Labour leader Ed Miliband has criticised the lack of promotion of women by David Cameron's ruling Conservatives in a fiery Prime Minister's Questions session.
Describing the Conservatives as an "old boys' network", Miliband slammed a decision by the party to deselect long-serving Member of Parliament Anne McIntosh for the next General Election.
Embarrassingly for the Prime Minister, his front bench was full of male MPs for the session, while Miliband packed his front bench with women.
Miliband also noted that there are just as many members of David Cameron's cabinet from two fee-paying schools as there are female members. The ruling coalition has been criticised in the past for hindering social mobility, with the current cabinet the least diverse in years, if not decades.
There has been activity in all of the major UK political parties in recent years to promote more women to Parliament, occasionally controversially in the form of 'all-women shortlists' in some parliamentary constituencies.
The coalition parties have been wholly unsuccessful in returning women to Parliament though. In the aftermath of the 2010 General Election, 31 percent of Labour MPs were female, compared with 16 percent of Conservatives and 12 percent of Liberal Democrats.
This deficit has given the government a headache, as Labour has a broad pool of female talent to draw from. In contrast, promising female MPs on the government benches have largely fallen by the wayside.
Louise Mensch was part of the parliamentary committee charged with interrogating Rupert Murdoch over the phone-hacking scandal that engulfed his newspapers. Following that role, she suddenly stood down as MP citing family reasons and now writes for Murdoch's Sun newspaper.
Other promising female careers in the coalition government have also fizzled out, including that of Sarah Teather - now a regular rebel against government policy. Teather has announced she is stepping down at the next election.
Others, including Nadine Dorries, have also taken to frequently opposing their own party. Indeed, Dorries has also criticised the Conservative leadership, dismissing them as "posh boys."
However, there must inevitably be an allowance for the prospect that any MP, regardless of gender, may fail to fulfil early promise - at best serving as a good constituency MP. The problem for the coalition is there are still not enough female MPs to source talented potential cabinet members in sufficient numbers.
The true failing, it would seem, is not just the failure to get enough talented women into high-profile government roles, but getting them into Parliament in the first place.
Showing posts with label Ed Miliband. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ed Miliband. Show all posts
Wednesday, 5 February 2014
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
Monday, 15 August 2011
Thoughts about social backdrop of England riots
The English youth of today had many labels applied to them over the past week, including fickle, feckless, lazy, angry and violent. It has even been suggested, hopefully in jest, they lack the determination to sustain a riot for more than a couple of days. Whatever the labels, following last week's riots, the public have now taken a social role of judgement over the events.
As people try to make sense of what they witnessed, whether live or on the television, many questions are now being contemplated. Was there a cause behind the riots? Were the riots indicative of societal breakdown. Are particular age groups and races more implicated than others by what occurred? Many words have already been spilled, at times recklessly, trying to ascertain the answers.
The term 'riots' is being used as a blanket term, which covers a number of activities of variable severity. The riots followed a peaceful protest over a fatal police shooting. They included battles with riot police, the burning of cars, the burning of homes, the burning of small businesses, smashing shop windows, looting and murder. No doubt there were ringleaders, participants and those there to make up the numbers. It is not easy to sort the alienated in society from the scum.
Those who are definitely scum include thugs who murdered those protecting their property, who burned down retail outlets and smashed up homes. No amount of accusations that describing people as 'scum' dehumanises them will shift me from that position. These people are criminals, and their punishments must reflect their deeds.
The problem is what to do with those who committed lesser crimes of varying severity. One person has already been jailed for stealing bottled water, its seriousness being contextualised by the rioting that facilitated the theft. Then, the future needs to be dealt with and how to prevent more rioting.
Disorder has rarely had legitimacy in Britain as a means of bringing about change, even when the cause seems apparently clear, for example the vandalism that occurred on the same day as peaceful anti-cuts protests in London. When there is no definable cause, the chance of significant public sympathy may as well be zero.
Excuses for the disorder ranged from stealing from the rich, getting goods from wealthy people that can be sold on, loose definitions of 'respect' and 'having a laugh'. Without a unified cause, it is difficult to see how their actions can be looked upon with anything other than contempt.
In the absence of an overall cause, the only consistent theme is the acquisition of assets. Whether it is youths hoping to sell on their gains or people rioting through general anger regarding the rich/poor divide, the concept of what someone does not have is the one which recurs the most.
