Over the past few days we've seen in lurid form the benefits of having a calm long term strategy. If you're not a cricket fan it resides in an urn three inches high or you could just youtube the sprinkler dance. Two years ago England were about to lose to the West Indies, a historic power but one who are essentially absolutely awful. England didn't panic, they appointed a new leader to take them in a new direction (fnarr fnarr) that embraced the players that they had and the side that they wanted to be.
Ed Milliband has found himself in a similar situation. An electorate who rejected his party for a bloke who thinks cans of Guiness are an acceptable alternative to draft. A party that's restless and enough daft snipers to give a troop of clowns laser polka dot suits. So far in my view he's done brilliantly. Allowed those of us on the left to protest and describe the full horror of the governement's position without jumping himself, not criticising those with legitimate grievances and generally being a decent human being. If the Labour Party is to recover it must come from those protesting now, or those who moan in pubs and feel genuinely hurt by this terrible government. However to jump in now and form policy based on what are still ideas and movements still in their genesis would be daft. To wait and see what good ideas, political positions* and good old fashioned hard work comes out of the new movements that are fighting the battles now is not only sensible politics it's the only way to rebuild consensus between those who've been wronged and beat the Tories.
*Of course many will be old political ideas but they need to be tested worked on and find their relevance.
Friday, 7 January 2011
Monday, 27 December 2010
When Is A U-Turn a U-Turn?
One of the most famous though pernicious political phrases is 'the U-Turn'. It is pernicious because it generalises where one shouldn't, ad famous because it happes so bloody often. Commonly the word 'U-turn' carries with it negative connotations. It doesn't have to but often should. A u-turn is an admission that you were wrong because of the inevitable and, in some cases correct, chorus of 'Well if you're wrog about this the what else are you wrog about?. Governments struggle to do this, yet they are made up of humans who make these mistakes. So here it is; a brief guide to the U-Turn.
1. A Promise U-Turn: Not a U-Turn in the strict sense but more often known as a 'broken promise'. Not a disaster so long as its managed well. Politicians break manifesto pledges and 'aspirations' all the time and there are many good reasons for this, the most oft cited being variations on 'changed circumstances'. Oppositions will attack you for these but it only is a huge problem if a) You break a totemic promise or b) The broken promises become so many that your untrustworthiness becomes a theme. a) Is currently a problem for the Lib Dems and b) became a problem for New Labour and seems to be becoming one for the coalition.
2.The Implementation U-Turn: Soon to be known as a 'Govian Not'. This will likely be on a small element of a wider policy. Take saving money from schools or the NHS, or implementing a new law. In the rush to save money/solve a social problem bad decisions will inevitably be made which hurt specific groups or whose wider implications create worse publicity or results than expected. The government will state that they have 'listened to concerns' and have reconsidered. More damaging to the individual minister involved who looks a bit of a fool having defended the policy then apologising than the government. A clever PM can even overrule a minister and gain kudos from this. Beware using these too often however as too many lave you looking indecisive, and involves you admitting you were wrong in the first place, however virtue is probably on the side of the turner here.
3.The Destruction Derby: In this amusing 1990s playstation game you gained points by winning races and smashing up cars. If you were losing by a long way it became more profitable to reverse your direction and smash up all the other cars, at the cost of your own. This is the worst type of U-Turn that can wreck a government. Gordon Brown had 2, the election that never was and the 10p tax band. John Major's government had Black Wednesday and the Poll Tax (shared with Thatcher). This occurs when a government's policy is such a failure that it is forced to destroy its own credibility by reversing a flagship policy already implemented as the alternative is even worse. For the current government this would be the reversal of their deficit reduction plan, or a breakdown in social cohesion on such a grand scale that it forced them to change tack (think huge crime increases, more in poverty, NHS struggling to cope.). Difficult but not impossible to recover from: if you can salvage enough points from wrecking the opposition you could still squeak in a la 1992.
