Tory FAIL

I have hesitated a moment before this final “Big 3″ parties fail for two reasons. Firstly because it would be all too easy to trot out the usual series of problems with the Conservatives, something which would be unfair given the emphasis on contemporanaeity in the previous two posts. Secondly, there is the temptation to wait till after the EU parliamentary election results have been announced, or to foreshadow them in some way. However, as anyone with the time and patience can scroll through back issues of this blog or engage me in conversation to find out my views of the Tories over the langue duree, I am going to focus here primarily on their ostensible re-invention.

So, where do Cameron’s cuddly Conservatives stand on what is (miracles aside) the cusp of entering government? The Tories have never been the greenest party, this has not changed. The only green thing about them is their new logo which implies the environmental credentials absent from a party in the pocket of big business.

Their dedication to the free market (a position which they share with both other main parties) seems to remain undented despite the “unprecedented” economic circumstances. Indeed, Cameron’s criticism of the government, when not vapid rhetoric, seems to rest on the assumption that crass deregulation is a human right of bankers. And Cameron knows all about bankers. Whilst its unfair to paint a whole party with one brush, the attitude that us poor folks are jealous of the rich chaps with their big houses (that look a bit like Balmoral donchaknow) does persist in some parts of the party.

This is similarly latent in the leadership’s at best luke-warm attitude to social justice and human rights issues in general. In this respect the Tories have not out-grown or out-moded the “nasty party” label. Indeed, Cameron has suggested that, in the European Parliament at least, the Tories are closer “ideologically” to the loose conflagration of extreme right wing parties which cluster round a loose collection of ideologies ranging from skeptical Europhobia, homophobia, sexism, a variety of forms of racial supremacy to a fringe Latvian party which holds an annual celebration of Latvian collaboration with the Waffen-SS. Is this really the modern, forward looking, open image of Britain that we really wish to present to the world?

The Tories Europhobia places them at the rough centre of a more generalised British anxiety about the European Union (some of it misplaced, some of it justified). However, this loose far-right alliance is something very different. It suggests that the modern day new hug-a-hoodie Conservative is fundamentally uncertain as to whether bigotry in itself is unjustified.

Couple this with economic policies which implicitly sanction cutbacks of public services (something that “Call me Dave” Cameron has touted several times now) and Britain does not face a rosy future. After all, the implicit caveat of “public services” is not just the bowler-hatted (Brussels-bound) bureaucrat, its also teachers, nurses, firemen, and thats before we consider the various things that public money goes some way toward – cf. roads, railways, protection of the environment, electricity generation etc. Low taxes may appear like a good plan — we’d all like to think Nozick was right  a little bit — but in the end they will be taxing on the services which the worst off in society rely upon (Hurrah for Rawls!)

In short, Cameron has performed an image revolution and that is all.

Lib Dem FAIL

The Lib Dems have little reason to be chirpy. Not only do they continue to fail to deliver as the self-styled party of local government, finally it seems that the political mood is moving against them. Having lost their majorities in Cornwall, Devon and Somerset (the former being a new Unitary Authority, more on this later), the sickening yellow colour of the south-west looks like it might be, at long last, changing.

Although the Lib Dems are still the second largest party in Cornwall’s new Unitary Authority (UA), this is quite a fall given that they held sway over a large number of the district councils the UA has replaced and were the lone voice supporting the UA in the referendum several years ago. Tellingly, the referendum — which as is traditional in such matters in this country was non-binding — so the approximately 87% of Cornish people who voted against the Unitary Authority views’ counted for nothing.

So that’s what the Lib Dems mean when they claim to be the party of “local government” (if they do that at a local level, heaven forbid what they would be like if they got into government!) The Lib Dems have failed the people of Cornwall and have rightly lost control of the council. Their policy promises are vacuous, as their referendum on the UA showed.

