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 Tory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tory. Show all posts
Wednesday, 5 February 2014
Tuesday, 5 March 2013
Every day is a bad news day under this government
Living in Britain at the moment is a tougher experience than we have been used to. While we continue to struggle to make ends meet, every day it seems as though there is another piece of news that is a slap in the face to us all. Each helping of gloom is supported by a source, which cumulatively are broad and inclusive.
Wednesday 27th February
Centrica, the private company that owns British Gas posts a tasty £606m residential profit in 2012 - up 11 percent on the previous year. In November 2012, the company put up gas bills by 6 percent.
Source: Which (consumer group)
Source: Which (consumer group)
Thursday 28th February
The bank that needed to be bailed out by the government, the Royal Bank of Scotland, made a pre-tax loss of £5.17bn. Many of the losses were due to PPI claims and fines. Bonuses remain set aside for staff. Astonishingly, the hapless organisation has been praised by the government.
Friday 1st March
The pound plunges to a two-and-a-half year low against the dollar following a "shock" fall in manufacturing output. I place the word "shock" in quotations on purpose, for many of us would hardly be shocked by a fall in manufacturing under a Conservative-led government.
Source: Sky
Source: Sky
Saturday 2nd March
From the file marked 'how to win friends and influence people', Philip Hammond, the Secretary of State for Defence decided to suggest that spending cuts should be made to welfare rather than his war chest. Great. We can all starve, but at least our military will be kept strong. Nothing like North Korea at all, of course.
Source: Independent
Sunday 3rd March
Source: Independent
Sunday 3rd March
The Conservatives are now making noises about withdrawing from the European Court of Human Rights after the next election, in what is seen as a populist move as a knee-jerk response to some high-profile defeats for the government regarding the deportation of terror suspects. A move would put Britain in a minority of two, alongside Belarus – at present Europe’s only remaining dictatorship.
Source: Independent
Monday 4th March
Source: Independent
Monday 4th March
Government policy to encourage banks to lend in order to breathe life into the economy is a catastrophic failure after banks and building societies slashed lending by £2.4 BILLION in the three months to December. The government’s “Funding for Lending” scheme was meant to encourage the banks to lend.
Source: Evening Standard
Source: Evening Standard
Tuesday 5th March
In a slap in the face to all those struggling to make ends meet, George Osborne went to the European Union finance ministers’ meeting to fight the corner of the bankers by voting against a cap on bankers’ bonuses. He lost 26-1.
Source: Telegraph
Source: Telegraph
And you wonder why Labour are 13 points ahead in the polls.
Sunday, 11 November 2012
The BBC's long journey to restore trust and its purpose
Regular readers of this website will be long aware of how critical and disillusioned I am with the BBC's efforts as a public service broadcaster. I am critical of the BBC because I love it, but it is a hard beast to love at the moment. The way it handled the report into the North Wales Care Home scandal, and the testimony given by Steven Messham - a former abuse victim, and clearly someone who is a vulnerable man - was disgraceful.
The BBC is in the wrong whichever way you look at it, and I can see at least two ways of looking at it.
Firstly, assuming the truth that Messham wrongly identified Lord McAlpine as one of his abusers (and we have to learn to question everything now), then the original report into the North Wales Care Abuse on Newsnight was an appalling misjudgement.
Secondly, and conversely, if the sceptre of legal action has bullied Messham into submission, leading to the BBC to cowardly shelve their story and prepare a hasty apology, then the behaviour of those at the BBC is appalling in that sense as well.
Either way, the BBC is in the wrong. Either way, Messham has been treated badly.
The crisis has led to questions about the BBC's purpose, and the future of public service broadcasting in this country. Well, it beats having to indulge in the uncomfortable question of how we are going to get to the bottom of the problem of child abuse when the mere suggestion of legal action sends researchers and investigators on the run.
One problem in particular is trying to unravel the following question: How can we on the left be taken seriously when we cannot even get our story straight as to what the BBC actually is?
On one hand, we are fighting its corner on the grounds it is a treasured institution and provides a public service, or at least it is meant to be when it is not either (a) wrongly making indirect paedophile allegations, (b) backtracking from legitimate allegations when the kitchen gets hot, or (c) both. We justify our position on the basis that the Tories would love to dismantle the BBC. On the other hand, we complain that it has become a Tory mouthpiece, that is complicit in the protection of establishment figures, perhaps like the one mentioned above.
We bemoan that fact that Andrew Marr is like Jeremy Paxman when confronted with a Labour MP, but becomes Phillip Schofield when confronted with a Tory (at least before Phillip Schofield decided that his This Morning sofa would no longer be a cosy seat for politicians).
The truth is we are trying to save an institution that is presently not on our side. Has it ever been really? Have we been admiring of an institution that has been contemptuous of us all along? This is the broadcaster that provides employment for Chris Patten, Andrew Neil, Jeremy Clarkson and a plethora of other people whose views are far removed from the left's ideal.
Amazingly, the funding mechanism that props up the BBC, and which many leftists are trying to preserve, is its very problem. Implicit in any relationship between BBC and government is where the broadcaster would be left if the licence fee was abolished - something the present Tory government has exploited fully. This makes it a state broadcaster, not a public service broadcaster. And it was a state broadcaster, as opposed to a public service broadcaster, that I witnessed as the BBC provided its interminable apology during Friday's Newsnight, as Messham's testimony was safely returned to the bottle it came out of.
Abolishing the licence fee is a form of commercialisation (not the same as privatisation, as the BBC could still have its own corporate structure) and one which I feel would benefit the broadcaster and the public it is supposed to be serving. The broadcaster could be truly independent and not the publicity wing of the Conservative Party, employed to prevent Lords, MPs and other establishment figures. The public would no longer have to pay a household tax for the privilege of watching television, regardless of whether their home is flat or a castle.
Who knows? With a little self-financing, the broadcaster may be able to restore the many events it lost to Sky, ITV and Channel 4 - cricket, golf, football, horse racing and Formula 1 to name a few. If that does not earn a little goodwill, then nothing would.
Another problem with our argument on the left is we support the BBC, not because we are happy with it, but because it supposedly represents what Rupert Murdoch is not. I have never bought into this "enemy of my enemy is my friend" belief. We cannot accuse Rupert Murdoch and his publications of hypocrisy over their criticisms of the BBC handling of the Savile and McAlpine issues if we are hypocrites ourselves.
