"You're taking everyone for fools" - that was one of David Cameron's regular digs at Gordon Brown back in the days before the Condem coalition. If that was true, then not enough people were taken in to offer Brown another term in office. David Cameron however has had no difficulty taking people for fools.
This week, in Questions to the Prime Minister, Cameron explained how reforms to the welfare system were necessary in order to manage Britain's economic deficit.
His government's menu of ideas include tinkering with the NHS, pricing young people out of education, taking child tax credits out of the homes of those young people who depend on it, and making young people go and work for wealthy corporations for free. It's like we are going back to the future - and the future is 1812 rather than 2012.
At the same time, there are suggestions that the 50p tax rate for high earners may be on the way out at the next budget. On that note, I am not sure how that helps the nation's books, but I am confident it will not lead to an increase in revenue. Maybe there are a few more pounds left to shake out of the pockets of our young. The one thing he will not be able to do is take is their school milk - his mentor already plundered that a generation ago.
How can all this eternal assault on the nation's children be explained? It is quite simple. One one hand, wealthy business people donate to the Tories; on the other hand. many young people do not vote. The young and the poor have been battered by the Tories throughout history, but somehow the party's vote continues to hold up.
The Liberal wing of the Condem axis have paid the greatest price in terms of lost votes. This is understandable as they promoted a worthless manifesto in 2010 which tricked many people into voting for them. Their worthless campaign involved lying to students on university campuses about changing university fees. When I say 'changing', I refer to their promise to eliminate them. I wonder what happened to that one.
The Lib Dems have argued that they did not win the election and can only negotiate concessions in the Tory-led decision-making processes. This may be true, but I am not sure I have ever witnessed more of a spurned opportunity in the history of British politics. They have leverage to be far more disruptive than they are currently being. Rather than just waving policy through, how about scuppering a few Commons votes, just to let the Tories know that this Condem coalition lark is not going to be all easy?
Not only have the Lib Dems spurned the chance to show the power their casting vote gives them, they have also spurned the chance to set a more contrary convention for coalition governments. Where was it written in the rules that coalitions have to be so collegiate? A bit of antagonism would not suddenly bring down the coalition government, so they should give it a go.
At the moment the Lib Dems are being taken for fools. Then again, at the moment the whole electorate are being taken for fools.
Sunday, 11 March 2012
Thursday, 5 January 2012
Diane Abbott on "white people dividing and conquering" - a case of racism, context and hypocrisy
I often take my place at the front of many so-called anti-racist 'witch-hunts'. When speaking out against those who I feel allow their masks of racist disguise to slip, I can usually rely upon my allies of the left for support. You cannot beat a bit of frothing at the mouth, pitchfork in hand, ready to dish out some anti-racist justice - fantastic!
However, the case of the Shadow Health Minister, Diane Abbott has seen me alone, fighting alongside an unreliable slurry of right-wing conservatives, whose calls for Abbott's resignation are probably driven more by political point-scoring than genuine outrage.
Meanwhile, instead of articulating a consistent message on racism, many on the left are using the 'context' argument usually deployed by the right to defend racist language, while accusing the right-wingers of hypocrisy. Yes, we have hypocrites calling people hypocrites.
This latest deployment of the context defence is despite the fact context is often misunderstood by those who lean so heavily on it when it suits their needs. After all, many on both the left and the right never quite 'got' the Alf Garnett joke because they did not understand the context it was located in, notably the mid-twentieth century wave of migration and differing attitudes between the archaic thinkers and the more enlightened. The right-wingers applauded the character as a sage, and the left rejoiced when his character ran its course.
So, enough reminiscing about the great racism debates of yesteryear. What has prompted this latest outrage? Yesterday should have been a great day for race relations in the UK as the two of the killers of Stephen Lawrence were finally brought to justice and sentenced. The Stephen Lawrence case is the singular example of racism at its very worst, with the added ingredient of gross injustice. It is a symbol of the worst that can happen to those victims of racist language. The vile words that fall out of the words of those racists, who often fall on the contextual understanding defence, are the same words that Stephen Lawrence would likely to have been subjected to by his attackers.
It is why the defence of Liverpool footballer Luiz Suarez prior to his eight-match ban for using racist language towards Manchester United's Patrice Evra never held much weight with me. His defence was that his repeated use of the word "negro" was in the context (yes, that word again) of the sort of language acceptable in Uruguay, and was meant in a friendly manner. This was rightly discredited by the video evidence witnessed by an independent commission to investigate the incidents.
I cannot see anything other than racism in a situation where one individual is constantly reminding a man of his skin colour as part of an acrimonious exchange. In this case, there is no place for context as an excuse.