If listening to the people is what the Lib Dems claim to be all about, they have singularly failed. There has been inaction on redevelopment of many towns (Hayle, my home town included) over the last 30 years, housing development has been entirely unsustainable and unsuited (with the interests of property developers trumping local interest — see the Lib Dems implausible claims to “sustainability” and look at the ludicrous new developments in many towns), major local developments are mired in council dawdling (cf. the various new councils, roads and shops which have been proposed over the years). This is not forgetting their singular failure to solve the perennial rural problems of seasonal unemployment (especially amongst the young), out-dated public transport (try getting anywhere by bus after about 9pm) and an infrastructure developed in a style which is often “surreal” (one Lib Dem candidate in Hayle made it his big manifesto promise to solve a huge traffic hump on a bend which his own party implemented on the old District council).

The Lib Dems like to blame all this on central government, happy in the knowledge that they will never be the party of central government. Yet if Lib Dems can do nothing in local government because of central government, it raises two questions: why do local authorities (or whatever type) exist? More importantly, is there any reason to vote the Lib Dems in?  The people of the south west have learnt the answer to this latter question slowly and painfully over the last ten or so years.

Labour FAIL

I feel like a Tory sometimes. There, I’ve said it. Before anyone requisitions a shredder to destroy my Labour Party membership card, give me ooh 500 or so words to explain why. The reason is simple. The media has suggested it (but owing to the fact that the telly journalists presume everyone watching has a minutely small attention span), they presume that events of 13 years ago can’t really compare to the Up To The Minute Drama of the unendingly tedious 24 hr news cycle. Basically, to return to the subject:

     We’re back in the chuffing 1990s.

Only the tables have thoroughly turned. We have traditional Labour voters disillusioned by the high sleaze and infighting of parliamentarians. We have a new, reinvigorated opposition which has successfully transformed its “nasty shit party” image into a potential future government, led by a potential future Prime Minister. Talking of PMs we have PM who makes John Major look both decisive and charismatic. We have a Cabinet of non-entities and the dregs of the last ten years of politics, including some that we had all mercifully hoped were long dead and gone (Mandelson). Furthermore, a reshuffle of the Cabinet throws up the same selection of uninteresting grey men who singularly fail to grab the public imagination and who are so riven by in-fighting that coherent government begins to look impossible. Add to that one of the worst economic crises in a decade!

Add to that the worst local election results for a party-in-government since Major’s final years and you can’t help my cynicism and vague sense of deja vu.

I  confidently predict that Labour will lose the next election. They will lose it not because the British people have gone off ideas of fairness, equality and social justice. They will lose it in part because in part, after three terms in government for any party, entropy and policy become co-terminous. They will lose it because the Tories have successfully seized the public imagination. They will lose it because the Tories have successfully appropriated the same agenda of fairness, equality, social justice and most importantly, good governance.

They have, in short, appropriated the image of a party of government. Something which isn’t at all unfamiliar to any Labour supporters around in 1997.

Back in 1995/6, this was a significant  concern in the dying days of Major’s Tory government. Similarly, no cohesive challenge on his leadership emerged during that torpid end-of-an-era year when an election could be called. The leadership of both parties seems to be in agreement that being let down slowly and gracefully is better than the inevitable absolute implosion (which, if the parallel proves true) will occur to both losing parties.

Just how bad Cameron’s Tories will be for the British people — and in some ways this isn’t the sort of question that anyone who is an active supporter of another political party can ever objectively answer — remains to be seen, especially as categories like “the British people” are so slippery. In my view, if this government wants  a chance of returning to government within a decade, they need to do only one thing: go to the country and seek a new mandate. Whether we win or not is not really the issue — this is the fair and just thing to do.

Good News?

I agree with David Cameron. There, I’ve said it. Now to add the significant list of caveats… Actually, sod it. Anyone wanting to know my views on teflon toff boy merely has to glance through the archives of this blog.

But in all seriousness, times have changed. This has become a hackneyed cliche pretty much overnight as a result of the massive economic downturn/recession/depression/cock-up. A telling demonstration of this came today as old Etonian stereotype Cameron announced (like a character in Yes Minister*) bonuses for his chums in the city were, well, y’know, really not on. Extraordinarily, he did not rule out the nationalisation of the indebted behemoth. He went further in saying that low-level bonuses for ordinary employees of Leviathan bank Lloyds TSB (or LTSBHBOSRBS + Gloucester) were to be encouraged. 