1. A Promise U-Turn: Not a U-Turn in the strict sense but more often known as a 'broken promise'. Not a disaster so long as its managed well. Politicians break manifesto pledges and 'aspirations' all the time and there are many good reasons for this, the most oft cited being variations on 'changed circumstances'. Oppositions will attack you for these but it only is a huge problem if a) You break a totemic promise or b) The broken promises become so many that your untrustworthiness becomes a theme. a) Is currently a problem for the Lib Dems and b) became a problem for New Labour and seems to be becoming one for the coalition.
2.The Implementation U-Turn: Soon to be known as a 'Govian Not'. This will likely be on a small element of a wider policy. Take saving money from schools or the NHS, or implementing a new law. In the rush to save money/solve a social problem bad decisions will inevitably be made which hurt specific groups or whose wider implications create worse publicity or results than expected. The government will state that they have 'listened to concerns' and have reconsidered. More damaging to the individual minister involved who looks a bit of a fool having defended the policy then apologising than the government. A clever PM can even overrule a minister and gain kudos from this. Beware using these too often however as too many lave you looking indecisive, and involves you admitting you were wrong in the first place, however virtue is probably on the side of the turner here.
3.The Destruction Derby: In this amusing 1990s playstation game you gained points by winning races and smashing up cars. If you were losing by a long way it became more profitable to reverse your direction and smash up all the other cars, at the cost of your own. This is the worst type of U-Turn that can wreck a government. Gordon Brown had 2, the election that never was and the 10p tax band. John Major's government had Black Wednesday and the Poll Tax (shared with Thatcher). This occurs when a government's policy is such a failure that it is forced to destroy its own credibility by reversing a flagship policy already implemented as the alternative is even worse. For the current government this would be the reversal of their deficit reduction plan, or a breakdown in social cohesion on such a grand scale that it forced them to change tack (think huge crime increases, more in poverty, NHS struggling to cope.). Difficult but not impossible to recover from: if you can salvage enough points from wrecking the opposition you could still squeak in a la 1992.
Tuesday, 14 December 2010
Don't Think of A Sycophant.
I am currently reading the excellent 'Don't think of an elephant!' by George Lakoff, a brilliant book on how successful conservatives have been in America at 'framing' political debate. One of the books central messages, understandably stems from its title. This is the old thought experiment in which if you command someone to not think of an elephant, they without fail will. In relation to politics its central premise is that in America those with progressive values often lose the debate because they choose to fight it on the conservatives terms. It is obvious to see how this has ended up in America. Obama's attempts at a centre left presidency which conservatives ought to be able to accept if not agree with is hamstrung on every side by conservatives moving the goal posts further and further to the right, only for Democrats to follow and attempt to squeeze in the left hand corner.
For us in the UK it is a little more complex, on some issues progressives* have succeeded in 'framing' the debate since Thatcher's time. We live in a socially more tolerant country than before, many of the coalition's more right-wing policies have had to be described as a 'reform' or performed under the cover of deficit reduction. (many are cuts that save little but hurt some profoundly.) The likes of Norman Tebbitt sabre rattle from the right about pet issues, impotent because the debate has moved on. Yet in other areas the frame never changed. On welfare, tax, crime, the marketisation of services and regulation, right-wing ways of thinking hold sway. It would be easy to blame this on the Tory Press (and in some ways right). However the reasons for it lie in one of the central tenets of New Labour, its original sin if you will: triangulation.
