimately, Vince Cable would have potentially been the Judge and Jury on whether the News Corp takeover went ahead. However, if one (the one being the Prime Minister in this case) has the power to appoint the Judge and Jury, and you’re not comfortable about what ruling that Judge and Jury might make, then one, is, of course, going to find another that will make the decision you require.
For the Tories to have The Times pull the kind of sting that the Telegraph did on Vince Cable would have been far too obvious. A clever approach would be to choose another one of your mates in the media that appears more removed from the direct interest. It’s not difficult to work out that the Business Secretary must be feeling very rattled, angry, yet at the same time, vulnerable, at the moment.
So, if you’re a Conservative who, naturally, would rather have a Conservative majority government than share power with Liberal Democrats, you send along a couple of Daily Telegraph reporters, posing as members of Cable’s own party, to exploit his emotional turbulence: eventually he will give you a comment that can be construed as inappropriate and provide the key to getting him removed as the obstacle to securing your agenda.
Wednesday 22 December 2010
Monday 11 October 2010
I'm not Green enough to be shocked..
The report by Sir Philip Green on government expenditure is set to ruffle many a feather, but I for one, am not remotely shocked by his findings. As a former Councillor on Oxford City, I know only too well of the impenetrable silos of public expenditure and how both civil servants and local government officers alike, can be very cleverly evasive at providing any information that would reveal scope for some meaningful savings.
Back in 2001, when I was a member of the LibDem/Green administration, I was sounding like a stuck record with my pressing for zero-based budgeting and my passion for trying to get inside the £140million of Oxford City Council's annual spend. I am under no doubt that savings could have been revealed that would have freed up money to better serve the public and maintain and improve front line services. Suffice to say I did not get very far: some other councillors around me felt very threatened that my understanding was so obviously better than their own and I was not supported in trying to obtain information from officers.
You just need to watch the BBC's interview with Philip Green (see link top right to BBC article and video at the foot of this article) to understand the scope of just how much money could be saved. Green gives a very clear indication that obtaining information on certain expenditure amounts was no easy task: ambiguous answers (if you're lucky to get an answer at all) and the lack of accountable processes are symptomatic of how public money can be used to preserve the mini-empires of some unelected public officials on both local and national level.
This government has got it right in tackling this problem but it does beg the question as to whether, had it been done sooner (i.e. by previous governments), the welfare cuts need to be as severe as they are.
Hopefully, the BBC will leave the video up (see below): watch it, then watch it again if you feel yourself tempted to sympathise with civil servants and local government officers when they start demonstrating and striking over the cuts. Although I believe in the right to demonstrate and the right to strike (workers are merely withdrawing capital like investors did with Northern Rock), I do not believe individuals who's jobs are provided and preserved by your and my taxes have the right to be opaque about how those taxes are spent.
Back in 2001, when I was a member of the LibDem/Green administration, I was sounding like a stuck record with my pressing for zero-based budgeting and my passion for trying to get inside the £140million of Oxford City Council's annual spend. I am under no doubt that savings could have been revealed that would have freed up money to better serve the public and maintain and improve front line services. Suffice to say I did not get very far: some other councillors around me felt very threatened that my understanding was so obviously better than their own and I was not supported in trying to obtain information from officers.
You just need to watch the BBC's interview with Philip Green (see link top right to BBC article and video at the foot of this article) to understand the scope of just how much money could be saved. Green gives a very clear indication that obtaining information on certain expenditure amounts was no easy task: ambiguous answers (if you're lucky to get an answer at all) and the lack of accountable processes are symptomatic of how public money can be used to preserve the mini-empires of some unelected public officials on both local and national level.
This government has got it right in tackling this problem but it does beg the question as to whether, had it been done sooner (i.e. by previous governments), the welfare cuts need to be as severe as they are.
Hopefully, the BBC will leave the video up (see below): watch it, then watch it again if you feel yourself tempted to sympathise with civil servants and local government officers when they start demonstrating and striking over the cuts. Although I believe in the right to demonstrate and the right to strike (workers are merely withdrawing capital like investors did with Northern Rock), I do not believe individuals who's jobs are provided and preserved by your and my taxes have the right to be opaque about how those taxes are spent.
Saturday 26 June 2010
LibDems and CCTV
A short while after the Election, I googled +LibDems +CCTV in order to try and find out more about what how Freedom Bill would affect CCTV. All I can seem to find in terms of the Bill is that it means "further regulation of CCTV".
However, in my search I stumbled across a good few local LibDem websites that report how keenly their local councillors and activists have campaigned in favour of CCTV up and down the country. If you look to the right of the page you will see I have listed a link to all the ones I have found plus a few other links that are both relevant and interesting.
The efforts of all the local LibDem activists that have campaigned for and supported CCTV are laudible and I absolutely agree with them. However, the "Do Gooder" element in the national party must be raising an eyebrow at this as it does not sit well with what I understand to be the party's national policy on CCTV. "Further Regulation" could mean anything from tighter licensing and curbs on authorised use to effective outright prohibition. And by the latter I don't mean legislation to outlaw the use of CCTV, but rather red tape measures (rather ironically) that will make it very expensive or administratively inconvenient to use.
My experience (yes, note I use the word "experience", not "opinion") is that CCTV works. As for civil liberties, I believe it protects them, rather than erodes them. It protects the liberties of those who go about their daily, law-abiding business; it protects property and the safety of those living or working in it. Is not safety, or at least the feeling of it, a liberty?
I do understand and have some sympathy will the libertarian concerns of intrusiveness and spying. But I would rather people were allowed to protect their homes and businesses with cameras rather than guns (the latter being the Libertarian view). After all, if we are talking about civil liberties, I consider cameras far more civil than guns.
So I will await and see what the Freedom bill brings and in the meantime, as the LibDems make their national opposition to CCTV more vocal, it will be interesting to see how many of those webpages I have linked to stay live...