This is true on a number of levels, the most obvious being that it is unfair to punish an employee for the flagrant crimes of his or her employer. Secondly, such bonuses will go a small way to kick-starting the all-important consumer spending which (in the manner of four hundred men trying to hold onto one single straw) the Government assures us is the only way out of the recession.

However, not only does Cameron’s observation demonstrate the political sea-change which the current deprecession it also makes a pertinent (if cheap) political point that the current “Labour” government continued the Thatcherite financial deregulation which got us into this mess. Admitting the mistake of this policy can only be a vote-winner. Banks owned by the public should be run in the public interest. 

The time for light touch regulation is over.

 

* Maybe a spin-off entitled “Yes Leader of the Opposition”
^ Why use one term when you can use them all?

Internships or Internment?

This government has all too often been in the pocket of big business at the expense of supporting working people and the proposed internship programme strikes me as a further nail in the coffin of the social credentials of New Labour. 

The government has taken the obvious position in defence of many policies of “we can’t just do nothing,” but in this case it seems to be a case of “we can’t just be seen to be doing nothing, we must do something because otherwise we won’t be seen to be doing something, we’ll be seen to be doing nothing” (to paraphrase Yes Minister). Its also a wonderful example of Politicians’ Logic – “Something Must Be Done — This is Something, therefore We Must Do It.” Perhaps given the pisspoor state of Her Majesty’s Opposition when it comes to such a thing as policy, none of this is surprising.

The proposed Internship scheme will allegedly help graduates in the uncertain period after completing their degrees, as well as preparing the relevant skills base for the fabled (and long-distant) “up turn.” However, I fail to see how short term contracts at low wages picking up basic skills benefits anyone other than employers. Lammy (on Radio 4′s iPM) claimed that ‘some skills were better then no skills – presumably the same logic applies to pay.

Current experience of graduates in a range of subjects – as some readers will be aware – does not differ greatly from the consequence of this proposal. I.E. Short term, low-paid unreliable work. Its called temping or seasonal work. And as far as I can see, as one of the most poorly regulated sectors, frequently in the press for the exploitation or poor treatment of worker of all skill levels, its the one sector which – in a period of unprecedented wider economic uncertainty – this Government should not be encouraging.

Of course, it serves to demonstrate just how important big business is to the government. The large employers’ benefits are manifold – low paid, high skilled workers on short-term contracts. No wonder CEOs are welcoming the scheme…

 

The thing that baffles me is why graduates are.*

 

* According to a BBC poll anyway.

Triumph? I think so.

The global financial situation – to attempt a long and somewhat confused metaphor – has been almost as sticky as a sticky stick stuck in sticky stuff underneath a sticky tree which is seeping sticky sap in a sticky forest somewhere in stickland, stickania. 

It is times like this where a part of me – that bitter, irreverent, irritating bit – misses Her Majesty’s Opposition. Government action has at times appeared to oscillate at random between dithering and panicking, egged on by occasional leaking. However – and I know someone who knows precisely nothing about stock markets or international finance, should probably not make such a claim after a single day of growth on the FTSE – it does look like Mr Broon has gone and done it.

The age of laissez-faire Thatcherite mis- (or should that be un-) management of this country’s Financial Services is at an end – the government has restricted CEOs bonuses and fat-cat payouts with the aim of encouraging a new culture of responsibility based on long-term gains to benefit both consumer and bankers. This is surely good for renewed confidence. With much of Northern Europe echoing Brown and Darling’s move, this is surely proof of this Labour government’s unprecedented economic record. After eleven years in power, this government is still full of new ideas and working to help ordinary people through a period of unprecedented economic crisis.

And where, pray, are Cameron’s “New” Conservatives in this? Oh yeh, supporting the government. And you get the feeling when you hear Cameron’s weak-willed warning to Brown to not glorify the rescue package that the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition is feeling somewhat jaded after a rather lacklustre conference performance, a party which is divided in both Houses of Parliament (on the issue of 28-day detention) and has singularly failed to prove itself as a government in waiting at any point during this current crisis. Not only that, the Tories have failed to even score any significant political points.

Bring on the Fourth Term!