The best example is perhaps tax. Lakoff uses the example of 'tax relief' in his book of a way in which progressives accept a right-wing way of thinking even when arguing against it as the word 'relief' implies that somehow tax is an affliction to be alleviated rather than the price to be paid for the upkeep of a civil society in which businesses and individuals can prosper. Why is it now that in our country that people on benefits are vilified routinely but tax avoiders lauded and asked to provide advice to government? Because New Labour accepted the terms of the debate that tax and government spending are both inherently bad in many cases. The two New Labour positions on the issue were 1.) To not waste any opportunity to 'go after' benefit cheats and constantly talk up initiatives to 'get the feckless off benefits'** and 2.) To be 'intensely relaxed' about the richest having tax arrangements that led to them paying very little in tax. For the public then it's not a huge step to see the Tory position of 1.) Regarding all those on benefits as fair game for raids and 2.) Actively encouraging tax avoidance or trying to cut rates of corporate tax to ones not worth avoiding as reasonable. Under New Labour 'reform' came to become a byword for increased marketisation of public services, now 'reform' is happening at breakneck speed, without the furore this would have created in the past, and crime became a childish debate between those who 'locked up' criminals and those 'soft' on crime.
Even the Lib Dems, for so long the only party to not accept these frames of debate (except in that now notorious tome The Orange Book) now do. Having in the past chosen to champion public spending as a real force for good, they now seem to see their main objective to be to somehow squeeze their own progressive ideals into the goal posts which the Tories have moved miles to the right. Marketise education? Fine so long as our pupil premium might mitigate its effects a little bit. Raise VAT? Cut services the poorest rely on? That's ok, some will pay a bit less income tax. These Lib Dems haven't necessarily lost their ideals but they now must try and achieve them within a Tory framework. They should learn from New Labour's failures that this leads to poverty of ambition and ultimately failure. Putting wheels on a tortoise doesn't make it a limousine.
Ed Milliband then did exactly the right thing in appealing to disaffected Lib Dems to help Labour. This is vital for both progressive Labour and Lib Dem supporters. Labour because it doesn't have the monopoly on wisdom and needs help in escaping its tired New Labour ways of thinking. Lib Dems because they are being drawn into the same trap, winning the odd victory, trying to do the right thing but failing because they are accepting premises that should be an anathema to them. Tim Farron's response to Ed Milliband's offer was telling. In its first line it rebuked Labour for sucking up to Rupert Murdoch and George Bush (2003 called, it wants its political insults back.) then went on to list Lib Dem 'achievements' in the coalition government, such as the pupil premium and income tax plan. Putting aside arguments over the merits of those policies (see here and here.) if he's throwing his lot in with the coalition because of the odd sop to progressive policies he's doing exactly what New Labour did by buying Conservative arguments on the nature of tax and public spending then trying to mitigate their effects. A Labour Party reaching out to Lib Dems and offering them the chance to shape progressive policy for the future offers them a choice: not to become the true heirs to New Labour's worst mistakes.
*Progressive is a clumsy term, for a general definition Lakoff p14. seems about the bst I've come across.
** The point here is not that there shouldn't be fewer people on benefits but how you portray them: victims needing help or wastrels needing a shove?
For us in the UK it is a little more complex, on some issues progressives* have succeeded in 'framing' the debate since Thatcher's time. We live in a socially more tolerant country than before, many of the coalition's more right-wing policies have had to be described as a 'reform' or performed under the cover of deficit reduction. (many are cuts that save little but hurt some profoundly.) The likes of Norman Tebbitt sabre rattle from the right about pet issues, impotent because the debate has moved on. Yet in other areas the frame never changed. On welfare, tax, crime, the marketisation of services and regulation, right-wing ways of thinking hold sway. It would be easy to blame this on the Tory Press (and in some ways right). However the reasons for it lie in one of the central tenets of New Labour, its original sin if you will: triangulation.