After Murdoch's institution was found to be hacking people's phones, we were calling for the splitting Murdoch's press on the grounds that the family of publications had become too big and unmanageable. The BBC seems to be cursed with the same illness - bloated, huge and unmanageable. It allowed Savile to stalk its corridors for years, taking his prey back to dressing rooms to rape them. This is of course unless the BBC has since cowardly decided (after speaking to a lawyer or two) that Savile did none of these things after all and can now rest in peace.
Yet whenever I mention the possibility of splitting the BBC, I get quite a reaction. The idea of splitting the BBC is immediately conflated with dismantling the BBC. This is not what I am suggesting, though in the defence of my critics I have not been able to make this clear.
What I suggest, is that if the notion that running The Times, The Sunday Times, The Sun and (then) News of the World is too big a task for the Murdoch family, then BBC's radio, TV, local, commercial and news departments also should be split. Each can have their own management. Each still be nationalised, but funded commercially. Each operating in the public interest. Each still operating under the banner of the BBC.
As I keep saying though, there are aspects of the BBC I do love, but the news operation is now seriously dragging everything else down. Maybe the BBC should stick to what it is good at, and dispense with the current affairs.
I get through my work days thanks to Radio 2 - Britain's top radio station for good reason. Chris Evans has a cheery voice which starts the day well. Simon Mayo (my favourite of all the broadcasters) has a reassuring delivery with a wicked sense of humour, and that's not to mention Ken Bruce, Jeremy Vine and others. Radio 5 does sport extremely well, and allows the broadcasters (such as Alan Green) the creative freedom to be as critical as they wish.
Meanwhile, over on the television, some of the documentaries and research the BBC brings us is amazing. If BBC Four was ever abolished, I would probably fall out with the BBC for good!
So, I am not against the BBC. However I would be lying to say I am happy with it. Many are complaining the BBC is in disarray after a disgraceful process leading to poor Messham's discredited testimony (which has also served to knock back the cause of child protection for at least three decades). However, we are witnessing is the first steps by the BBC to repair itself, as only corporations can.
George Entwistle, who must be the shortest-lived Director General ever, has rightly resigned. In a way, I have a lot of sympathy with him. He was handed an unenviable inbox. His handling of it was appalling though. His appearance in front of MPs in light of the Savile fiasco was weak. The BBC's handling of the Messham evidence was no better.
Many employees within the BBC promptly gave a character reference about what a nice person Entwistle is - and I believe them. Sadly, I have heard it all before. They are the same parting gifts given to a football manager who loses seven of his last eight games in charge and is shown the door. "Nice fella, but we couldn't get results."
I am certainly no apologist for the previous Director General, Mark Thompson, either. I have no doubt though he would have come out fighting. We may never know if he would have sanctioned the Newsnight apology for running the story, but there must be a chance he would have stood firm. Notably, there is the unresolved question: Why is the BBC apologising for Newsnight, despite the name of the alleged abuser being circulated around the Internet, rather than the BBC? I am not certain if anyone at the BBC can answer that one either.
There are many gunning for the BBC at the moment. The newspapers, led by the Murdoch press, would love to see a weakened BBC. They are leading with hypocritical headlines about the chaos. Make no mistake, they have no right to take a moral position. Innocent people suffered when the Murdoch press published photographs of sex offenders, due to the fallibility of human judgement when faced with someone who vaguely resembles one of the Murdoch mugshots. Yet, if the BBC does not reform, people like Murdoch will win. If the BBC does not appoint a strong leader in the wake of Entwistle's resignation, again their enemies will win.
Despite Entwistle's fate, much more needs to be done at the BBC to restore lost trust in the broadcaster. A sacking is not going cure this mess. There is still a lot a lot of goodwill out there towards the BBC, as tweets from my friends on the left reassure me. This goodwill is not infinite though. I sign off with a question with words to the effect of those asked by an excellent user of the oft-maligned twitter website: "How did Savile get away with has paedophilic behaviour for so many years? Look at what has happened over the past seven days, and you will find your answer."
The BBC is in the wrong whichever way you look at it, and I can see at least two ways of looking at it.
Firstly, assuming the truth that Messham wrongly identified Lord McAlpine as one of his abusers (and we have to learn to question everything now), then the original report into the North Wales Care Abuse on Newsnight was an appalling misjudgement.
Secondly, and conversely, if the sceptre of legal action has bullied Messham into submission, leading to the BBC to cowardly shelve their story and prepare a hasty apology, then the behaviour of those at the BBC is appalling in that sense as well.
Either way, the BBC is in the wrong. Either way, Messham has been treated badly.
The crisis has led to questions about the BBC's purpose, and the future of public service broadcasting in this country. Well, it beats having to indulge in the uncomfortable question of how we are going to get to the bottom of the problem of child abuse when the mere suggestion of legal action sends researchers and investigators on the run.
One problem in particular is trying to unravel the following question: How can we on the left be taken seriously when we cannot even get our story straight as to what the BBC actually is?
On one hand, we are fighting its corner on the grounds it is a treasured institution and provides a public service, or at least it is meant to be when it is not either (a) wrongly making indirect paedophile allegations, (b) backtracking from legitimate allegations when the kitchen gets hot, or (c) both. We justify our position on the basis that the Tories would love to dismantle the BBC. On the other hand, we complain that it has become a Tory mouthpiece, that is complicit in the protection of establishment figures, perhaps like the one mentioned above.
We bemoan that fact that Andrew Marr is like Jeremy Paxman when confronted with a Labour MP, but becomes Phillip Schofield when confronted with a Tory (at least before Phillip Schofield decided that his This Morning sofa would no longer be a cosy seat for politicians).
The truth is we are trying to save an institution that is presently not on our side. Has it ever been really? Have we been admiring of an institution that has been contemptuous of us all along? This is the broadcaster that provides employment for Chris Patten, Andrew Neil, Jeremy Clarkson and a plethora of other people whose views are far removed from the left's ideal.
Amazingly, the funding mechanism that props up the BBC, and which many leftists are trying to preserve, is its very problem. Implicit in any relationship between BBC and government is where the broadcaster would be left if the licence fee was abolished - something the present Tory government has exploited fully. This makes it a state broadcaster, not a public service broadcaster. And it was a state broadcaster, as opposed to a public service broadcaster, that I witnessed as the BBC provided its interminable apology during Friday's Newsnight, as Messham's testimony was safely returned to the bottle it came out of.