Why Capitalism and Freedom are Incompatible

I know you’re all (i.e. the fictional populous of the inside of my cranium) whingeing about the lack of posts recently, so I thought I’d use all three of my little grey cells, hit you with a big fat headline and then (as is traditional) get bogged down in the mind-numbing tedium of the detail before admitting, on balance, when all is said and done, there are arguments on both sides.

The familiar argument for this comes from Nozick – that if we are taxed, we are not free since we must work surplus labour in order to pay our taxes. I disagree with this idea – however, from a strict act utilitarian point of view, is it not equally valid to argue that work itself is an inhibition to freedom? Clearly, the advantages of all sorts of productive labour are clear both economically, socially, psychologically and educationally.

But, is it not equally valid that work is an imposition on (and here I throw my nice post-structuralist anti-essentialist baby, kicking and screaming, out with the bathwater) on some essentially hippie, loved up and absolutely free (bordering on anarchistic) human essence?

I’ll leave the readers to decide that one, mostly because its one of those arguments which I have a feeling I have probably got completely wrong.

On the other hand, freedom – and in particular freedom of expression – arguably occupies a somewhat fraught relationship with modern globalised capitalism. This is clearly demonstrated in the – and I never thought I’d use this word about my blog – scandal surrounding earlier posts about customer service training. I find it an intolerable intrusion on my freedom of expression that my personal opinion – as an employee engaged in a merely financial relationship with a large company – is negated and unpublishable should it go against the brand image of that company.

Personally, I find this utterly unacceptable. There is no reason that someone giving me money in return for my labour, however powerful, should have any hold over my personal opinions or my freedom to express them so long as they don’t contradict the laws of the land, are not provably false or explicitly libel an individual or institution.

I invite anyone sufficiently better informed on the law – or best practice – to reply to any of the above.

Byeee!

Its Been A While…

Yet again, there have been many things all of which are worthy of blogspace. First off, I am (technically) now no longer a student – until September 24th anyway – and more scarily, my NUS has expired (although no-one in Cornwall understands NUS anyway so I’m not really missing it). Secondly, I’m back at the shop of dooooom, earning money and being a productive member of society. Thirdly, there’s only ten days to go until my exam results are out…

The 42-day detention debate deserves some blog attention, but I’m loathe to attempt a serious post at the moment since I am having to write this in Notepad and paste it into explorer on a Windows Me computer which is nearly ten years old and crashes. Its like a conversation with my Gran, this machine. I keep expecting it to conk out or yell ‘what did you say? Speak up, don’t mumble’ etc etc.

As to 42 day detention – and now I’m forced to be short, direct and to the point, three things which don’t come naturally – my main concern is not the egocentric publicity stunt of David Davis but the big Brown fudge that the Government has accomplished. Beyond the initial reaction last week, our Dear Leader has done little to defend the constitutional position, or to assert the patent absurdity of Davis’ position. By-elections exist to choose local constituency MPs, not to resolve complicated legal issues.

If he wanted to genuinely influence the progress of the Bill or derail it, there are so many more logical things he could’ve done. First off, press for Tory policy (as Shadow Home Secretary, no less) to aim at parliamentary reform to prevent whatever scandal he is so aggreived by – from what I can fathom, this amounts to the Labour party legislating on a manifesto commitment mixed with a good dose of sang froid that things didn’t go his way.

Alternatively, he could get other Dave (‘Call Me Dave’ Cameron) to kick him upstairs and move from the proverbial animals to the vegetables and as a meber of the House of Lords involve himself in the legal scrutiny of the Bill. Of course, that might seem a bit radical – to become a single-issue Lord as it were – but the point still holds that the Terror Bill has a massive amount of parliamentary procedure to go before it becomes law. After all, a layman could be forgiven for thinking either that the Lords was a Tory/Opposition free zone, or more significantly, that David Davis has no confidence in his party colleagues in the Upper House.