The best example is perhaps tax. Lakoff uses the example of 'tax relief' in his book of a way in which progressives accept a right-wing way of thinking even when arguing against it as the word 'relief' implies that somehow tax is an affliction to be alleviated rather than the price to be paid for the upkeep of a civil society in which businesses and individuals can prosper. Why is it now that in our country that people on benefits are vilified routinely but tax avoiders lauded and asked to provide advice to government? Because New Labour accepted the terms of the debate that tax and government spending are both inherently bad in many cases. The two New Labour positions on the issue were 1.) To not waste any opportunity to 'go after' benefit cheats and constantly talk up initiatives to 'get the feckless off benefits'** and 2.) To be 'intensely relaxed' about the richest having tax arrangements that led to them paying very little in tax. For the public then it's not a huge step to see the Tory position of 1.) Regarding all those on benefits as fair game for raids and 2.) Actively encouraging tax avoidance or trying to cut rates of corporate tax to ones not worth avoiding as reasonable. Under New Labour 'reform' came to become a byword for increased marketisation of public services, now 'reform' is happening at breakneck speed, without the furore this would have created in the past, and crime became a childish debate between those who 'locked up' criminals and those 'soft' on crime.
Even the Lib Dems, for so long the only party to not accept these frames of debate (except in that now notorious tome The Orange Book) now do. Having in the past chosen to champion public spending as a real force for good, they now seem to see their main objective to be to somehow squeeze their own progressive ideals into the goal posts which the Tories have moved miles to the right. Marketise education? Fine so long as our pupil premium might mitigate its effects a little bit. Raise VAT? Cut services the poorest rely on? That's ok, some will pay a bit less income tax. These Lib Dems haven't necessarily lost their ideals but they now must try and achieve them within a Tory framework. They should learn from New Labour's failures that this leads to poverty of ambition and ultimately failure. Putting wheels on a tortoise doesn't make it a limousine.
Ed Milliband then did exactly the right thing in appealing to disaffected Lib Dems to help Labour. This is vital for both progressive Labour and Lib Dem supporters. Labour because it doesn't have the monopoly on wisdom and needs help in escaping its tired New Labour ways of thinking. Lib Dems because they are being drawn into the same trap, winning the odd victory, trying to do the right thing but failing because they are accepting premises that should be an anathema to them. Tim Farron's response to Ed Milliband's offer was telling. In its first line it rebuked Labour for sucking up to Rupert Murdoch and George Bush (2003 called, it wants its political insults back.) then went on to list Lib Dem 'achievements' in the coalition government, such as the pupil premium and income tax plan. Putting aside arguments over the merits of those policies (see here and here.) if he's throwing his lot in with the coalition because of the odd sop to progressive policies he's doing exactly what New Labour did by buying Conservative arguments on the nature of tax and public spending then trying to mitigate their effects. A Labour Party reaching out to Lib Dems and offering them the chance to shape progressive policy for the future offers them a choice: not to become the true heirs to New Labour's worst mistakes.
*Progressive is a clumsy term, for a general definition Lakoff p14. seems about the bst I've come across.
** The point here is not that there shouldn't be fewer people on benefits but how you portray them: victims needing help or wastrels needing a shove?
Friday, 10 December 2010
Misfits and Apprentii
I love the Apprentice, where else could you find such choice one liners as 'I'm not a one trick pony, I'm a whole field of ponies.' (Intelectual featherweight Stuart Baggs 'the brand.') and 'Everything I touch turns to sold.' (Baggs again)? Faintly ridiculous people who manage to get on in life with pure pigheaded drive and inflated ego will always make good television, purely for arse over tittery alone. Another viewing pleasure is Channel 4's excellent MisFits, the superhero ASBO drama based around 5 minor miscreants given superpowers by a passing storm. It is difficult to say which of these two shows should be considered less outlandish, but it is certainly the MisFits who have more fun.