Abolishing the licence fee is a form of commercialisation (not the same as privatisation, as the BBC could still have its own corporate structure) and one which I feel would benefit the broadcaster and the public it is supposed to be serving. The broadcaster could be truly independent and not the publicity wing of the Conservative Party, employed to prevent Lords, MPs and other establishment figures. The public would no longer have to pay a household tax for the privilege of watching television, regardless of whether their home is flat or a castle.
Who knows? With a little self-financing, the broadcaster may be able to restore the many events it lost to Sky, ITV and Channel 4 - cricket, golf, football, horse racing and Formula 1 to name a few. If that does not earn a little goodwill, then nothing would.
Another problem with our argument on the left is we support the BBC, not because we are happy with it, but because it supposedly represents what Rupert Murdoch is not. I have never bought into this "enemy of my enemy is my friend" belief. We cannot accuse Rupert Murdoch and his publications of hypocrisy over their criticisms of the BBC handling of the Savile and McAlpine issues if we are hypocrites ourselves.
After Murdoch's institution was found to be hacking people's phones, we were calling for the splitting Murdoch's press on the grounds that the family of publications had become too big and unmanageable. The BBC seems to be cursed with the same illness - bloated, huge and unmanageable. It allowed Savile to stalk its corridors for years, taking his prey back to dressing rooms to rape them. This is of course unless the BBC has since cowardly decided (after speaking to a lawyer or two) that Savile did none of these things after all and can now rest in peace.
Yet whenever I mention the possibility of splitting the BBC, I get quite a reaction. The idea of splitting the BBC is immediately conflated with dismantling the BBC. This is not what I am suggesting, though in the defence of my critics I have not been able to make this clear.
What I suggest, is that if the notion that running The Times, The Sunday Times, The Sun and (then) News of the World is too big a task for the Murdoch family, then BBC's radio, TV, local, commercial and news departments also should be split. Each can have their own management. Each still be nationalised, but funded commercially. Each operating in the public interest. Each still operating under the banner of the BBC.
As I keep saying though, there are aspects of the BBC I do love, but the news operation is now seriously dragging everything else down. Maybe the BBC should stick to what it is good at, and dispense with the current affairs.
I get through my work days thanks to Radio 2 - Britain's top radio station for good reason. Chris Evans has a cheery voice which starts the day well. Simon Mayo (my favourite of all the broadcasters) has a reassuring delivery with a wicked sense of humour, and that's not to mention Ken Bruce, Jeremy Vine and others. Radio 5 does sport extremely well, and allows the broadcasters (such as Alan Green) the creative freedom to be as critical as they wish.
Meanwhile, over on the television, some of the documentaries and research the BBC brings us is amazing. If BBC Four was ever abolished, I would probably fall out with the BBC for good!
So, I am not against the BBC. However I would be lying to say I am happy with it. Many are complaining the BBC is in disarray after a disgraceful process leading to poor Messham's discredited testimony (which has also served to knock back the cause of child protection for at least three decades). However, we are witnessing is the first steps by the BBC to repair itself, as only corporations can.
George Entwistle, who must be the shortest-lived Director General ever, has rightly resigned. In a way, I have a lot of sympathy with him. He was handed an unenviable inbox. His handling of it was appalling though. His appearance in front of MPs in light of the Savile fiasco was weak. The BBC's handling of the Messham evidence was no better.
Many employees within the BBC promptly gave a character reference about what a nice person Entwistle is - and I believe them. Sadly, I have heard it all before. They are the same parting gifts given to a football manager who loses seven of his last eight games in charge and is shown the door. "Nice fella, but we couldn't get results."
I am certainly no apologist for the previous Director General, Mark Thompson, either. I have no doubt though he would have come out fighting. We may never know if he would have sanctioned the Newsnight apology for running the story, but there must be a chance he would have stood firm. Notably, there is the unresolved question: Why is the BBC apologising for Newsnight, despite the name of the alleged abuser being circulated around the Internet, rather than the BBC? I am not certain if anyone at the BBC can answer that one either.
There are many gunning for the BBC at the moment. The newspapers, led by the Murdoch press, would love to see a weakened BBC. They are leading with hypocritical headlines about the chaos. Make no mistake, they have no right to take a moral position. Innocent people suffered when the Murdoch press published photographs of sex offenders, due to the fallibility of human judgement when faced with someone who vaguely resembles one of the Murdoch mugshots. Yet, if the BBC does not reform, people like Murdoch will win. If the BBC does not appoint a strong leader in the wake of Entwistle's resignation, again their enemies will win.
Despite Entwistle's fate, much more needs to be done at the BBC to restore lost trust in the broadcaster. A sacking is not going cure this mess. There is still a lot a lot of goodwill out there towards the BBC, as tweets from my friends on the left reassure me. This goodwill is not infinite though. I sign off with a question with words to the effect of those asked by an excellent user of the oft-maligned twitter website: "How did Savile get away with has paedophilic behaviour for so many years? Look at what has happened over the past seven days, and you will find your answer."
Sunday, 4 November 2012
Why feminism must free itself from people like Louise Mensch
Louise Mensch, former Conservative MP for Corby, never struck me as much of a feminist, despite what she may say. Real feminism engages with serious issues, such as the vote, pay, workplace and violence. Yet, when put to the test, self-styled feminists such as Louise Mensch fail to campaign effectively for their comrades. Her feminism, if it can be described as such, is more of the individualist variety.
Other than pointing out occasional outbursts of male chauvinism, I am uncertain what her principles are. That is, of course, a more general criticism of her that Labour, and even some Tories, would offer. On the whole, the sum total of her feminist achievements seems to be a demonstration that she can climb up any corporate ladder. That is not solidarity though with women who are aiming to achieve equal pay, trying to campaign against domestic violence, or protesting for more effective rape convictions.
Unfortunately Mensch is not alone. From the heavyweights of the past, we now have those who write about matters so trivial it barely qualifies as feminist scholarship. A great place to start for the evidence gathering is Mensch's Twitter page. (No link provided - it's easily searchable, and I do not wish to give her any more hits than necessary.)
The page is a masterclass in light Internet trolling. It is not the sort of trolling associated with vile people who, for example, threaten others. It is trolling of the variety where Mensch, as a conservative, has digs at her political opponents, then retweets the inevitable reactions she gets. Dare I say it, some of the responses use sexist language.
Bravo! That's how to change the world! Mensch tweeted and retweeted reactions for hours because Labour peer Lord Sugar called her "dear" on Twitter. This was certainly not the most outrageous act of sexism that Mensch has been subjected to, but of course she - as Sugar's political opposite - was deeply offended by it. I am frequently called "dear" by older women. I am no longer sure how to interpret it. Maybe I will dismiss it as a generational thing and be a little less chippy than Mensch.