However, in my search I stumbled across a good few local LibDem websites that report how keenly their local councillors and activists have campaigned in favour of CCTV up and down the country. If you look to the right of the page you will see I have listed a link to all the ones I have found plus a few other links that are both relevant and interesting.
The efforts of all the local LibDem activists that have campaigned for and supported CCTV are laudible and I absolutely agree with them. However, the "Do Gooder" element in the national party must be raising an eyebrow at this as it does not sit well with what I understand to be the party's national policy on CCTV. "Further Regulation" could mean anything from tighter licensing and curbs on authorised use to effective outright prohibition. And by the latter I don't mean legislation to outlaw the use of CCTV, but rather red tape measures (rather ironically) that will make it very expensive or administratively inconvenient to use.
My experience (yes, note I use the word "experience", not "opinion") is that CCTV works. As for civil liberties, I believe it protects them, rather than erodes them. It protects the liberties of those who go about their daily, law-abiding business; it protects property and the safety of those living or working in it. Is not safety, or at least the feeling of it, a liberty?
I do understand and have some sympathy will the libertarian concerns of intrusiveness and spying. But I would rather people were allowed to protect their homes and businesses with cameras rather than guns (the latter being the Libertarian view). After all, if we are talking about civil liberties, I consider cameras far more civil than guns.
So I will await and see what the Freedom bill brings and in the meantime, as the LibDems make their national opposition to CCTV more vocal, it will be interesting to see how many of those webpages I have linked to stay live...
Thursday 13 May 2010
We are where we are
And, whichever way you look at it, a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition was going to be the most natural outcome of last Thursday’s result.
Not too many years ago, this idea would have made me very upset: I would have been very vocal about it and I probably would have resigned from the Liberal Democrats over the issue, had I still been a member.
If you’ve followed my previous commentary, you’ll see how I idealised a rainbow coalition before the phrase was being kicked around in the media in the last few days. But, the harsh facts are that the numbers in the Commons barely stacked up to it and trying to control its many constituent parts would have been like herding cats. Just as importantly, public opinion would just not have worn it – and we have to remember that where public opinion is formed from what it reads in the press, 80% of the newspaper circulation in the UK is Conservative with a very big and peremptory “C”.
But, having taken a bit of quiet time to absorb certain aspects of the new Coalition’s programme and the matters over which they have agreed, I have to confess that I am pleasantly surprised.
A very important measure is that to increase the basic personal annual income tax allowance to £10,000 (it is currently £6,475). This is a very progressive tax cut as it most benefits those on modest incomes (save for those, of course, who have incomes of less than £6,475). During 13 years in power, this should have actually been a very natural policy for Labour to implement, yet they failed to undertake such a fundamental procedure towards positive redistribution.
Whilst, I am disappointed that electoral reform will not take the form of ‘STV overnight’, I was really quite surprised to discover that there are plans to transform the House of Lords into a chamber elected by Proportional Representation. This is, at least, a step in the right direction and with more and more of Britain’s political assemblies becoming subject to a fairer voting system (and particularly the House of Lords), the day when the House of Commons finally has to yield to the same must draw nearer, albeit still slower than many of us would like.
When every other elected entity in this country is subject to a fixed term, it is absolutely correct that the House of Commons should finally be subject to the same: notwithstanding that that fixed term should be four years not five. (Either way, and the case being what it is, I have long thought it also the responsibility of electors to support the elected throughout an elected term rather than engaging in the very regular populist orgy of fame-envy that it does.)
These are just a few of the issues from which I take heart and so, despite the fact that 80% of the UK newspaper circulation does its level best to discredit the Liberal Democrats and the other 20% does its best to discredit the Conservatives, and, as I sign off watching the panellists on Question Time at each others’ throats with renewed petulance....
(draws breath)
.... I remain cautiously optimistic.
Not too many years ago, this idea would have made me very upset: I would have been very vocal about it and I probably would have resigned from the Liberal Democrats over the issue, had I still been a member.
If you’ve followed my previous commentary, you’ll see how I idealised a rainbow coalition before the phrase was being kicked around in the media in the last few days. But, the harsh facts are that the numbers in the Commons barely stacked up to it and trying to control its many constituent parts would have been like herding cats. Just as importantly, public opinion would just not have worn it – and we have to remember that where public opinion is formed from what it reads in the press, 80% of the newspaper circulation in the UK is Conservative with a very big and peremptory “C”.
But, having taken a bit of quiet time to absorb certain aspects of the new Coalition’s programme and the matters over which they have agreed, I have to confess that I am pleasantly surprised.
A very important measure is that to increase the basic personal annual income tax allowance to £10,000 (it is currently £6,475). This is a very progressive tax cut as it most benefits those on modest incomes (save for those, of course, who have incomes of less than £6,475). During 13 years in power, this should have actually been a very natural policy for Labour to implement, yet they failed to undertake such a fundamental procedure towards positive redistribution.
Whilst, I am disappointed that electoral reform will not take the form of ‘STV overnight’, I was really quite surprised to discover that there are plans to transform the House of Lords into a chamber elected by Proportional Representation. This is, at least, a step in the right direction and with more and more of Britain’s political assemblies becoming subject to a fairer voting system (and particularly the House of Lords), the day when the House of Commons finally has to yield to the same must draw nearer, albeit still slower than many of us would like.
When every other elected entity in this country is subject to a fixed term, it is absolutely correct that the House of Commons should finally be subject to the same: notwithstanding that that fixed term should be four years not five. (Either way, and the case being what it is, I have long thought it also the responsibility of electors to support the elected throughout an elected term rather than engaging in the very regular populist orgy of fame-envy that it does.)
These are just a few of the issues from which I take heart and so, despite the fact that 80% of the UK newspaper circulation does its level best to discredit the Liberal Democrats and the other 20% does its best to discredit the Conservatives, and, as I sign off watching the panellists on Question Time at each others’ throats with renewed petulance....
(draws breath)
.... I remain cautiously optimistic.
Tuesday 11 May 2010
Phew! Where do I start?