The two sets of people couldn't be more different, thrusting business types who will do anything to 'get on' and those left behind, ASBO or no where they in the words of one J. Cocker 'Dance and drink and screw, because there's nothing else to do.' Those who are left behind by dreams of avarice and have an imposed ceiling as to what they can achieve and the quality of life that they can lead and those who may, if they can convince enough German people that goulash crisps are 'traditionally German' earn money beyond most of our dreams. The tuition fees debate has been a loud one but the voice that hasn't been heard as often as the one chanting epithets at Nick Clegg is one taking a real stand against the marketisation of our society. University graduates are to be encouraged by their huge fees to become a thrusting army of young Apprentii, marketing their skills to the highest bidder and 'getting on', making money with no real regard for what makes a good society for all. Every graduate competing with other ones to get full value for their fees with the rewards for becoming a banker or a marketing director far outweighing those of becoming a social worker or a teaching professional. No middle ground of being a well-educated graduate with a decent job who works hard but doesn't have a need to strive to earn more and more money for and from the Lord Sugarlumps and Sir Phillip 'tax efficient' Greens of this world. Fewer services in the future have the same effect, with no local library, free childcare or cheap leisure facilities life for those in the lower middle becomes worse, meaning in order to live a life in good conditions you continually need to be more like an Apprentii, not do a job you wanted to do but get into sales, eventually you may become a director and be able to squirrel away money yourself. Those who miss the boat or who don't want to catch it had better get used to a lower standard of living because the Apprentii and their masters earned their money and don't want it taxed, that would be 'anti-aspiration'.
With the marketisation of everything we are becoming a society of Misfits and Apprentii. In its most extreme example it is the contrast between those who if they are working are on a wage that barely pays for the cost of living compared to the denizens of big business. Things will get worse for the poorest but a new ceiling on quality of life is now being imposed on those who earn more but live with the same worries of watching their standard of living disappear. Cameron says that to tax the richest more is 'anti-aspiration', however by not asking the richest in our society to pay he is shutting off the aspirations of many to get on in life without wild dreams of avarice but to live a comfortable life in a good society. Forcing students to pay £40,000 in fees throughout their life is anti the aspirations of the majority to do a decent worthwhile job and not have to worry about the continuing erosion of services on which they may rely, or a huge debt burden which they will never pay off. As provision is shrunk, services disappear and the next generation are forced to pay for the mistakes of the last one, the chances for graduates and non graduates alike to merely 'get on' by doing a job whose worth isn't completely measured by the weight of its paycheck will become fewer and fewer, many more of us will be Misfits in our own society, trapped by a ceiling of increased outgoings and fewer services. It's a shame none of us will have superpowers though, nor fields of ponies.
Friday, 3 December 2010
Fuck FIFA (Gently)
Whilst I sympathise with all the siren calls to withdraw from FIFA after the loss of the world cup it does leave one with a moral conundrum. As one of those who has called on us to withdraw from FIFA or at least stick a hand up and say 'please Sepp can we stop the pillaging of relatively poor countries?' before any sort of bidding how does one associate with those who wholeheartedly 'backed the bid' and were prepared to do anything to get it because it's football and we love football?
It's not a difficult conundrum but one every real football fan comes across every day. Say you're a Villa or a Sunderland fan, how do you reconcile your love and undying support for your team with the fact that it is effectively a corporate entity? (I'm Wednesdayite so these dillemmas are but a dream.) Answer it's a mortgage of the soul one makes every day. You do it for love. The answer lies in the fact tht these teams can, as can Wednesday get close to 20,000 watching them play in the paintstripper premier. This is the point, we almost don't support a team, we support a culture. Kinks fans still go and see Ray Davies, for Sunderland memories of Bob Stokoe are confined to Football Focus, but we are all still inescapebly in love.
This is our strength, we can call out FIFA on their corruption tomorrow because there will still be 3,000 to see Chester FC, close to 10,000 to see Bradford and 40,000 for a Sheffield derby even if it was played in the dogshit shield. My point is that our game will survive whatever and that our FA should build bridges, work hard and make friends, undermine FIFA wherever possible sort out corruption and be for the good of the fans because we will support football, have its best interests in our heart World Cup or no, we've got nothing to lose. I'm not sure Qatar or Russia can say that. I back the bid to rid the game of corruption.