The problem is, there is something decidedly "me, me, me" about Mensch's individualist ravings. The truth is, as someone on the right, Mensch cannot begin to appreciate the oppressor/oppressed dynamic that often constructs gendered interactions.
When put to the test, Mensch falls down. While her feminist comrades are campaigning for The Sun to abolish the antiquated (and rather embarrassing, it has to be said) daily topless page 3 girl, Mensch is writing for the newspaper.
This is the newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch - the man who she was drafted upon to interrogate as part of a parliamentary committee into the conduct of his newspaper researchers in the phone-hacking scandal. The outcome saw Mensch as one of the MPs who publicly distanced herself from the eventual report condemning Murdoch's suitability to run a newspaper. Now she is working for Murdoch.
That is not just a middle-finger to the feminism she supposedly stands for, that is a sequence of events ripe for a parliamentary inquiry.
Also counting against Mensch is her decision to quit as an MP little over two-years into her term for family reasons, something else which is not going to help the cause of other ambitious women hoping to enter Parliament in future. However, apart from marriage, little seems to have changed in her circumstances. It is now widely reported that it was fear of inevitable defeat from the embarrassed and angered Corby electorate that led Mensch to step down.
In summary, I feel that feminism is better off without Louise Mensch. However, as a male, I am no feminist writer and as I explain in this article I believe it is not for the place of men to speak on behalf of women. Therefore, all I offer here is mere advice, and a narrative into how I believe one particular bad apple can bring with it many contradictions.
Other than pointing out occasional outbursts of male chauvinism, I am uncertain what her principles are. That is, of course, a more general criticism of her that Labour, and even some Tories, would offer. On the whole, the sum total of her feminist achievements seems to be a demonstration that she can climb up any corporate ladder. That is not solidarity though with women who are aiming to achieve equal pay, trying to campaign against domestic violence, or protesting for more effective rape convictions.
Unfortunately Mensch is not alone. From the heavyweights of the past, we now have those who write about matters so trivial it barely qualifies as feminist scholarship. A great place to start for the evidence gathering is Mensch's Twitter page. (No link provided - it's easily searchable, and I do not wish to give her any more hits than necessary.)
The page is a masterclass in light Internet trolling. It is not the sort of trolling associated with vile people who, for example, threaten others. It is trolling of the variety where Mensch, as a conservative, has digs at her political opponents, then retweets the inevitable reactions she gets. Dare I say it, some of the responses use sexist language.
Bravo! That's how to change the world! Mensch tweeted and retweeted reactions for hours because Labour peer Lord Sugar called her "dear" on Twitter. This was certainly not the most outrageous act of sexism that Mensch has been subjected to, but of course she - as Sugar's political opposite - was deeply offended by it. I am frequently called "dear" by older women. I am no longer sure how to interpret it. Maybe I will dismiss it as a generational thing and be a little less chippy than Mensch.
The problem is, there is something decidedly "me, me, me" about Mensch's individualist ravings. The truth is, as someone on the right, Mensch cannot begin to appreciate the oppressor/oppressed dynamic that often constructs gendered interactions.
When put to the test, Mensch falls down. While her feminist comrades are campaigning for The Sun to abolish the antiquated (and rather embarrassing, it has to be said) daily topless page 3 girl, Mensch is writing for the newspaper.
This is the newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch - the man who she was drafted upon to interrogate as part of a parliamentary committee into the conduct of his newspaper researchers in the phone-hacking scandal. The outcome saw Mensch as one of the MPs who publicly distanced herself from the eventual report condemning Murdoch's suitability to run a newspaper. Now she is working for Murdoch.
That is not just a middle-finger to the feminism she supposedly stands for, that is a sequence of events ripe for a parliamentary inquiry.
Also counting against Mensch is her decision to quit as an MP little over two-years into her term for family reasons, something else which is not going to help the cause of other ambitious women hoping to enter Parliament in future. However, apart from marriage, little seems to have changed in her circumstances. It is now widely reported that it was fear of inevitable defeat from the embarrassed and angered Corby electorate that led Mensch to step down.
In summary, I feel that feminism is better off without Louise Mensch. However, as a male, I am no feminist writer and as I explain in this article I believe it is not for the place of men to speak on behalf of women. Therefore, all I offer here is mere advice, and a narrative into how I believe one particular bad apple can bring with it many contradictions.
Sunday, 29 July 2012
The left certainly not suckered in by the Olympics
'The London Olympics are the most right-wing major event in Britain’s modern history', proclaims Andrew Gilligan. In his article about the event, he correctly argues that the London Olympics provide advertising space for large corporations, that unsubstantial protests have been squashed and people have been kicked out of their homes. However, contrary to his claims, by having the audacity to actually enjoy the event, the left have not been "suckered in" by the Olympics.
The part of the event that Gilligan refers to that had us captivated (much more preferable to the phrase "suckered in") was the opening ceremony, brilliantly conceptualised by the director Danny Boyle. I enjoyed every minute of it and tweeted my delight during the latter hours of the event, therefore I missed parts of it. I will watch it again when time allows and I am looking forward to it already.
The opening ceremony was particularly outstanding because it provided an account of British history which meant something to the viewers. People I know from both the right and the left of the political spectrum loved it. There were few dissenters, despite my rather cynical network of friends.
My favourite part was the emergence of the industrial revolution, accompanied with lights, fireworks and high-energy music. Sadly, there was no Margaret Thatcher figure to smash it to pieces at the end of the episode to add to the accuracy of the proceedings.
The deliberately extended section celebrating the NHS told the world that our health service is something to be celebrated. After witnessing that, it is entirely up to the present government if they wish to smash that to pieces as well. If there is only the possibility that the show would make the coalition government think twice about dismantling the NHS, then it has contributed to the future of our nation in a small way.
The celebration of Britain's multiculturalism was sufficient to have some far-right politicians tweeting with rage, generally embarrassing themselves and playing a game of roulette with their careers in the process. And as for the appearance of Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti, I imagine that would have been the straw which broke the camel's back for many Tories.
It was the opening ceremony that had the lot. It had the lights, the pyrotechnics, tributes to my favourite bands of the past few decades, Dizzee Rascal, our finest sportspersons, Mr. Bean, animals, the Queen and James Bond.