Diane Abbott used the words "White people love playing 'divide & rule'" in a Twitter rant. Her defence? Her remarks have been 'taken out of context' (yes, that word again) and part of a Twitter debate following the Stephen Lawrence murder trial. She later added:-
"Refers to nature of 19th Century European colonialism. Bit much to get into 140 characters."
The 140 character defence is barely more persuasive than the Suarez defence. The last time I used Twitter (earlier today, as it happens) it was still possible to follow a posting with a posting, to clarify anything that could have been misunderstood. Does Abbott not review her tweets as she posts them? She has shown herself in Parliament and on the small screen as being intelligent, so I believe she is more than literate enough to understand how her tweet could have been understood. Or has she suddenly admitted being guilty of social incompetence? Maybe if she is not too racist for the shadow cabinet, then she is a little too incompetent.
Little over 40 of the 140 characters at Abbott's disposal were used saying "white people love playing 'divide & rule'", leaving her with around 100 characters to diffuse any potential explosion arising from a phrase she ought to have realised would be highly inflammatory. She chose not to at the time, and this is why as a Labour party member I share the view of leader Ed Miliband that the content of the tweet was unacceptable. Hopefully this will be food for thought for the leader at the next reshuffle.
Not that the Labour leader needs a great deal of food for thought. Abbott is unfortunately prolific at making statements about skin colour liable to those dastardly contextual misunderstandings, which often require one of those now worryingly regular clarifications at a later time. Sadly, entering "Diane Abbott go to the wall" on Google only returns articles of her previous transgressions, such as this one from sources including the Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph, and sky.com.
So it seems that not only have some leftists have left their well-used moral compasses in the backpack on this occasion to defend her, but the publications that often inform the left have gone strangely silent on her past contextual misunderstandings, such as "West Indian mums will go to the wall for their children," or describing David Cameron and Nick Clegg as "two posh white boys". The latter point about the coalition leaders is technically correct, but is risky in a society where people are still suspicious of the use of racial adjectives to characterise. At the very least, it is now time for Diane Abbott to realise that the precautions people are expected to take in communication apply to her as well.
For reasons that are clear, this latest incident surrounding Diane Abbott comes as no surprise to me. Sadly, neither does the crude politicking by those who condemn or defend because they have already taken their political sides prior to the incident. By casting politics aside and analysing the discursive actions performed by her on Twitter, I have been witness to a pattern denied by others on the left.
However, the case of the Shadow Health Minister, Diane Abbott has seen me alone, fighting alongside an unreliable slurry of right-wing conservatives, whose calls for Abbott's resignation are probably driven more by political point-scoring than genuine outrage.
Meanwhile, instead of articulating a consistent message on racism, many on the left are using the 'context' argument usually deployed by the right to defend racist language, while accusing the right-wingers of hypocrisy. Yes, we have hypocrites calling people hypocrites.
This latest deployment of the context defence is despite the fact context is often misunderstood by those who lean so heavily on it when it suits their needs. After all, many on both the left and the right never quite 'got' the Alf Garnett joke because they did not understand the context it was located in, notably the mid-twentieth century wave of migration and differing attitudes between the archaic thinkers and the more enlightened. The right-wingers applauded the character as a sage, and the left rejoiced when his character ran its course.
So, enough reminiscing about the great racism debates of yesteryear. What has prompted this latest outrage? Yesterday should have been a great day for race relations in the UK as the two of the killers of Stephen Lawrence were finally brought to justice and sentenced. The Stephen Lawrence case is the singular example of racism at its very worst, with the added ingredient of gross injustice. It is a symbol of the worst that can happen to those victims of racist language. The vile words that fall out of the words of those racists, who often fall on the contextual understanding defence, are the same words that Stephen Lawrence would likely to have been subjected to by his attackers.
It is why the defence of Liverpool footballer Luiz Suarez prior to his eight-match ban for using racist language towards Manchester United's Patrice Evra never held much weight with me. His defence was that his repeated use of the word "negro" was in the context (yes, that word again) of the sort of language acceptable in Uruguay, and was meant in a friendly manner. This was rightly discredited by the video evidence witnessed by an independent commission to investigate the incidents.
I cannot see anything other than racism in a situation where one individual is constantly reminding a man of his skin colour as part of an acrimonious exchange. In this case, there is no place for context as an excuse.
Diane Abbott used the words "White people love playing 'divide & rule'" in a Twitter rant. Her defence? Her remarks have been 'taken out of context' (yes, that word again) and part of a Twitter debate following the Stephen Lawrence murder trial. She later added:-
"Refers to nature of 19th Century European colonialism. Bit much to get into 140 characters."