His decision – as I said before – is childish and egocentric. Furthermore, it sets a bizarre precedent. It suggests that his constituents (and by implication, any local constituency) is a valid location to decide national security policy, or (equally) any issue which the incumbent feels passionately about. This is a bizarre and ludicrous idea for all the obvious reasons. The entire point of the bicameral system of the UK is to allow for high level and highly qualified legal deliberation in the House of Lords. In forcing a by-election on this issue, David Davis has in my view done more to harm democracy in the UK than 42 day detention ever would.
He has ridden rough-shod over parliamentary procedure and democratic principle in asserting (superciliously and egocentrically) that he is to be the arbiter of the forum in which the 42-day debate should be discussed – and choosing one which is entirely inappropriate. The election of an MP should be based on the suitability of the candidate and their party team to represent local people.

OK. Breathe in, here I go on the petrol crisis (the computer just crashed, conveniently). Living in the West of Cornwall (where they still eat their young etc), I have to confess to being slightly confused on two fronts by the idea that the country will be brought to a halt by two four day strikes by Shell workers (+ associated wildcat strikes). As usual, I have a fatuous and a serious comment.

Going for the comic first, one of the manifold joys of working in Essentials (there’s certain to be a post later in the season listing these), is the local Atlantic FM radio station. They have – over the last three days – been sending – by car – reporters to different petrol stations up and down Cornwall to see what the price is and what queues there are. On top of this, first local news (creeping over the border from Plymouth, armed with garlic and crucifixes to ward of the Cornishness), then the national news broadcasters have sent people into the region worst affected by the petrol strikes. The quick-witted among you will be expecting what’s coming next…

Is it not possible that the petrol shortage down here is being exacerbated by journalists reporting on the petrol crisis using petrol to fuel their investigations of the crisis?

Secondly, and mroe seriously, just what is it about a spokesman saying ‘don’t panic buy’ that makes the entire nation rush out and, err, panic buy? I heard the news when still in Cardiff but no part of my brain ever considered that this was an invite to dash down to the mounting queues to fill up my tank, even with a 217 mile journey ahead of me. Furthermore, I did not think when I left Bristol on the M5, I must top up now “because ‘ey don’t ‘ave petroleum down in corrrnwaaall” (imagine a ludicrous rural accent if you wish).

Other people – some of them sensible, others less so – however, have been flitting hither and thither across the county searching for a petrol station and getting worried because the station down the road has sold out. Possibly if people stopped panic buying, there wouldn’t be as much of a problem. Perhaps if people just used petrol for urgent journeys – and driving round to find a garage is not really urgent, that is panicking – there wouldn’t be any garages out of fuel.

Its not as if the petrol is even disconnected. The majority of non-Shell deliveries have continued, with some companies arranging extra deliveries to maintain supplies in their stations. Equally, its not as if – in the modern era of motorways and massive lorries – that it will be impossible for all but the most rural and remote petrol stations to be refuelled during the five day gap between Monday monring when the strikes ended and Friday when the second strike is due to start. This is particularly true in Cornwall where moving things by car is pretty much the only quick and efficient way to transport goods such as fuel in and out of the county.

This is not to ignore the many consumers who have been dreadfully affected. It is odd though, that to my knowledge, the farmers and fishermen – who, after all require fuel in order to grow/catch/raise foodstuffs – have had a much lower profile than the apparently poor motorist. Certainly, there are more motorists than fishermen, but they have other options – even down here in deepest Ruralland. For example, public transport of various forms. Though I guess a panic increase in rail use due to a petrol crisis wouldn’t be as newswoprthy for the ‘the end is nigh’ -mongers of the media. Igf you are a fisherman with a small commercial or private boat, without diesel there is very little way of maintainign your livelihood.

But of course, the Curse of Jeremy Clarkson means that it is the motorist who always suffers, the motorist whose livelihood is threatened, and of course, the motorist who flies into a big girly panic-buy when some of the fuel is stopped for a few days.

Forty-Two Days

Today was a momentous day for the media of Britain with the final fall of the story that has kept Britain’s news media going for nearly forty-two weeks has now fallen. ‘It was a long, hard slog but the story finally had to go’ said one distraught journalist, ‘the whips killed it in the end, they got the decision they wanted and it is with great regret that we see this story fall…’ Yep, that’s right. In theory, the government has won a vote in the House of Commons approving detention of terror suspects for 42 days.