Looking at the bigger picture, I appreciate the claims made by Gilligan. While I agree with his distaste about the influence of corporations, I warn him against selectivity. There is much to celebrate, particularly the inclusiveness encouraged. To witness Saudi Arabia shamed into including female athletes as part of their team is consistent with the Olympic spirit.
To witness countries I have never heard of bringing with them small teams, however nominal their performances turn out to be, delivers to people something that FIFA has never been able to achieve with football.
The leftists are right to celebrate this, yet we have not taken our eyes off the ball. Between appreciating the opening ceremony, there were also plenty of online updates about the plight of protesters in and around the Olympic event.
There is already an emerging anger about how corporations have swallowed up tickets for events and not used them, resulting in empty seats for events that the general public were disappointed to have missed out on. This ties in beautifully with theory (and not just among leftists) that corporations and banks are monumental wrecking machines responsible for a vast proportion of misery, economic or otherwise.
I am now looking forward to enjoying the sport, yet I remain aware of the wider issues of which the Olympics are a symptom rather than a cause. If we are to change corporate discourse, we must do so at the root of it, not at the expense of life and events operating within it, such as sporting events or even our own purchasing decisions.
Despite their presence at the Olympics, I am not about to start guzzling jugs of Coca-Cola or bags of McDonalds, but I will remain partial to the occasional indulgence. Saying the Olympics suckered in the left is akin to saying Starbucks was an inappropriate choice of coffee shop for last year's London occupiers campaigning against corporatism, despite the fact London is a ruthlessly competitive place for business, where the strongest prevail, with the result of limited purchasing options.
So where else do protesters go for an emergency coffee fix? And where else would we go to find the excitement of the Olympics?
The part of the event that Gilligan refers to that had us captivated (much more preferable to the phrase "suckered in") was the opening ceremony, brilliantly conceptualised by the director Danny Boyle. I enjoyed every minute of it and tweeted my delight during the latter hours of the event, therefore I missed parts of it. I will watch it again when time allows and I am looking forward to it already.
The opening ceremony was particularly outstanding because it provided an account of British history which meant something to the viewers. People I know from both the right and the left of the political spectrum loved it. There were few dissenters, despite my rather cynical network of friends.
My favourite part was the emergence of the industrial revolution, accompanied with lights, fireworks and high-energy music. Sadly, there was no Margaret Thatcher figure to smash it to pieces at the end of the episode to add to the accuracy of the proceedings.
The deliberately extended section celebrating the NHS told the world that our health service is something to be celebrated. After witnessing that, it is entirely up to the present government if they wish to smash that to pieces as well. If there is only the possibility that the show would make the coalition government think twice about dismantling the NHS, then it has contributed to the future of our nation in a small way.
The celebration of Britain's multiculturalism was sufficient to have some far-right politicians tweeting with rage, generally embarrassing themselves and playing a game of roulette with their careers in the process. And as for the appearance of Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti, I imagine that would have been the straw which broke the camel's back for many Tories.
It was the opening ceremony that had the lot. It had the lights, the pyrotechnics, tributes to my favourite bands of the past few decades, Dizzee Rascal, our finest sportspersons, Mr. Bean, animals, the Queen and James Bond.
Looking at the bigger picture, I appreciate the claims made by Gilligan. While I agree with his distaste about the influence of corporations, I warn him against selectivity. There is much to celebrate, particularly the inclusiveness encouraged. To witness Saudi Arabia shamed into including female athletes as part of their team is consistent with the Olympic spirit.
To witness countries I have never heard of bringing with them small teams, however nominal their performances turn out to be, delivers to people something that FIFA has never been able to achieve with football.
The leftists are right to celebrate this, yet we have not taken our eyes off the ball. Between appreciating the opening ceremony, there were also plenty of online updates about the plight of protesters in and around the Olympic event.
There is already an emerging anger about how corporations have swallowed up tickets for events and not used them, resulting in empty seats for events that the general public were disappointed to have missed out on. This ties in beautifully with theory (and not just among leftists) that corporations and banks are monumental wrecking machines responsible for a vast proportion of misery, economic or otherwise.
I am now looking forward to enjoying the sport, yet I remain aware of the wider issues of which the Olympics are a symptom rather than a cause. If we are to change corporate discourse, we must do so at the root of it, not at the expense of life and events operating within it, such as sporting events or even our own purchasing decisions.
Despite their presence at the Olympics, I am not about to start guzzling jugs of Coca-Cola or bags of McDonalds, but I will remain partial to the occasional indulgence. Saying the Olympics suckered in the left is akin to saying Starbucks was an inappropriate choice of coffee shop for last year's London occupiers campaigning against corporatism, despite the fact London is a ruthlessly competitive place for business, where the strongest prevail, with the result of limited purchasing options.
So where else do protesters go for an emergency coffee fix? And where else would we go to find the excitement of the Olympics?
Wednesday, 6 June 2012
Government workfare policy almost wrecks Queen's jubilee celebrations
The Queen's jubilee celebrations provided much joy for members of the British public of all classes. They defied the rain and the cold temperatures to pay tribute to her lengthy service. However, the sceptre of spiteful Tory policy is never far away. Their workfare policy, which encourages young people to work for nothing to gain 'experience', provided an uncomfortable backdrop which threatened to tarnish the memory of the Bank Holiday weekend festivities.
In this outstanding piece of research by Shiv Malik, it was revealed that young people were bussed in to London from other areas of the country with pockets of deprivation, including Bristol and Plymouth, to provide security for the jubilee pageant. Their coaches arrived too early, at 3am, and they were left camp under London Bridge. Yes - in 2012, the young poor found themselves in a situation that could have been straight out of the history books of Victorian Britain. They were unpaid slaves. Having spent hours cold and wet under a bridge, they worked for nothing, as royalty flowed down the river in a golden boat and hoards of royalists watched on, expressing their pride in being British by waving flags.
This is a completely unacceptable state of affairs. Instead of forcing young servants to work for nothing, the long British summer should be used as a means to provide economic opportunities for these people. The Olympics, the jubilee celebrations, and the prospect of perhaps a warm summer, should be opportunities to provide paid employment - not another means for the wealthiest to exploit the poorest. It is another example how those holding currency in this country do not want to share any of it with the nation's poorest. Unemployment will not go down while the so-called wealth creators know they can employ people for nothing.
There are a few counter-arguments to this position, largely surrounding the idea that the jubilee events were a privilege to be involved in and young people agreed to participate to get experience. So let us consider some of these arguments.