The 140 character defence is barely more persuasive than the Suarez defence. The last time I used Twitter (earlier today, as it happens) it was still possible to follow a posting with a posting, to clarify anything that could have been misunderstood. Does Abbott not review her tweets as she posts them? She has shown herself in Parliament and on the small screen as being intelligent, so I believe she is more than literate enough to understand how her tweet could have been understood. Or has she suddenly admitted being guilty of social incompetence? Maybe if she is not too racist for the shadow cabinet, then she is a little too incompetent.
Little over 40 of the 140 characters at Abbott's disposal were used saying "white people love playing 'divide & rule'", leaving her with around 100 characters to diffuse any potential explosion arising from a phrase she ought to have realised would be highly inflammatory. She chose not to at the time, and this is why as a Labour party member I share the view of leader Ed Miliband that the content of the tweet was unacceptable. Hopefully this will be food for thought for the leader at the next reshuffle.
Not that the Labour leader needs a great deal of food for thought. Abbott is unfortunately prolific at making statements about skin colour liable to those dastardly contextual misunderstandings, which often require one of those now worryingly regular clarifications at a later time. Sadly, entering "Diane Abbott go to the wall" on Google only returns articles of her previous transgressions, such as this one from sources including the Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph, and sky.com.
So it seems that not only have some leftists have left their well-used moral compasses in the backpack on this occasion to defend her, but the publications that often inform the left have gone strangely silent on her past contextual misunderstandings, such as "West Indian mums will go to the wall for their children," or describing David Cameron and Nick Clegg as "two posh white boys". The latter point about the coalition leaders is technically correct, but is risky in a society where people are still suspicious of the use of racial adjectives to characterise. At the very least, it is now time for Diane Abbott to realise that the precautions people are expected to take in communication apply to her as well.
For reasons that are clear, this latest incident surrounding Diane Abbott comes as no surprise to me. Sadly, neither does the crude politicking by those who condemn or defend because they have already taken their political sides prior to the incident. By casting politics aside and analysing the discursive actions performed by her on Twitter, I have been witness to a pattern denied by others on the left.
Friday, 16 December 2011
Feltham and Heston by-election review
On Thursday (15/12) a by-election took place in the parliamentary constituency of Feltham and Heston. It offered voters in West London the opportunity to cast their verdicts of over eighteen months of the Con Dem nation. The voters chose to overwhelmingly reject the coalition, with both the Tories and Liberal Democrats taking a massive hit.
Unsurprisingly, the broadcasters opted to make the lousy turnout of 28 percent the story of the election. One could almost sense their disappointment that they had to concede the poor turnout was due to stormy weather and the proximity to Christmas, when a big story about political disengagement throughout the public would have been more desirable.
There were few surprises in how the parties responded to the result. It gave Labour the chance to remind the public that Tory policies were "hurting, but not working". There is truth to that claim: Tory cuts, leading to more unemployment, less tax revenue and more benefit payments, therefore putting government finances under more pressure, will not help Britain in the short or long term.
The Tories' responses ranged from the very dignified speech by their defeated candidate Mark Bowen, who paid tribute to the late Feltham and Heston MP, Alan Keen, to the sour grapes from Baroness Warsi, who complained of the election being won with just 12,000 votes. That response is evidence in itself as to how bitterly disappointed the Tories are with the result. Off the back of a fortnight when David Cameron went on a European wrecking mission, much to the delight of the press and a reasonably Euro-sceptic public, little gloss can be put on the 8.4 percent swing to Labour.
Meanwhile, Simon Hughes, the straight-talking Liberal Democrat, somewhat arrogantly conceded the government losses are to be expected when in government. There was no suggestion of an inquest to find out why the voters are deserting the Con Dems, despite their repeated claim of how they are trying to clean up the mess they 'inherited' from the last government. (One of the things I learned from the Feltham and Heston by-election coverage is they still fail to realise the electorate is turned off by the 'inherited mess' line of argument. If I have realised that, why are party strategists yet to do so?)
Unless the Liberal Democrats are more prepared to look inwards at why they are losing so many voters, then the 5.87 percent they polled in Feltham and Heston will become the norm. There is no point being arrogant about the trappings of power, when a 'generation of voters' have been lost. The loss of a 'generation of voters' are not my words, but the words of Liberal Democrat MP, Adrian Sanders.
It is true that governments often fare badly in by-elections, but they usually have to become unpopular first. Labour continued to sweep up by-election post successes, even after their post-1997 election victory. The Feltham and Heston result suggests the Con Dem coalition is already losing the public, with Labour making a comeback.
Election summary; Feltham and Heston 2011: BBC NEWS
Unsurprisingly, the broadcasters opted to make the lousy turnout of 28 percent the story of the election. One could almost sense their disappointment that they had to concede the poor turnout was due to stormy weather and the proximity to Christmas, when a big story about political disengagement throughout the public would have been more desirable.