This is a capitalist society built on desired goods, ownership and possessions. Owning particular goods are viewed as a benchmark of success, which makes those in possession more attractive to potential peers and partners. The youngest in society, trying to write their futures, are inevitably going to be the most ambitious in pursuing material goods to achieve their ends. It should be no surprise that when there are no jobs for them and no scope to further their education they begin to live their lives outside of the law.
The tough standards which this society is constrained by create much unhappiness. One columnist described the riots as being an England he "didn't recognise." Sadly, I recognised it very well. I recognise it from the jobs I have had in a public facing role. I recognise it from the unpleasantness I have to witness as a user of public transport at various times of the day. England has more of its fair share of nice people, but we have to accept we have some very nasty citizens in our midst as well who will stop at nothing to enrich their own lives and make the lives of others a misery.
Other observers are trying to frame last week's trouble in terms of colour in a cheap attempt to package the riots as a black problem. This is nonsense. An attempt to arouse the public into a race conflict is both dangerous and unnecessary. Nobody needs to be told that a significant proportion of the rioters were black. Instead, people need to be told the reasons a significant proportion of the rioters were black.
There are two immediate theories that spring to mind. Firstly, the ever-difficult relationship between young black people and the police. Secondly, and even more illuminating, is that the location of the riots were in the most deprived areas of the country - and these areas of deprivation have a high percentage of black people living there. These hard facts will not prevent knuckledraggers from continuing to force-feed idiots a fallacy that criminality is determined by skin colour.
The government response can hardly be said to be any more intelligent either. David Cameron is typically talking tough and has brought in respected American 'super cop' William Bratton to advise on dealing with the rioting. This move has been widely criticised as being disrespectful to British police forces. To that, criticism can be added that the riots have happened, were brought under control, and at the very least equal attention must now be given to social solutions.
Is there a strategy for making young people more active in society? Will there be a reversal of closures to youth centres and the scrapping of Educational Maintenance Allowance? What can be done to create more employment for our excluded youth? The answer is there will probably be no such strategy when it is easier to strut around and give indirect satisfaction to the prejudiced and the racist with promises of tough sanctions.
As people try to make sense of what they witnessed, whether live or on the television, many questions are now being contemplated. Was there a cause behind the riots? Were the riots indicative of societal breakdown. Are particular age groups and races more implicated than others by what occurred? Many words have already been spilled, at times recklessly, trying to ascertain the answers.
The term 'riots' is being used as a blanket term, which covers a number of activities of variable severity. The riots followed a peaceful protest over a fatal police shooting. They included battles with riot police, the burning of cars, the burning of homes, the burning of small businesses, smashing shop windows, looting and murder. No doubt there were ringleaders, participants and those there to make up the numbers. It is not easy to sort the alienated in society from the scum.
Those who are definitely scum include thugs who murdered those protecting their property, who burned down retail outlets and smashed up homes. No amount of accusations that describing people as 'scum' dehumanises them will shift me from that position. These people are criminals, and their punishments must reflect their deeds.
The problem is what to do with those who committed lesser crimes of varying severity. One person has already been jailed for stealing bottled water, its seriousness being contextualised by the rioting that facilitated the theft. Then, the future needs to be dealt with and how to prevent more rioting.
Disorder has rarely had legitimacy in Britain as a means of bringing about change, even when the cause seems apparently clear, for example the vandalism that occurred on the same day as peaceful anti-cuts protests in London. When there is no definable cause, the chance of significant public sympathy may as well be zero.
Excuses for the disorder ranged from stealing from the rich, getting goods from wealthy people that can be sold on, loose definitions of 'respect' and 'having a laugh'. Without a unified cause, it is difficult to see how their actions can be looked upon with anything other than contempt.
In the absence of an overall cause, the only consistent theme is the acquisition of assets. Whether it is youths hoping to sell on their gains or people rioting through general anger regarding the rich/poor divide, the concept of what someone does not have is the one which recurs the most.
This is a capitalist society built on desired goods, ownership and possessions. Owning particular goods are viewed as a benchmark of success, which makes those in possession more attractive to potential peers and partners. The youngest in society, trying to write their futures, are inevitably going to be the most ambitious in pursuing material goods to achieve their ends. It should be no surprise that when there are no jobs for them and no scope to further their education they begin to live their lives outside of the law.
The tough standards which this society is constrained by create much unhappiness. One columnist described the riots as being an England he "didn't recognise." Sadly, I recognised it very well. I recognise it from the jobs I have had in a public facing role. I recognise it from the unpleasantness I have to witness as a user of public transport at various times of the day. England has more of its fair share of nice people, but we have to accept we have some very nasty citizens in our midst as well who will stop at nothing to enrich their own lives and make the lives of others a misery.