The days since the polls closed and the results transpired have surely proved far more exciting than the election itself: we have not seen the like of this for many a decade at least.
And this is good; it’s all good. Usually a change in party and Prime Minister happens so very quickly that the constitutional process actually gets missed by the masses. Far from what the likes of the Dailies Mail and Express would like to have you think, the deliberations of the last half-week have given an opportunity for the electorate of the country to scrutinise the political and constitutional process, to an extent whereby those of us who are both new to it, and inured to it, have gained an appreciation of it, that benefits us more knowledge about it – and in gaining that knowledge we, the masses, the public, call us what you like, gain power.
So, far from the past few days being a “Sham” or being “Sordid”, they are merely a drawn out feast of our democracy and it is quite right that such a feast should take its very natural course.
That natural course is now reaching its conclusion and, my head tells me, that the conclusion that is being reached is the logical one: a Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition.
This revelation is as difficult for me as it will be for those reading it and who share my staunch Progressive values.
And this is good; it’s all good. Usually a change in party and Prime Minister happens so very quickly that the constitutional process actually gets missed by the masses. Far from what the likes of the Dailies Mail and Express would like to have you think, the deliberations of the last half-week have given an opportunity for the electorate of the country to scrutinise the political and constitutional process, to an extent whereby those of us who are both new to it, and inured to it, have gained an appreciation of it, that benefits us more knowledge about it – and in gaining that knowledge we, the masses, the public, call us what you like, gain power.
So, far from the past few days being a “Sham” or being “Sordid”, they are merely a drawn out feast of our democracy and it is quite right that such a feast should take its very natural course.
That natural course is now reaching its conclusion and, my head tells me, that the conclusion that is being reached is the logical one: a Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition.
This revelation is as difficult for me as it will be for those reading it and who share my staunch Progressive values.
Friday 7 May 2010
The Vote Robbery
What you voted for:
Con 231; Lab 191; LibDem 148; Plaid/SNP 17; UKIP 20; BNP 11; Green 5; Others 9.
What you got:
Con 306; Lab 258; LibDem 57; Plaid/SNP 9; Green 1; Others 1.
Northern Ireland has been excluded for the purposes of this illustration.
OK, so it's a fairly crude application of Proportional Representation - in reality there would still be a slight skew in favour of the larger parties, but nothing like the result we have actually got, which, yet again, and despite having a hung parliament, is still a gross distortion of the actual poll.
It occurred to me today, that providing Clegg doesn't bottle it, I might well be becoming poltically active again, at least on this single issue. Be assured in the event he can secure, at the very least, the promise of a referendum on electoral reform I will be campaigning effusively for a "Yes" vote in favour of adopting a voting system that means every vote counts in every seat.
Con 231; Lab 191; LibDem 148; Plaid/SNP 17; UKIP 20; BNP 11; Green 5; Others 9.
What you got:
Con 306; Lab 258; LibDem 57; Plaid/SNP 9; Green 1; Others 1.
Northern Ireland has been excluded for the purposes of this illustration.
OK, so it's a fairly crude application of Proportional Representation - in reality there would still be a slight skew in favour of the larger parties, but nothing like the result we have actually got, which, yet again, and despite having a hung parliament, is still a gross distortion of the actual poll.
It occurred to me today, that providing Clegg doesn't bottle it, I might well be becoming poltically active again, at least on this single issue. Be assured in the event he can secure, at the very least, the promise of a referendum on electoral reform I will be campaigning effusively for a "Yes" vote in favour of adopting a voting system that means every vote counts in every seat.
Don't come crying to me
If you voted for David Cameron’s Party because you were taken in by the Conservative dominated British media then more fool you. If you thought the recession of the previous few years and the budget deficit was solely the fault of Gordon Brown, I’d struggle not to tell you that I think you are too stupid to be allowed a vote.
However, here we are.
So if you lose your job, and you voted Conservative, don’t come crying to me.
If your mortgage payments soar or your own business suffers as a result of crippling, rising interest rates, and you voted Conservative, don’t come crying to me.
If your household budget gets squeezed because VAT is raised *by* 20% (*yes* by 20%!) on some goods, and you voted Conservative, don’t come crying to me.
If your council tax goes up because of cuts in central government spending, and you voted Conservative, don’t come crying to me.
If your local GP’s surgery or hospital closes, and you voted Conservative, don’t come crying to me.
If you’re a pensioner and you lose your free public transport travel pass, and you voted Conservative, don’t come crying to me.
And if you lose the right to receive free medication for a life-threatening illness and you voted Conservative, don’t, just don’t you dare come crying to me.
However, here we are.
So if you lose your job, and you voted Conservative, don’t come crying to me.
If your mortgage payments soar or your own business suffers as a result of crippling, rising interest rates, and you voted Conservative, don’t come crying to me.
If your household budget gets squeezed because VAT is raised *by* 20% (*yes* by 20%!) on some goods, and you voted Conservative, don’t come crying to me.
If your council tax goes up because of cuts in central government spending, and you voted Conservative, don’t come crying to me.
If your local GP’s surgery or hospital closes, and you voted Conservative, don’t come crying to me.
If you’re a pensioner and you lose your free public transport travel pass, and you voted Conservative, don’t come crying to me.
And if you lose the right to receive free medication for a life-threatening illness and you voted Conservative, don’t, just don’t you dare come crying to me.
Thursday 6 May 2010
So my prediction..?
Well before the day ends, I guess I should at least answer the two questions people have been asking each other for the last month:
1. So what do you think the outcome will be?
And, if people are feeling a little a more forward:
2. Who are you going to vote for?
Sadly, my prediction is that the Conservatives will be the largest single party. David Cameron has, apparently, already intimated that he would be happy to lead a minority Tory Government. If they win a psychological 300 seats, albeit not the 326 needed for a majority, they will surely claim a ‘moral victory’ and mandate to govern. Add all the Ulster Unionists to this figure; subtract Sinn Fein (as they don’t take their seats), the speaker and deputies from the opposition and you can see the figure getting closer to that needed for a real majority.