1. "They agreed to it"
One of the counter-claims is the young people agreed to the unpaid work. Whether they have agreed to it or not is a moot point - nobody should be made to feel they should work for nothing for a chance in life. Some knew they were not being paid, but felt they had to go along with it or maybe lose their welfare benefits. Others were allegedly bribed with the promise of work at the Olympics. None of them expected to be treated like peasants, dumped under a soggy bridge and left to sample Cardboard City life from the Thatcherite 1980s.
2. "They are paid state benefit, so in theory had been paid"
Anyone who has been on state benefit knows the income it provides does little more than buy food and pay the bills. It is not a means to live an active and sociable life. The conditions of state benefit include actively seeking work and demonstrating a willingness to do this, so it is not a payment without conditions in its first instance. The purpose of benefits is to help counter the effects of poverty. Welfare payments should not be a means to justify blackmail. This kind of blackmail potentially affects millions of people out of work at present. Despite the void of millions of jobs needed, this blame culture continues, with the poor being ordered to get on their bikes to find work - or in this case, a coach.
3. "Others were camping out just to get a good position to enjoy the event"
Well good for them. How very deferential. If anyone was camping out to be there, I hope they had taken the necessary safety precautions, and I hope they enjoyed their day. The slaves were never going to enjoy the day in quite the same way. They were on duty. They had to work. They had to deal with any problems that arose. They had to deal with colleagues, and take instructions. And they should have been able to do this without the stress of having arrived at 3am and left to fend for themselves. As a side note, it is also worth mentioning that if it was a mere "logistics error" (as the manager of the private firm responsible for the security colourfully described it), what else was not done properly? Were those unemployed people plucked to provide security (of all things) sufficiently security-checked themselves? Would we have known if they were terrorists?
Those who think the centre-left, led by Lord Prescott, are being typically difficult about workers' rights and blowing this issue up out of all proportion, here is some food for thought. It is just as well that the debate is "merely" about the employment rights of young people. If someone had been seriously injured or killed as a result of negligence, the debate would have been far more critical, and the jubilee weekend would have been wrecked thanks to this inept government and their rotten employment policies.
This incident is typical of the problems we face in 2012 under a callous government. Although our society's problems cannot be compared to those in Syria, it is difficult to wonder how we can consider setting anyone else free when sections of our society are not free. A minimum wage should mean a minimum wage for all. That means no more unpaid internships, and a termination of the workfare policy.
Would it really cause great hardship to companies to pay all workers who wish to learn their trade with them? There are enough mechanisms for employers to rid themselves of staff who struggle to grasp the work thanks to our lightweight employment laws. They could take a chance on these young people and pay them what they deserve. Their own lack of economic consciousness mean that many companies are unaware of the fact that they also need paid staff for the economy they rely on to function, An economy that provides liquidity to the poorest is in the interests of all but the very wealthiest of companies. Staff who are unpaid for their labour cannot be consumers. Until the consumers are given the resources to participate in economic life, the economy will continue to stagnate. Sadly nothing will change unless this government changes course, or a sensible government is elected to replace it.
In this outstanding piece of research by Shiv Malik, it was revealed that young people were bussed in to London from other areas of the country with pockets of deprivation, including Bristol and Plymouth, to provide security for the jubilee pageant. Their coaches arrived too early, at 3am, and they were left camp under London Bridge. Yes - in 2012, the young poor found themselves in a situation that could have been straight out of the history books of Victorian Britain. They were unpaid slaves. Having spent hours cold and wet under a bridge, they worked for nothing, as royalty flowed down the river in a golden boat and hoards of royalists watched on, expressing their pride in being British by waving flags.
This is a completely unacceptable state of affairs. Instead of forcing young servants to work for nothing, the long British summer should be used as a means to provide economic opportunities for these people. The Olympics, the jubilee celebrations, and the prospect of perhaps a warm summer, should be opportunities to provide paid employment - not another means for the wealthiest to exploit the poorest. It is another example how those holding currency in this country do not want to share any of it with the nation's poorest. Unemployment will not go down while the so-called wealth creators know they can employ people for nothing.
There are a few counter-arguments to this position, largely surrounding the idea that the jubilee events were a privilege to be involved in and young people agreed to participate to get experience. So let us consider some of these arguments.
1. "They agreed to it"
One of the counter-claims is the young people agreed to the unpaid work. Whether they have agreed to it or not is a moot point - nobody should be made to feel they should work for nothing for a chance in life. Some knew they were not being paid, but felt they had to go along with it or maybe lose their welfare benefits. Others were allegedly bribed with the promise of work at the Olympics. None of them expected to be treated like peasants, dumped under a soggy bridge and left to sample Cardboard City life from the Thatcherite 1980s.
2. "They are paid state benefit, so in theory had been paid"
Anyone who has been on state benefit knows the income it provides does little more than buy food and pay the bills. It is not a means to live an active and sociable life. The conditions of state benefit include actively seeking work and demonstrating a willingness to do this, so it is not a payment without conditions in its first instance. The purpose of benefits is to help counter the effects of poverty. Welfare payments should not be a means to justify blackmail. This kind of blackmail potentially affects millions of people out of work at present. Despite the void of millions of jobs needed, this blame culture continues, with the poor being ordered to get on their bikes to find work - or in this case, a coach.
3. "Others were camping out just to get a good position to enjoy the event"
Well good for them. How very deferential. If anyone was camping out to be there, I hope they had taken the necessary safety precautions, and I hope they enjoyed their day. The slaves were never going to enjoy the day in quite the same way. They were on duty. They had to work. They had to deal with any problems that arose. They had to deal with colleagues, and take instructions. And they should have been able to do this without the stress of having arrived at 3am and left to fend for themselves. As a side note, it is also worth mentioning that if it was a mere "logistics error" (as the manager of the private firm responsible for the security colourfully described it), what else was not done properly? Were those unemployed people plucked to provide security (of all things) sufficiently security-checked themselves? Would we have known if they were terrorists?
Those who think the centre-left, led by Lord Prescott, are being typically difficult about workers' rights and blowing this issue up out of all proportion, here is some food for thought. It is just as well that the debate is "merely" about the employment rights of young people. If someone had been seriously injured or killed as a result of negligence, the debate would have been far more critical, and the jubilee weekend would have been wrecked thanks to this inept government and their rotten employment policies.
This incident is typical of the problems we face in 2012 under a callous government. Although our society's problems cannot be compared to those in Syria, it is difficult to wonder how we can consider setting anyone else free when sections of our society are not free. A minimum wage should mean a minimum wage for all. That means no more unpaid internships, and a termination of the workfare policy.