It's not a difficult conundrum but one every real football fan comes across every day. Say you're a Villa or a Sunderland fan, how do you reconcile your love and undying support for your team with the fact that it is effectively a corporate entity? (I'm Wednesdayite so these dillemmas are but a dream.) Answer it's a mortgage of the soul one makes every day. You do it for love. The answer lies in the fact tht these teams can, as can Wednesday get close to 20,000 watching them play in the paintstripper premier. This is the point, we almost don't support a team, we support a culture. Kinks fans still go and see Ray Davies, for Sunderland memories of Bob Stokoe are confined to Football Focus, but we are all still inescapebly in love.
This is our strength, we can call out FIFA on their corruption tomorrow because there will still be 3,000 to see Chester FC, close to 10,000 to see Bradford and 40,000 for a Sheffield derby even if it was played in the dogshit shield. My point is that our game will survive whatever and that our FA should build bridges, work hard and make friends, undermine FIFA wherever possible sort out corruption and be for the good of the fans because we will support football, have its best interests in our heart World Cup or no, we've got nothing to lose. I'm not sure Qatar or Russia can say that. I back the bid to rid the game of corruption.
Monday, 15 November 2010
Kick The Bums Out!... Err Well Try.
Tomorrow everyone's favourite punchline (Try it with 'What pisses off Heather Mills?) Nick Clegg unveils the last bit of his constiutional reform type thingy. A magnificently bizarre piece of legislation that tries to make the House of Lords bigger before it gets smaller, redraws constituency boundaries while neglecting 3.5m potential voters and prepares us for the Lib Dems ungallant loss in the forthcoming AV referendum. There is though one last cherry on this massive reform cake. The proposal to allow us to throw an MP out if he has committed serious wrongdoing and 10% of his constituents wish it so.
Here's where the NUS are added to the cake mixture, just before this metaphor fails to rise in fact. Spurred on by Nick Clegg's remarkable decision to redefine the word 'pledge' to mean 'We might do it in the only situation which is never going to happen.' and a love of sentances containing the words 'hoist' and 'petard' they are going to try and get 10% of Nick Clegg's constituents to sign a petition to recall him and hold a by-election*. It's a great idea. Those with a genuine grievance against Nicholas William Peter Clegg (i.e. those constiuents who voted for him believing him to be for the things he said he was for on May 6th) will be able to hold him democratically accountable. The rest of us can sleep a little bit sounder knowing that the word 'pledge' isn't just good for cleaning up dust off mantelpieces and/or indulge in the most poetic bit of justice possible unless Carol-Ann Duffy is planning to take a golf club to Piers Morgan's face. Or will we? In short, no.
The long version of this answer could however still be interesting. The wording of the proposal makes clear that it is for cases of 'serious wrong-doing'. Like setting fire to a fellow MPs duck house or pissing in the Chief Whip's moat then. I am of course being flippant, but the point is it's not for making politicians promises. Anyway I'm sure Nick, honest politician that he is, can point to 'looking at the books', 'the nature of a coalition' or 'Dave said he'd lock me in his new IKEA cupboard' as a perfectly legitimate reason for his change of opinion. The most important point however will lie in the detail of the proposal. Will it a) Allow constituents to collect the 10% of signatures then refer the MP to some form of tribunal (more democratic) or b) Mean that MPs have to get caught doing something naughty by a parliamentary body before the signatures mean anything in law. If a.) then then this could cause massive problems for Clegg. The Deputy-PM would have to answer questions in some sort of tribunal with the constituents being able to make a representation about why they think he should be recalled. No doubt Clegg would win but having your broken promises splashed all over the papers for days doesn't help people's trust in you. Seondly on this point Clegg is the worst at looking convincing ever. He has an obvious facial tick when struggling to justify himself and can barely conceal his anger when someone has the temerity to question his integrity or fallibility. Tony Blair he ain't.