The polls have been consistently tight throughout the campaign and the Tory lead has widened slightly towards the end. Everything points to them being short of a majority – but by how much?
Another interesting imponderable is would Labour and the Liberal Democrats win enough seats to form a majority coalition? I think that option is now, sadly for me, very much on a knife edge.
Who really will come second and third in the sheer popular vote?
Despite these I fear David Cameron will be our next Prime Minister, though I won’t rule out a cabinet including figures from the Liberal Democrats and others – and I think that will very much depend on the ‘magic’ 300.
There are still a handful of seats that won't start counting until Friday morning as well - so depending on how close the result it, we may not even know until Friday evening! Then, there may well be a weekend of "negotiations" before we see a new Premier doing the ritual posing outside No 10.
In answer to that second question that you’ve probably been asking for a while now, when reading my blogs (and if you haven’t I’m going to tell you anyway): I voted Green.
1. So what do you think the outcome will be?
And, if people are feeling a little a more forward:
2. Who are you going to vote for?
Sadly, my prediction is that the Conservatives will be the largest single party. David Cameron has, apparently, already intimated that he would be happy to lead a minority Tory Government. If they win a psychological 300 seats, albeit not the 326 needed for a majority, they will surely claim a ‘moral victory’ and mandate to govern. Add all the Ulster Unionists to this figure; subtract Sinn Fein (as they don’t take their seats), the speaker and deputies from the opposition and you can see the figure getting closer to that needed for a real majority.
The polls have been consistently tight throughout the campaign and the Tory lead has widened slightly towards the end. Everything points to them being short of a majority – but by how much?
Another interesting imponderable is would Labour and the Liberal Democrats win enough seats to form a majority coalition? I think that option is now, sadly for me, very much on a knife edge.
Who really will come second and third in the sheer popular vote?
Despite these I fear David Cameron will be our next Prime Minister, though I won’t rule out a cabinet including figures from the Liberal Democrats and others – and I think that will very much depend on the ‘magic’ 300.
There are still a handful of seats that won't start counting until Friday morning as well - so depending on how close the result it, we may not even know until Friday evening! Then, there may well be a weekend of "negotiations" before we see a new Premier doing the ritual posing outside No 10.
In answer to that second question that you’ve probably been asking for a while now, when reading my blogs (and if you haven’t I’m going to tell you anyway): I voted Green.
Tuesday 4 May 2010
Oxford and the USA
Oxford and the USA, eh? What’s the connection and the context here you may wonder?
Well, there are two parliamentary seats up for grabs in a few days time and two newspapers that dominate what I like to call the ‘printed media’. Or are there?
There’s no argument about two parliamentary seats: Oxford East and Oxford West and Abingdon. The two newspapers I refer to are “The Oxford Mail” and “The Oxford Times”.
These two “news” papers are in fact, one and the same: one a daily tabloid that does not look out of place next to any other and the other, a weekly compact, former broadsheet, that basically cherry-picks and ‘re-brands’ the stories from the weeks “Mail”. They are, however, both produced by a company called Newsquest, which just happens to be the second largest publisher of regional and local newspapers in the UK. Not content with owning the titles of Oxford’s two “Premier” local newspapers, Newsquest also owns the title, The Oxford Star, the “premier” free advertiser.
In short, Newsquest has a monopoly on Oxford’s printed media.
Newsquest shares its reporters and other resources across its titles, which are not just limited to Oxford, but over 200 local newspaper titles across the UK.
If you’re both surprised and disappointed that the “Oxford Mail” and “Times” aren’t quite the cosy, re-assuring, little examples of local, responsible and investigative journalism you thought they were, then let me re-assure (or rather de-assure) you further: Newsquest is owned by Gannett, a publically traded company based in the United States.
What I am trying to demonstrate here is that our News is fast becoming polarised and uncompetitive – just like every other commodity in our daily lives.
Large Media businesses such as Gannett and News Corporation (the Rupert Murdoch empire) have an increasing and insidiously subliminal effect on the way we think: they have their vested interests – their shareholders.
So before you accuse the likes of the BBC of bias, and profess resentment at paying the licence fee on Facebook groups, remember that it does, thank goodness, remain and represent at least, some competition.
Well, there are two parliamentary seats up for grabs in a few days time and two newspapers that dominate what I like to call the ‘printed media’. Or are there?
There’s no argument about two parliamentary seats: Oxford East and Oxford West and Abingdon. The two newspapers I refer to are “The Oxford Mail” and “The Oxford Times”.
These two “news” papers are in fact, one and the same: one a daily tabloid that does not look out of place next to any other and the other, a weekly compact, former broadsheet, that basically cherry-picks and ‘re-brands’ the stories from the weeks “Mail”. They are, however, both produced by a company called Newsquest, which just happens to be the second largest publisher of regional and local newspapers in the UK. Not content with owning the titles of Oxford’s two “Premier” local newspapers, Newsquest also owns the title, The Oxford Star, the “premier” free advertiser.
In short, Newsquest has a monopoly on Oxford’s printed media.
Newsquest shares its reporters and other resources across its titles, which are not just limited to Oxford, but over 200 local newspaper titles across the UK.
If you’re both surprised and disappointed that the “Oxford Mail” and “Times” aren’t quite the cosy, re-assuring, little examples of local, responsible and investigative journalism you thought they were, then let me re-assure (or rather de-assure) you further: Newsquest is owned by Gannett, a publically traded company based in the United States.
What I am trying to demonstrate here is that our News is fast becoming polarised and uncompetitive – just like every other commodity in our daily lives.
Large Media businesses such as Gannett and News Corporation (the Rupert Murdoch empire) have an increasing and insidiously subliminal effect on the way we think: they have their vested interests – their shareholders.
So before you accuse the likes of the BBC of bias, and profess resentment at paying the licence fee on Facebook groups, remember that it does, thank goodness, remain and represent at least, some competition.
Friday 30 April 2010
Who's family?