Would it really cause great hardship to companies to pay all workers who wish to learn their trade with them? There are enough mechanisms for employers to rid themselves of staff who struggle to grasp the work thanks to our lightweight employment laws. They could take a chance on these young people and pay them what they deserve. Their own lack of economic consciousness mean that many companies are unaware of the fact that they also need paid staff for the economy they rely on to function, An economy that provides liquidity to the poorest is in the interests of all but the very wealthiest of companies. Staff who are unpaid for their labour cannot be consumers. Until the consumers are given the resources to participate in economic life, the economy will continue to stagnate. Sadly nothing will change unless this government changes course, or a sensible government is elected to replace it.
Warsi or Hunt?
I have pledged not to write much more about BSkyB, the Murdochs, the Leveson Inquiry and those Tories who have damaged their own personal reputations with their own roles in the grubby affair (and I include the Prime Minister in that). The reason is that the evidence is now so public that those involved must simply await their fate. However, the contrast is clear between the way the Prime Minister has treated the transgressions of Jeremy Hunt, the Murdochs' cheerleader, and Baroness Warsi, who he has ordered an investigation into for allowing a business partner to accompany her on an official trip to Pakistan.
The error-prone Prime Minister described Jeremy Hunt as handling the BSkyB bid 'wisely and fairly'. Despite some very ambiguous evidence, we will have to give him the benefit of the doubt that he was handling the bid fairly. There is no justifying any suggestion that Hunt handled the bid 'wisely' though. There is nothing wise in accepting the role overseeing the BSkyB bid, when you have previously sent messages to Murdoch HQ congratulating them on having their bid cleared by those democrats in Brussels. There is nothing wise in most of the messages he sent them.
The difference between Hunt and Warsi though is that Hunt is a great human shield for David Cameron, who has seen most of his inner-circle arrested because of their involvement with News International. Warsi, on the other hand, has always been a performer promoted way above her level in a cynical Tory attempt to pretend they are inclusive and transcend class and race. She has repeatedly been sent out as the public face of the Conservative Party, and repeatedly given performances that are more likely to lose votes rather than gain them. It is speculated that this is why it was easy for Cameron to refer Warsi to be investigated for breaking ministerial rules but not Hunt. It would seem Warsi is more disposable than Hunt, but surely neither can last much longer.
The error-prone Prime Minister described Jeremy Hunt as handling the BSkyB bid 'wisely and fairly'. Despite some very ambiguous evidence, we will have to give him the benefit of the doubt that he was handling the bid fairly. There is no justifying any suggestion that Hunt handled the bid 'wisely' though. There is nothing wise in accepting the role overseeing the BSkyB bid, when you have previously sent messages to Murdoch HQ congratulating them on having their bid cleared by those democrats in Brussels. There is nothing wise in most of the messages he sent them.
The difference between Hunt and Warsi though is that Hunt is a great human shield for David Cameron, who has seen most of his inner-circle arrested because of their involvement with News International. Warsi, on the other hand, has always been a performer promoted way above her level in a cynical Tory attempt to pretend they are inclusive and transcend class and race. She has repeatedly been sent out as the public face of the Conservative Party, and repeatedly given performances that are more likely to lose votes rather than gain them. It is speculated that this is why it was easy for Cameron to refer Warsi to be investigated for breaking ministerial rules but not Hunt. It would seem Warsi is more disposable than Hunt, but surely neither can last much longer.
Friday, 25 May 2012
Beecroft shows the attitude that runs through Tory policy
Aggressive comments made by Adrian Beecroft about Vince Cable have overshadowed his report into employment reforms - and rightly so. His comments, using the word 'socialist' as an insult to describe Cable's concerns about his report, bring into focus the spite and vindictiveness that have been invested into his policy agenda. In essence, his actions have exposed the lack of objectivity influencing his report that the Tory-led government will use to guide employment policy.
The most controversial feature of his report, and the one that attracted Mr. Cable's critique which prompted the outburst, is its suggestion to make it easier for firms to sack employees. It is an indictment of present Tory thinking that at a time of economic difficulty and mass unemployment, reworking employment law to weaken the employment rights of those who are economically active is considered a priority.
The irony is Beecroft's claim that Cable's resistance to his report is ideological. This leads to two questions. Firstly, since when was 'ideology' - the science of ideas - used as a means of personal insult? Secondly, Beecroft's report has ideology running through it. In fact, it has class warfare running through it.
It is wrong for Beecroft to suggest that someone like Cable is unfit for office because they are daring to be hostile to a contentious part of a report. If anything, my fear was that many leading Liberal Democrats are not fit for office because they often failed to take a contrary position to the government line. Their roles ought to make coalition government a bit more of a challenge for the Tories in the coalition power dynamic.
Beecroft's venture capitalist company holds a stake in Wonga.com, the company that provides short-term 'pay-day' loans for the financially desperate at inflated interest rates. You could be forgiven for thinking his ideas seem to do more to create the next generation of Wonga.com customers than solve any red tape problems facing businesses. I struggle to understand how business rules that are a problem now were less of an issue when the economy was thriving and people had spare money (or at least spare low-interest credit) to spend. It appears another attempt to chip away at workers' rights.
It seems the Tories will back the findings of Beecroft regardless of his political unsubtlety. It is disappointing that the report is supported by our local MP Damian Collins. The only outcome of 'no-fault dismissal' will be to create greater job insecurity and uncertainty for families in Shepway, who are already struggling to make ends meet. These people, not just in Shepway but in the whole of Britain, deserve better.
The most controversial feature of his report, and the one that attracted Mr. Cable's critique which prompted the outburst, is its suggestion to make it easier for firms to sack employees. It is an indictment of present Tory thinking that at a time of economic difficulty and mass unemployment, reworking employment law to weaken the employment rights of those who are economically active is considered a priority.
The irony is Beecroft's claim that Cable's resistance to his report is ideological. This leads to two questions. Firstly, since when was 'ideology' - the science of ideas - used as a means of personal insult? Secondly, Beecroft's report has ideology running through it. In fact, it has class warfare running through it.
It is wrong for Beecroft to suggest that someone like Cable is unfit for office because they are daring to be hostile to a contentious part of a report. If anything, my fear was that many leading Liberal Democrats are not fit for office because they often failed to take a contrary position to the government line. Their roles ought to make coalition government a bit more of a challenge for the Tories in the coalition power dynamic.