Still in all likelihood this isn't going to happen. I doubt very much that the proposal will be worded as a) as its an obvious beartrap, not just for Nick Clegg but for his fellow politicos. Went on a rally to 'Save our Hospital'? Government shutting it? We'll see your Rt. Honourable arse at a tribunal then pal. All very embarrassing. No chances are it'll be b.) so it won't change much. You'll have to be incredibly stupid as an MP to trigger it I'm sure. However even if Clegg is never questioned it will still be incredibly politically damaging and embarrassing to him. Got your 10%? Ok, well next ask him 'what he's afraid of? Too much democracy? I thought this was the new politics of accountability? We're only trying to make you accountable Nick. Why won't you let us?' (Cue TV interview, pained expression, the phrase 'I understand frustrations but what people have to understand...' Never good. Next step, 'well your reforms mean nothing then Nick.' 'What was that about the 1832 reform act?' (Cue pained expression 'This is real meaningful reform...'). All pretty embarrassing. Lastly how will fellow Lib Dem MPs react to knowing that at least 10% of people in their leaders' constituency don't just want him out, but want him out now. I know what I'd think. I'd want to bake another cake, this one's just been burnt.
*The NUS are also trying to recall Stephen Williams and Don Foster, but they're not nearly as tragically comic.
Here's where the NUS are added to the cake mixture, just before this metaphor fails to rise in fact. Spurred on by Nick Clegg's remarkable decision to redefine the word 'pledge' to mean 'We might do it in the only situation which is never going to happen.' and a love of sentances containing the words 'hoist' and 'petard' they are going to try and get 10% of Nick Clegg's constituents to sign a petition to recall him and hold a by-election*. It's a great idea. Those with a genuine grievance against Nicholas William Peter Clegg (i.e. those constiuents who voted for him believing him to be for the things he said he was for on May 6th) will be able to hold him democratically accountable. The rest of us can sleep a little bit sounder knowing that the word 'pledge' isn't just good for cleaning up dust off mantelpieces and/or indulge in the most poetic bit of justice possible unless Carol-Ann Duffy is planning to take a golf club to Piers Morgan's face. Or will we? In short, no.
The long version of this answer could however still be interesting. The wording of the proposal makes clear that it is for cases of 'serious wrong-doing'. Like setting fire to a fellow MPs duck house or pissing in the Chief Whip's moat then. I am of course being flippant, but the point is it's not for making politicians promises. Anyway I'm sure Nick, honest politician that he is, can point to 'looking at the books', 'the nature of a coalition' or 'Dave said he'd lock me in his new IKEA cupboard' as a perfectly legitimate reason for his change of opinion. The most important point however will lie in the detail of the proposal. Will it a) Allow constituents to collect the 10% of signatures then refer the MP to some form of tribunal (more democratic) or b) Mean that MPs have to get caught doing something naughty by a parliamentary body before the signatures mean anything in law. If a.) then then this could cause massive problems for Clegg. The Deputy-PM would have to answer questions in some sort of tribunal with the constituents being able to make a representation about why they think he should be recalled. No doubt Clegg would win but having your broken promises splashed all over the papers for days doesn't help people's trust in you. Seondly on this point Clegg is the worst at looking convincing ever. He has an obvious facial tick when struggling to justify himself and can barely conceal his anger when someone has the temerity to question his integrity or fallibility. Tony Blair he ain't.
Still in all likelihood this isn't going to happen. I doubt very much that the proposal will be worded as a) as its an obvious beartrap, not just for Nick Clegg but for his fellow politicos. Went on a rally to 'Save our Hospital'? Government shutting it? We'll see your Rt. Honourable arse at a tribunal then pal. All very embarrassing. No chances are it'll be b.) so it won't change much. You'll have to be incredibly stupid as an MP to trigger it I'm sure. However even if Clegg is never questioned it will still be incredibly politically damaging and embarrassing to him. Got your 10%? Ok, well next ask him 'what he's afraid of? Too much democracy? I thought this was the new politics of accountability? We're only trying to make you accountable Nick. Why won't you let us?' (Cue TV interview, pained expression, the phrase 'I understand frustrations but what people have to understand...' Never good. Next step, 'well your reforms mean nothing then Nick.' 'What was that about the 1832 reform act?' (Cue pained expression 'This is real meaningful reform...'). All pretty embarrassing. Lastly how will fellow Lib Dem MPs react to knowing that at least 10% of people in their leaders' constituency don't just want him out, but want him out now. I know what I'd think. I'd want to bake another cake, this one's just been burnt.