Maybe, I’m reading too much into this (and I have alluded to it previously), but one thing that has struck me during this election campaign, and the one same thing that has filled me with some disquiet is constant reference to “families”.
Now, it all depends on how “family” is defined. To give it its most emancipated definition, one could consider it to include any social group, irrespective of either gender mix or domestic arrangements. But I somehow think that what the politicians mean in this context is something rather more restricted.
Certainly, I get the impression that a Family means more than one person living under the same roof. This needs to be further delimited, I think, to exclude dwellings in multiple occupation, yet maybe to include friends, siblings and same-sex relationships.
Somehow, though, I continue to receive the very strong impression that Family means a unit of Mum, Dad, children: a very stereotypical ‘ideal’ of a domestic unit.
Despite the fact, I have the good fortune to have never lived by myself, I feel quite insulted by this. The message I am getting is: unless I can conform to this stereotype, my issues are judged to be of less importance in this election than those of “The Family”.
Now don’t get me wrong. Families (whoever they be defined) of course deserve due consideration when politicians formulate and disseminate their intentions, but not to the detriment of Everyone Else.
A lot of my arguments here are very dependent on the definition of “The Family”. But I think it is fair for me to point out that such a definition has been so very ambiguous (not to say absent) during this campaign (and in fact for some time) that it has been left wide open to both interpretation and offence.
The mainstreams in this election are all guilty of this to varying extents but it is the Conservatives who have put their money where their mouth is with the Couples’ Tax Allowance.
If David Cameron wins on Thursday, I warn you not to be Single.
Now, it all depends on how “family” is defined. To give it its most emancipated definition, one could consider it to include any social group, irrespective of either gender mix or domestic arrangements. But I somehow think that what the politicians mean in this context is something rather more restricted.
Certainly, I get the impression that a Family means more than one person living under the same roof. This needs to be further delimited, I think, to exclude dwellings in multiple occupation, yet maybe to include friends, siblings and same-sex relationships.
Somehow, though, I continue to receive the very strong impression that Family means a unit of Mum, Dad, children: a very stereotypical ‘ideal’ of a domestic unit.
Despite the fact, I have the good fortune to have never lived by myself, I feel quite insulted by this. The message I am getting is: unless I can conform to this stereotype, my issues are judged to be of less importance in this election than those of “The Family”.
Now don’t get me wrong. Families (whoever they be defined) of course deserve due consideration when politicians formulate and disseminate their intentions, but not to the detriment of Everyone Else.
A lot of my arguments here are very dependent on the definition of “The Family”. But I think it is fair for me to point out that such a definition has been so very ambiguous (not to say absent) during this campaign (and in fact for some time) that it has been left wide open to both interpretation and offence.
The mainstreams in this election are all guilty of this to varying extents but it is the Conservatives who have put their money where their mouth is with the Couples’ Tax Allowance.
If David Cameron wins on Thursday, I warn you not to be Single.
Sunday 25 April 2010
Nick this chance, don't blow it.
If you refer back to my article of 8 March, you’ll see it concluded with a prophecy of a Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition being the outcome of the forthcoming election. Comments from figures representing both those parties, and the current state of the opinion polls, strongly intimate that that prophecy is becoming ever more likely.
It will come as surprise to no-one that my preference in a balanced parliament would be for a Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition – in fact a better preference still, would a “Progressive Coalition” of Labour, Liberal Democrats, SNP, Plaid Cymru, SDLP, Greens and Respect (assuming the last two win seats on 6 May) – but that is of course, very unlikely.
Nick Clegg is right to play his cards as close to his chest as possible on this one – particularly as the hand has not yet been fully dealt. However, his comments on today’s Andrew Marr show are worth a bit of analysis. To say that it would be wrong to support a party that came third in terms of the popular vote (i.e. Labour, he assumes) appears fair and logical immediately. But be careful here Nick: whilst the polls make very rosy reading for you at the moment, remember second place in terms of vote share is not yet in the bag for your party. By the token of your argument, were the first and second places to be dealt to Conservative and Labour, respectively, then it should be Cameron and Brown (or their successors) that form the government.
I also believe if the country votes for a balanced parliament then that is just what it should get. The most recent polls actually point towards the Conservatives being the largest single party. This would mean then that the Liberal Democrats would have more sway if they teamed up with Labour rather than the Conservatives: 30% of a coalition with the former, as opposed to 28% with the latter. If I were Nick Clegg, I would feel a duty to the electorate, who had just charged me with the balance of power, to maximise that balance via a sphere of influence. Remember too, that the Conservatives have their, oft-forgotten, automatic buffer: the Unionists in Northern Ireland (including the DUP). So even if, on the face of it, they end up with less seats than Labour, adding a dozen or so Unionists to their tally of seats dilutes any Liberal Democrat power still further.
Whatever happens, the Liberal Democrats must use this opportunity to secure Proportional Representation for the very next General Election after this one and methinks that such an agreement on electoral reform is far more likely to be achieved with Labour rather Conservative – and it should be this consideration, not who comes first, second and third, that should be paramount to the Liberal Democrats’ decision as to with whom they form the next government. I hope to goodness they don't blow it, or compromise, for the sake of a few high-profile cabinet seats - or anything else for that matter...
It will come as surprise to no-one that my preference in a balanced parliament would be for a Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition – in fact a better preference still, would a “Progressive Coalition” of Labour, Liberal Democrats, SNP, Plaid Cymru, SDLP, Greens and Respect (assuming the last two win seats on 6 May) – but that is of course, very unlikely.
Nick Clegg is right to play his cards as close to his chest as possible on this one – particularly as the hand has not yet been fully dealt. However, his comments on today’s Andrew Marr show are worth a bit of analysis. To say that it would be wrong to support a party that came third in terms of the popular vote (i.e. Labour, he assumes) appears fair and logical immediately. But be careful here Nick: whilst the polls make very rosy reading for you at the moment, remember second place in terms of vote share is not yet in the bag for your party. By the token of your argument, were the first and second places to be dealt to Conservative and Labour, respectively, then it should be Cameron and Brown (or their successors) that form the government.