Apparently, this is not a vote of conscience by those MPs who voted with the government. It is, in fact, ‘a very sad day indeed for the great tradition of liberty that this country has represented’, it is a victory of ‘the whip’s office’ and not the strength of the government’s argument. This strikes me as opportunism on the part of Her Majesties’ Opposition – which is what we expect and is entirely healthy in a democracy – but also on the part of the 37 Labour MPs who voted against the government.

David Davis – whom I quoted earlier, claiming it was a victory for Labour whips – evidently needs his head examining. I don’t wish to get involved in the moral ins and outs of 42 day detention – which I personally oppose – but I feel the shadow Home Secretary needs a lesson in political reality. It is a fact universally acknowledged that any party leadership who feels significantly strongly on an issue will use its centralised resources to influence/persuade/cajole MPs to vote a particular way.

To say after losing a vote that ‘it was the whips what won it’ strikes me as a slightly facile observation in the circumstances. Is he suggesting that, when put in a similar position, a future Tory government would sit back, shrug their shoulders and decide that their own principles just aren’t important? This is a ludicrous position and strikes against the whole idea of the party system in this country. Furthermore, it strikes me as opportunism. Quite how this becomes a defeat for liberty – when the democratically elected government has successfully promulgated legislation and ensured that its policy has been passed – is rather confusing for me.

For once, the government has demonstrated some leadership and authority, leading the way on a controversial issue and not letting troublemakers dictate or confuse government policy. This is not – as failed leadership candidate John McDonnel put it – a hollow victory for the government.

Personally, I will admit to feeling uncomfortably ironist on the fact that the government has shown leadership on an issue which effectively ‘repeals Magna Carta’ (Tony Benn).

Change? Don’t Make Me Laugh…

The government – we are told – is old, tired and boring. What we need – the papers incessantly remind us – is a new, shiny, so-clean-they-squeak government led by David ‘call me Dave’ Cameron. Under ‘Dave’, there would be no corruption. Under Dave, there would be no more misery. Indeed, under Dave, it is alleged that sadness and general miserableness would be abolished ‘within the first hundred days’…

Unfortunately, I can’t help but be somewhat cynical about all these claims. I can’t help reading, hearing and watching a myriad political journalists give out the same (ironically) tired bunch of cliches as they observe that Mr Brown looks tired, or that Alistair Darling has eyebrows (and what eyebrows they are!) or that certain senior Labour members in the Scottish parliament perhaps should be strung up and shot. The news industry seems to have taken the golly-we-have-to-give-away-free-shit-to-get-readers to an extreme, I can practically hear the newstand men of the future declaring chirpliy; ‘READALLABOUTIT! Free bunch of cliches’ with every copy!’

Beyond the facile observations made above though, there are two frankly disturbing aspects at the bottom of the current predicament of the government as the media portrays it. And, as a good student, I’m going to employ both my skills as a historian and a politics student to diagnose them (you lucky, lucky bastards, dear reader!)

Historically, at the start of the Blair years – and writing that still looks weird; look at it, Blair, historical: how the hell did that happen?? – we were all told (infamously) ‘things can only get better!’ The Major government was tired, populated by a motley array of minor freak-show exhibits and the Tory party was more riven with internal disputes than the last meeting of EU Commissioners and Spanish fishermen.

Is that an echo I hear? No, thought not. The media has massive power to influence people’s opinions of the government. Would it not be good – just for once – to not hear about the next-best-thing on the menu, but the highlights currently on offer? Is there something behind all this though? Certainly, both the Tories in 1997 and the last year or so of Labour government seem to have got too worked up with the institutional agenda. With sleaze and cash-4-peerages, both have been rocked by major scandals…

But has anything really changed? In the last week two senior Tories – the Party Chair Caroline Spellman and their leader in the EU Parliament – are going to be investigated by the Parliamentary Standards commission for what are alleged to be serious breaches of expenses regulations. I think it is important that the people ask if they can really trust ‘new-best-thing’ Call-me-Dave Cameron and his cronies. I worry that taking him at face value could be exceedingly detrimental to the country. More importantly, it alarms me considerably that any government’s fate can be determined by a small, unelected bunch of hacks and newspaper editors. Because they’re obviously the best qualified people to comment on the qualities of Her Majesty’s government and opposition, aren’t they?