*The NUS are also trying to recall Stephen Williams and Don Foster, but they're not nearly as tragically comic.
Saturday, 13 November 2010
My Week: What Recent Developments Tell Us About The Coalition
The sound and the fury this week has surrounded has surrounded student protests against tuition fees and Nick Clegg's struggle to justify the unjustifiable. Firstly I find it strange the way that the 'riots' have been covered and discussed. It seems that protestors can only either be peaceful marchers or violent anarchist thugs. No mention what-so-ever of the importance of direct action in protesting. The reason for this is we know that merely marching doesn't work. This was shown by the juxtaposition between the exchanges in the commons between Clegg and others and what was going on outside. Nick Clegg as all politicians do claimed privelige access to facts while respectfully disagreeing. However his disagreement with those outside is imposing fees of up to £45,000 on future students. By his own definition he won't think again if all people do is march and say 'I don't agree with Nick.' This isn't to condone lobbing fire extinguishers at coppers, but occupation, disruption and disobedience is vitalto showing government how angry we are and that people will not stand for Nick Clegg and David Cameron's constant disagreement with themselves
Documents obtained by the Guardian show that the Lib Dems were prepared to ditch their pledge in the only likely scenarios which would see them in government. This being the case, why sign a pledge saying that you will oppose ANY increase in fees, by ANY government. Not intelligent, unless you have a real disregard for the poor saps pushing this pledge and other swiftly ditched policies and opinions. Other developments this week make this painfully obvious.
These are the repealing of animal welfare standards and the putting of fast food companies in charge of aspects of health policy. Not huge issues compared to £80bn in cuts and massive changes to higher education, but this is the point. There can be no defence of these proposals as important for cutting the deficit, they are purely ideological policies of the most extreme type of Conservative thinking. So why are they happening? The government claims that it is moderate and the Lib Dems are its moderating influence. So why are extreme policies being introduced here? Because they can be. They show that the Conservatives are doing precisely what they want with Lib Dem collusion and I rather think we should see the coalition's larger policies in this same ideological context instead of buying the line that these are difficult decisions taken for our benefit. If a government thinks cutting chickens beaks off is 'In the national interest' then its claim to think that harsh benefit cuts and trebling tuition fees to be carries no wait what-so-ever. Time for direct action to stop a government from doing what the hell it wants against popular will.
Documents obtained by the Guardian show that the Lib Dems were prepared to ditch their pledge in the only likely scenarios which would see them in government. This being the case, why sign a pledge saying that you will oppose ANY increase in fees, by ANY government. Not intelligent, unless you have a real disregard for the poor saps pushing this pledge and other swiftly ditched policies and opinions. Other developments this week make this painfully obvious.
These are the repealing of animal welfare standards and the putting of fast food companies in charge of aspects of health policy. Not huge issues compared to £80bn in cuts and massive changes to higher education, but this is the point. There can be no defence of these proposals as important for cutting the deficit, they are purely ideological policies of the most extreme type of Conservative thinking. So why are they happening? The government claims that it is moderate and the Lib Dems are its moderating influence. So why are extreme policies being introduced here? Because they can be. They show that the Conservatives are doing precisely what they want with Lib Dem collusion and I rather think we should see the coalition's larger policies in this same ideological context instead of buying the line that these are difficult decisions taken for our benefit. If a government thinks cutting chickens beaks off is 'In the national interest' then its claim to think that harsh benefit cuts and trebling tuition fees to be carries no wait what-so-ever. Time for direct action to stop a government from doing what the hell it wants against popular will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)