I also believe if the country votes for a balanced parliament then that is just what it should get. The most recent polls actually point towards the Conservatives being the largest single party. This would mean then that the Liberal Democrats would have more sway if they teamed up with Labour rather than the Conservatives: 30% of a coalition with the former, as opposed to 28% with the latter. If I were Nick Clegg, I would feel a duty to the electorate, who had just charged me with the balance of power, to maximise that balance via a sphere of influence. Remember too, that the Conservatives have their, oft-forgotten, automatic buffer: the Unionists in Northern Ireland (including the DUP). So even if, on the face of it, they end up with less seats than Labour, adding a dozen or so Unionists to their tally of seats dilutes any Liberal Democrat power still further.
Whatever happens, the Liberal Democrats must use this opportunity to secure Proportional Representation for the very next General Election after this one and methinks that such an agreement on electoral reform is far more likely to be achieved with Labour rather Conservative – and it should be this consideration, not who comes first, second and third, that should be paramount to the Liberal Democrats’ decision as to with whom they form the next government. I hope to goodness they don't blow it, or compromise, for the sake of a few high-profile cabinet seats - or anything else for that matter...
Thursday 22 April 2010
The Campaign finally erupts..
Half way through then, this looks to be one of the most exciting elections in living history. At last we may see the Labour/Conservative ‘duopoly’ on power, broken. Alex Salmond, leader of the SNP, is quite rightly embracing the idea of a ‘balanced’ parliament – and using a term that, I feel, is far more appropriate and encouraging than ‘hung’.
The Liberal Democrats have already become such an important ‘third force’ in terms of their Westminster representation that it would be futile for either Gordon Brown or David Cameron to try and form a minority administration with the intention of going to the country again nine months later (as happened in 1974). It now does not look beyond the bounds of possibility that Nick Clegg’s party could secure something approaching 100 seats on May 6th: a number that cannot be ignored by the other two or is likely to be sufficiently demolished at a subsequent election.
Despite having left the Liberal Democrats a couple of years ago, this pleases me (although I fear and dread a LibDem/Tory coalition). However, what makes me happier still, is that this all seems to be confounding the ‘old main’ parties, sadly to the extent that you can see the carefully calculated media spin emerging in a desperate attempt to smear Nick Clegg and derail the surge in his party’s support. Their annoyance would be compounded, on election day, by the picking up of seats, hopefully, by the Greens, Respect, a smattering of independents, and less hopefully, by UKIP and, perish the thought, the BNP.
The Scottish and Welsh Nationalists have consistently returned handfuls of MPs (again since 1974) and, with a few exceptions, almost every one won by them in this election will be one less for the ‘duopoly’. (For me, this has an added bonus as I consider the SNP and Plaid Cymru to be very benign centre-left parties.)
With both the Liberal Democrats and other smaller parties being strong in the next parliament, one would hope that we will see them finally able to force the issue of a Proportional Representational Electoral system which, if introduced, thankfully, would see balanced parliaments the norm rather than exception.
Desperate to grab and retain overall power, this scares the Conservatives witless and hence they are leading the campaign against a long-needed breaking up of our two-party state – ironic for a party that is supposed to champion deregulation and the widening of ‘freedom of choice’.
Ken Clarke has been scaremongering that the IMF will be called in in the event of an “indecisive result”. Well, firstly, even if the IMF is involved, which I think it won’t be, this wouldn’t be the first time it has assisted Britain, and here we still are! Secondly, it would NOT be an indecisive result, it would be a DECISIVE one – the people would have decided that they do not want any single party governing the country and they positively want to see some multi-party co-operation. Good!
The Liberal Democrats have already become such an important ‘third force’ in terms of their Westminster representation that it would be futile for either Gordon Brown or David Cameron to try and form a minority administration with the intention of going to the country again nine months later (as happened in 1974). It now does not look beyond the bounds of possibility that Nick Clegg’s party could secure something approaching 100 seats on May 6th: a number that cannot be ignored by the other two or is likely to be sufficiently demolished at a subsequent election.
Despite having left the Liberal Democrats a couple of years ago, this pleases me (although I fear and dread a LibDem/Tory coalition). However, what makes me happier still, is that this all seems to be confounding the ‘old main’ parties, sadly to the extent that you can see the carefully calculated media spin emerging in a desperate attempt to smear Nick Clegg and derail the surge in his party’s support. Their annoyance would be compounded, on election day, by the picking up of seats, hopefully, by the Greens, Respect, a smattering of independents, and less hopefully, by UKIP and, perish the thought, the BNP.
The Scottish and Welsh Nationalists have consistently returned handfuls of MPs (again since 1974) and, with a few exceptions, almost every one won by them in this election will be one less for the ‘duopoly’. (For me, this has an added bonus as I consider the SNP and Plaid Cymru to be very benign centre-left parties.)
With both the Liberal Democrats and other smaller parties being strong in the next parliament, one would hope that we will see them finally able to force the issue of a Proportional Representational Electoral system which, if introduced, thankfully, would see balanced parliaments the norm rather than exception.
Desperate to grab and retain overall power, this scares the Conservatives witless and hence they are leading the campaign against a long-needed breaking up of our two-party state – ironic for a party that is supposed to champion deregulation and the widening of ‘freedom of choice’.
Ken Clarke has been scaremongering that the IMF will be called in in the event of an “indecisive result”. Well, firstly, even if the IMF is involved, which I think it won’t be, this wouldn’t be the first time it has assisted Britain, and here we still are! Secondly, it would NOT be an indecisive result, it would be a DECISIVE one – the people would have decided that they do not want any single party governing the country and they positively want to see some multi-party co-operation. Good!
Monday 12 April 2010
Dumb Fleece and Galloway.
The choice, at least for me, and not just at this election, but generally (‘scuse the pun), and for some time, is between individuals, and not party politics, which I abandoned some time ago. The result of that abandonment is as enlightening as it is refreshing as it is liberating.