Other observers are trying to frame last week's trouble in terms of colour in a cheap attempt to package the riots as a black problem. This is nonsense. An attempt to arouse the public into a race conflict is both dangerous and unnecessary. Nobody needs to be told that a significant proportion of the rioters were black. Instead, people need to be told the reasons a significant proportion of the rioters were black.
There are two immediate theories that spring to mind. Firstly, the ever-difficult relationship between young black people and the police. Secondly, and even more illuminating, is that the location of the riots were in the most deprived areas of the country - and these areas of deprivation have a high percentage of black people living there. These hard facts will not prevent knuckledraggers from continuing to force-feed idiots a fallacy that criminality is determined by skin colour.
The government response can hardly be said to be any more intelligent either. David Cameron is typically talking tough and has brought in respected American 'super cop' William Bratton to advise on dealing with the rioting. This move has been widely criticised as being disrespectful to British police forces. To that, criticism can be added that the riots have happened, were brought under control, and at the very least equal attention must now be given to social solutions.
Is there a strategy for making young people more active in society? Will there be a reversal of closures to youth centres and the scrapping of Educational Maintenance Allowance? What can be done to create more employment for our excluded youth? The answer is there will probably be no such strategy when it is easier to strut around and give indirect satisfaction to the prejudiced and the racist with promises of tough sanctions.
Friday, 10 June 2011
Why is it taking an Archbishop to oppose the Tories?
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, is doing what all decent religious figures would be expected to do - rightfully slam the government for the impact their policies are having on the most needy in society.
David Cameron is accusing the Archbishop of expressing political views. There is no question that some of the Archbishop's comments about voter expectations are political, however it is right that a senior religious figure should be speaking up on behalf of those in society less able to participate and articulate their frustrations.
Dr. Williams is the closest thing Mr. Cameron has to an opposition at the moment. Ed Miliband is likeable, but at this week's Prime Minister's Questions, he yet again failed to land as much as a decent strike on the Prime Minister. This is despite a difficult week with justice and NHS reforms and some rather sloppy work by ministers.
And the large bulk of the print media are completely geared to keeping the Tories in power. How Labour are ever able to win elections with such a major chunk of the media constantly against them is a miracle in itself. It is interesting how after a couple of (what should have been) very uncomfortable days for the Prime Minister, the Daily Telegraph has typically intervened with a diversionary tale about the role of Ed Balls in a campaign to remove Tony Blair from Number 10 following the 2005 election.
Timing is everything when it comes to weathering a storm. How much help can one political party get, and what does it say for democracy?
Interestingly, phone hacking is in the news again. It makes you wonder how little of the information newspapers receive is acquired legally. Maybe we should be slower to sympathise with the press the next time they unite to whinge about superinjunctions.
It is taking an Archbishop to oppose the Tories because nobody else is up to doing so. I wonder how many others will follow my lead and receive their news bulletins from the Archbishop of Canterbury in future.
David Cameron is accusing the Archbishop of expressing political views. There is no question that some of the Archbishop's comments about voter expectations are political, however it is right that a senior religious figure should be speaking up on behalf of those in society less able to participate and articulate their frustrations.
Dr. Williams is the closest thing Mr. Cameron has to an opposition at the moment. Ed Miliband is likeable, but at this week's Prime Minister's Questions, he yet again failed to land as much as a decent strike on the Prime Minister. This is despite a difficult week with justice and NHS reforms and some rather sloppy work by ministers.
And the large bulk of the print media are completely geared to keeping the Tories in power. How Labour are ever able to win elections with such a major chunk of the media constantly against them is a miracle in itself. It is interesting how after a couple of (what should have been) very uncomfortable days for the Prime Minister, the Daily Telegraph has typically intervened with a diversionary tale about the role of Ed Balls in a campaign to remove Tony Blair from Number 10 following the 2005 election.
Timing is everything when it comes to weathering a storm. How much help can one political party get, and what does it say for democracy?
Interestingly, phone hacking is in the news again. It makes you wonder how little of the information newspapers receive is acquired legally. Maybe we should be slower to sympathise with the press the next time they unite to whinge about superinjunctions.
It is taking an Archbishop to oppose the Tories because nobody else is up to doing so. I wonder how many others will follow my lead and receive their news bulletins from the Archbishop of Canterbury in future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)