There were few surprises in how the parties responded to the result. It gave Labour the chance to remind the public that Tory policies were "hurting, but not working". There is truth to that claim: Tory cuts, leading to more unemployment, less tax revenue and more benefit payments, therefore putting government finances under more pressure, will not help Britain in the short or long term.
The Tories' responses ranged from the very dignified speech by their defeated candidate Mark Bowen, who paid tribute to the late Feltham and Heston MP, Alan Keen, to the sour grapes from Baroness Warsi, who complained of the election being won with just 12,000 votes. That response is evidence in itself as to how bitterly disappointed the Tories are with the result. Off the back of a fortnight when David Cameron went on a European wrecking mission, much to the delight of the press and a reasonably Euro-sceptic public, little gloss can be put on the 8.4 percent swing to Labour.
Meanwhile, Simon Hughes, the straight-talking Liberal Democrat, somewhat arrogantly conceded the government losses are to be expected when in government. There was no suggestion of an inquest to find out why the voters are deserting the Con Dems, despite their repeated claim of how they are trying to clean up the mess they 'inherited' from the last government. (One of the things I learned from the Feltham and Heston by-election coverage is they still fail to realise the electorate is turned off by the 'inherited mess' line of argument. If I have realised that, why are party strategists yet to do so?)
Unless the Liberal Democrats are more prepared to look inwards at why they are losing so many voters, then the 5.87 percent they polled in Feltham and Heston will become the norm. There is no point being arrogant about the trappings of power, when a 'generation of voters' have been lost. The loss of a 'generation of voters' are not my words, but the words of Liberal Democrat MP, Adrian Sanders.
It is true that governments often fare badly in by-elections, but they usually have to become unpopular first. Labour continued to sweep up by-election post successes, even after their post-1997 election victory. The Feltham and Heston result suggests the Con Dem coalition is already losing the public, with Labour making a comeback.
Election summary; Feltham and Heston 2011: BBC NEWS
Saturday, 19 November 2011
Con-Dem government sell Northern Rock at a loss
The incompetent Tory-led government have sold Northern Rock - the bank rescued by their predecessors during the credit crisis. The price at just £747 million is almost half the £1.4 billion invested by the taxpayer, though there is the possibility of a further £280 million. Angry? You should be.
Over thirty years, the Tories have repeatedly shown they have failed to learn from history and are doomed to repeat their own mistakes. In the same way they handed over Britain's utilities for the financial equivalent of peanuts in the 1980s and 1990s (those utilities that now change hands for billions, and charge their customers extortionate fees), they handed over the bank, almost at the first opportunity.
If a director of your company paid to acquire a struggling company, steadied the ship, then sold it for less than paid for it, would you have confidence in that director? No you would not. And I do not have faith in this government.
Over thirty years, the Tories have repeatedly shown they have failed to learn from history and are doomed to repeat their own mistakes. In the same way they handed over Britain's utilities for the financial equivalent of peanuts in the 1980s and 1990s (those utilities that now change hands for billions, and charge their customers extortionate fees), they handed over the bank, almost at the first opportunity.
If a director of your company paid to acquire a struggling company, steadied the ship, then sold it for less than paid for it, would you have confidence in that director? No you would not. And I do not have faith in this government.
Chiles and Bleakley lose Daybreak gig
After some rather poor ratings for ITV's Daybreak, the finger of blame has finally been directed towards the overexposed presenting duo of Christine Bleakley and Adrian Chiles. It has been reported in the press that they have fallen on their swords and will no longer present the breakfast programme.
Christine Bleakley, I know little about outside of her television work but seems harmless enough. Chiles, the slightly grumpy person who used to present Match of the Day 2, has shown more than a glimpse of character on his own Sunday evening television programme.
The problem was never the duo themselves, but a combination of pay and height of expectation from the pairing. ITV paid them a fortune to present Daybreak, off the back of their work on The One Show. The lesson to be learned is that before paying people a small fortune to present a programme, check whether the programme they presented before is genuinely popular or only watched because there is little else worth watching at the time!
Christine Bleakley, I know little about outside of her television work but seems harmless enough. Chiles, the slightly grumpy person who used to present Match of the Day 2, has shown more than a glimpse of character on his own Sunday evening television programme.
The problem was never the duo themselves, but a combination of pay and height of expectation from the pairing. ITV paid them a fortune to present Daybreak, off the back of their work on The One Show. The lesson to be learned is that before paying people a small fortune to present a programme, check whether the programme they presented before is genuinely popular or only watched because there is little else worth watching at the time!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)