Party politics, and the mainstream particularly, is a very malign wolf in sheep’s clothing and a wolf that preys on the naivety of the electorate to the point that it takes all of us for stupid.
We: you and I, are presented with an insulting oligopoly of political choices, protected by an electoral system that is not now even used in the former totalitarian states of Eastern Europe.
The antidote to this fetter on our democracy is for us to treat party politics with the contempt it deserves and pay a little closer attention to certain individuals whom the parties, and the toads in the media, would rather we ignored – and, be assured, they do their damn hardest to ensure we don’t benefit from such a ‘free market’ or ‘competition’ of debates and ideas.
The same is true throughout the world of smoke and mirrors that we live in: deluded into believing we have a wide choice of products and services, in reality we are manipulated and managed by a very small number of very large private organisations.
Ironic then, perhaps, that the monopoly of mainstream political ideas and, moreover, their presentation, is consistently and articulately challenged by one George Galloway.
I have, for some time, made no secret over my admiration for this man and his ability to rile irritate, annoy and dumfound the otherwise torpid and stale cartel of ‘mainstream’ politics.
Whether or not you agree with the substance of what he says (and I agree with much, but not all of it), be under no illusion that what scares the establishment is not his politics, but his style and his ability to inspire people to think outside the box.
For this, he has been labelled as corrupt, as a fraud, and as a demagogue. As if this weren’t insult enough, amongst his critics are those who are guilty of the far more serious crimes of mass murder, and incitement of unprecedented worldwide racial tension, and they escape, scot damn free, from the scrutiny the deserve, by virtue of their membership of a supine majority.
Subverting prevailing orthodox opinion is fundamental to democracy and individual liberty. Those, who today, would like to gag or traduce Mr Galloway, are no better than those, who in previous years, would have denied women the vote and supported the continued criminalisation of homosexuality.
Party politics, and the mainstream particularly, is a very malign wolf in sheep’s clothing and a wolf that preys on the naivety of the electorate to the point that it takes all of us for stupid.
We: you and I, are presented with an insulting oligopoly of political choices, protected by an electoral system that is not now even used in the former totalitarian states of Eastern Europe.
The antidote to this fetter on our democracy is for us to treat party politics with the contempt it deserves and pay a little closer attention to certain individuals whom the parties, and the toads in the media, would rather we ignored – and, be assured, they do their damn hardest to ensure we don’t benefit from such a ‘free market’ or ‘competition’ of debates and ideas.
The same is true throughout the world of smoke and mirrors that we live in: deluded into believing we have a wide choice of products and services, in reality we are manipulated and managed by a very small number of very large private organisations.
Ironic then, perhaps, that the monopoly of mainstream political ideas and, moreover, their presentation, is consistently and articulately challenged by one George Galloway.
I have, for some time, made no secret over my admiration for this man and his ability to rile irritate, annoy and dumfound the otherwise torpid and stale cartel of ‘mainstream’ politics.
Whether or not you agree with the substance of what he says (and I agree with much, but not all of it), be under no illusion that what scares the establishment is not his politics, but his style and his ability to inspire people to think outside the box.
For this, he has been labelled as corrupt, as a fraud, and as a demagogue. As if this weren’t insult enough, amongst his critics are those who are guilty of the far more serious crimes of mass murder, and incitement of unprecedented worldwide racial tension, and they escape, scot damn free, from the scrutiny the deserve, by virtue of their membership of a supine majority.
Subverting prevailing orthodox opinion is fundamental to democracy and individual liberty. Those, who today, would like to gag or traduce Mr Galloway, are no better than those, who in previous years, would have denied women the vote and supported the continued criminalisation of homosexuality.
Saturday 10 April 2010
Back to basic bribery, courtesy of Tories' twisted tax policy.
The Tories have declared plans to give a tax break (and a miserly one at that) to married couples and civil partners and in doing so have unveiled just how committed to short-sighted social engineering they are.
Domestic social units of more than one person would be better encouraged, and maintained, by teaching relationship skills (including parenting) at school and after, rather than trying to cement people together via a financial bribe which, without such skills, can make for misery and trap individuals in abusive relationships.
It is endemic bullying in the form of wilful emotional abuse, in each and every walk of life, that damages the so-called “fabric of society” and not any lack of financial incentive or absence of "message" that the Tories maintain would be sent via such a policy. Tackling this issue is what is fundamental; the deliberate diversion from it: of attempting to manipulate the citizens of this country to dwell in numbers that conform to some cynical ideal of “family values”, is not only futile, but is as outdated as it is sinister.
Domestic social units of more than one person would be better encouraged, and maintained, by teaching relationship skills (including parenting) at school and after, rather than trying to cement people together via a financial bribe which, without such skills, can make for misery and trap individuals in abusive relationships.
It is endemic bullying in the form of wilful emotional abuse, in each and every walk of life, that damages the so-called “fabric of society” and not any lack of financial incentive or absence of "message" that the Tories maintain would be sent via such a policy. Tackling this issue is what is fundamental; the deliberate diversion from it: of attempting to manipulate the citizens of this country to dwell in numbers that conform to some cynical ideal of “family values”, is not only futile, but is as outdated as it is sinister.
Monday 8 March 2010
Those Liberal Democrats
It can't escape one's attention that the general election is looming and the Liberal Democrats, quite rightly, are pointing out what perils lay in store for the NHS if the next government turns out to be a Conservative one. Indeed, there is no doubt in my mind the return of a Tory government will see the end of the NHS as we know it.
However, I am rather at loss to know what to do for the best to prevent what I would consider to be a travesty. I'm certainly not voting LibDem, as I don't trust them for two reasons:
Firstly, I have to grin at their very clever article in a recent communication I received from them in Oxford East News. It cites several newspaper headlines and gives a commentary on the Tory plans to privatise the NHS. But nowhere in this article does it say that the LibDems would not do the same, although you'd be forgiven for thinking, after reading it, that the LibDems are very anti-privatisation.
Why am I making this point you ask? Well, secondly, as some followers of this blog will know, I was a former member of the Liberal Democrats - in fact for nearly 25 years until 2008. In the "twighlight" years of my membership I was privy (as were all members) to a policy paper drafted by Chris Huhne about Public Service Provision, which, of course, dealt with perspectives on the NHS, inter alia. This paper contained very "free market" overtones and I remember distinctly the phrase: "a choice of service provider guarantees quality". Aside from the fact that this notion is just not true, one only obtains a choice of service providers by contracting out to private enterprise.
(Don't get me wrong, I'm don't carry a blanket opposition to private enterprise or the free market - I believe, and always have believed, in a mixed economy, which by definition means that I accept that there are certian industries that should be publicly owned and some private ..but that's another article.)
I attended the conference at which this policy paper was debated, albeit some years ago now, where some members tried to put through a motion that gave a qualification that would have ruled out wholesale privatisation of public services. This motion was defeated on the grounds that 'there was no question of this happening anyway'. Hmmm..if there's no question of it, then why prevent a motion to that effect?
Similarly why can you not find a single sentence in the Oxford East News article that makes it explicit that the LibDems will not privatise the NHS?
The answer to both of these questions is that the LibDems are being very careful not to hold themselves hostage to fortune and this is ever more important for them as the likelihood of a hung parliament at the forthcoming election looks increasingly real. The 'rising stars' of the party will gain a seat on the cabinet of a LibDem/Tory coalition government much more easily without the millstone of such Beveridgite and Keynesian principles around their neck. Such a coaltion, I believe, is well on the cards and will prove to be the next best (or rather, worst) thing to an outright Conservative majority.
However, I am rather at loss to know what to do for the best to prevent what I would consider to be a travesty. I'm certainly not voting LibDem, as I don't trust them for two reasons:
Firstly, I have to grin at their very clever article in a recent communication I received from them in Oxford East News. It cites several newspaper headlines and gives a commentary on the Tory plans to privatise the NHS. But nowhere in this article does it say that the LibDems would not do the same, although you'd be forgiven for thinking, after reading it, that the LibDems are very anti-privatisation.
Why am I making this point you ask? Well, secondly, as some followers of this blog will know, I was a former member of the Liberal Democrats - in fact for nearly 25 years until 2008. In the "twighlight" years of my membership I was privy (as were all members) to a policy paper drafted by Chris Huhne about Public Service Provision, which, of course, dealt with perspectives on the NHS, inter alia. This paper contained very "free market" overtones and I remember distinctly the phrase: "a choice of service provider guarantees quality". Aside from the fact that this notion is just not true, one only obtains a choice of service providers by contracting out to private enterprise.
(Don't get me wrong, I'm don't carry a blanket opposition to private enterprise or the free market - I believe, and always have believed, in a mixed economy, which by definition means that I accept that there are certian industries that should be publicly owned and some private ..but that's another article.)
I attended the conference at which this policy paper was debated, albeit some years ago now, where some members tried to put through a motion that gave a qualification that would have ruled out wholesale privatisation of public services. This motion was defeated on the grounds that 'there was no question of this happening anyway'. Hmmm..if there's no question of it, then why prevent a motion to that effect?
Similarly why can you not find a single sentence in the Oxford East News article that makes it explicit that the LibDems will not privatise the NHS?
The answer to both of these questions is that the LibDems are being very careful not to hold themselves hostage to fortune and this is ever more important for them as the likelihood of a hung parliament at the forthcoming election looks increasingly real. The 'rising stars' of the party will gain a seat on the cabinet of a LibDem/Tory coalition government much more easily without the millstone of such Beveridgite and Keynesian principles around their neck. Such a coaltion, I believe, is well on the cards and will prove to be the next best (or rather, worst) thing to an outright Conservative majority.
Friday 12 February 2010
Pot holes
Last night I vented my spleen a little on FaceBook over a national TV news article which raised my brow somewhat.
The report noted that the recent adverse weather had greatly increased the incidence of pot holes on roads. What irritated me was the "guess who's paying for it" 'sub-headline' followed by summaries of compensation claims by motorists and cyclists for car damage and personal injuries respectively.
My FB comment glibly remarked that everyone should walk everywhere, like I do. (Suffice it to say, not in one of my most erudite frames of mind).
But look, the point, or rather points, are these:
1. Yes, the tax payer has to pay for pot hole repairs. Er, who else? The tax payer uses the road (whether a motorist or cyclist). One could argue, certainly, that the revenue raising for highway maintenance could/should be hypothecated. But nothing, but nothing is free.
2. I take issue with motorists compensation claims for knackered suspension. I stand to be corrected but I have a notion that treasury revenues raised from vehicle licence duty come nowhere close to covering the externalities caused by motoring.
3. Now I cycle very rarely, but (again stand to be corrected) I would have thought a cyclist could spot an upcoming pot hole and manage to avoid it fairly easily?
The report noted that the recent adverse weather had greatly increased the incidence of pot holes on roads. What irritated me was the "guess who's paying for it" 'sub-headline' followed by summaries of compensation claims by motorists and cyclists for car damage and personal injuries respectively.
My FB comment glibly remarked that everyone should walk everywhere, like I do. (Suffice it to say, not in one of my most erudite frames of mind).
But look, the point, or rather points, are these:
1. Yes, the tax payer has to pay for pot hole repairs. Er, who else? The tax payer uses the road (whether a motorist or cyclist). One could argue, certainly, that the revenue raising for highway maintenance could/should be hypothecated. But nothing, but nothing is free.
2. I take issue with motorists compensation claims for knackered suspension. I stand to be corrected but I have a notion that treasury revenues raised from vehicle licence duty come nowhere close to covering the externalities caused by motoring.
3. Now I cycle very rarely, but (again stand to be corrected) I would have thought a cyclist could spot an upcoming pot hole and manage to avoid it fairly easily?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)