Beecroft's venture capitalist company holds a stake in Wonga.com, the company that provides short-term 'pay-day' loans for the financially desperate at inflated interest rates. You could be forgiven for thinking his ideas seem to do more to create the next generation of Wonga.com customers than solve any red tape problems facing businesses. I struggle to understand how business rules that are a problem now were less of an issue when the economy was thriving and people had spare money (or at least spare low-interest credit) to spend. It appears another attempt to chip away at workers' rights.
It seems the Tories will back the findings of Beecroft regardless of his political unsubtlety. It is disappointing that the report is supported by our local MP Damian Collins. The only outcome of 'no-fault dismissal' will be to create greater job insecurity and uncertainty for families in Shepway, who are already struggling to make ends meet. These people, not just in Shepway but in the whole of Britain, deserve better.
Sunday, 6 May 2012
Vote 2012 review, complete with some risible myths
Almost 72 hours have passed since David Cameron's bleakest hour, which saw his party suffer heavy losses in the 2012 local elections. His Con-Dem partners, the Liberal Democrats, sustained a second round of heavy losses following a similar mauling twelve months ago. For the junior partners in the Con-Dem alliance, there was little in the way of comfort. The only comforting factor for Cameron seemed to be re-election of Boris Johnson as the Mayor of London.
However, this good news tidbit for Mr. Cameron may be a slight myth. If Cameron is rejoicing Johnson's victory in public (and Cameron needed something to be seen to cheer about), then privately he must be alarmed as to how Johnson has maintained such a level of popularity. Johnson's narrow victory over influential rival and seasoned campaigner Ken Livingstone was an impressive one in light of the level of animosity towards the present Tory-led government. Some may see this as a silver lining for Cameron, but the rise of brand Boris is something that has the potential to be troublesome to the Prime Minister in the future.
Another myth the Tories and their Con-Dem partners are trying to promote is the election result was a typical "mid-term kicking" being given to the governing parties. Not only is that claim highly disrespectful to all of those who exercised their democratic right to vote, but the opinion polling over recent weeks do not reflect these claims in any case.
Over recent months, Labour and the Conservatives have been closely matched in the polls. Many voters were uncomfortable with the speed and the scale of government cuts, but while the Tory-led Con-Dem government were able to coherently argue a desperate need for cuts, supporter numbers held up. Then came the budget which put money into the pockets of millionaires, the problem that is Jeremy Hunt, the under-reported assault on the NHS and various other acts of incompetence. Polls started revealing a shift towards Labour, giving them anything up to a 12 point lead. The Guardian's ICM poll had the Tories ahead by 3 points on the 18th March of this year. By the 22nd April, the same pollsters had Labour a comfortable 8 points ahead. Thursday's vote reflected the emerging gap, as the overall vote share suggested a 7 point triumph for Labour over the Tories.
Tories continue with the claim they are suffering for "cleaning up the mess they inherited" (they still do not realise this phrase is a vote-loser).The aforementioned polls suggest this is a complete fallacy, for it is those calamities involving Jeremy Hunt, the Murdochs, a self-inflicted fuel crisis and the budget that co-incided with plummeting poll ratings - all of which had more to do with creating mess rather than cleaning it up.
Some old-fashioned but highly influential Tories have complained Cameron is not 'conservative' enough, not right-wing enough and too liberal. Their argument is that parties like UKIP will continue to grow if the Tories do not move rightwards (unless your name is Warsi, then you imply that UKIP are mopping up estranged BNP voters). Some bitter backbenchers are delivering similar criticisms, and worryingly that means commentators are now actually taking the outbursts of Nadine Dorries seriously. Cameron himself has declared he will continue as he is, continuing to make those "tough" decisions, and presumably continuing to slide down the poll ratings.
His Tories could not even win in Chipping Norton. Labour's success in this area was laughed off as something ironic given the area being synonomous with Cameron and his News International pals. I would suggest the result is more reflective of the absolute embarrassment felt by local residents of the way their corner of the world has been brought into disrepute over the past twelve months. Also, as should be the case with local elections, there are also local difficulties that contributed to the result.
Cameron's management of both party and country does not lend itself to winning new voters anytime soon. Moving towards the right will not help either - voters already think their economic policies are too extreme and favour the top of society's food chain. That means Cameron's run of not being very good at winning elections is liable to continue. This is quite the opposite to a certain Boris Johnson, who for whatever reason seems to be well-regarded in London. The best advice for the Prime Minister should be to keep looking over his shoulder.
However, this good news tidbit for Mr. Cameron may be a slight myth. If Cameron is rejoicing Johnson's victory in public (and Cameron needed something to be seen to cheer about), then privately he must be alarmed as to how Johnson has maintained such a level of popularity. Johnson's narrow victory over influential rival and seasoned campaigner Ken Livingstone was an impressive one in light of the level of animosity towards the present Tory-led government. Some may see this as a silver lining for Cameron, but the rise of brand Boris is something that has the potential to be troublesome to the Prime Minister in the future.
Another myth the Tories and their Con-Dem partners are trying to promote is the election result was a typical "mid-term kicking" being given to the governing parties. Not only is that claim highly disrespectful to all of those who exercised their democratic right to vote, but the opinion polling over recent weeks do not reflect these claims in any case.
Over recent months, Labour and the Conservatives have been closely matched in the polls. Many voters were uncomfortable with the speed and the scale of government cuts, but while the Tory-led Con-Dem government were able to coherently argue a desperate need for cuts, supporter numbers held up. Then came the budget which put money into the pockets of millionaires, the problem that is Jeremy Hunt, the under-reported assault on the NHS and various other acts of incompetence. Polls started revealing a shift towards Labour, giving them anything up to a 12 point lead. The Guardian's ICM poll had the Tories ahead by 3 points on the 18th March of this year. By the 22nd April, the same pollsters had Labour a comfortable 8 points ahead. Thursday's vote reflected the emerging gap, as the overall vote share suggested a 7 point triumph for Labour over the Tories.
Tories continue with the claim they are suffering for "cleaning up the mess they inherited" (they still do not realise this phrase is a vote-loser).The aforementioned polls suggest this is a complete fallacy, for it is those calamities involving Jeremy Hunt, the Murdochs, a self-inflicted fuel crisis and the budget that co-incided with plummeting poll ratings - all of which had more to do with creating mess rather than cleaning it up.
Some old-fashioned but highly influential Tories have complained Cameron is not 'conservative' enough, not right-wing enough and too liberal. Their argument is that parties like UKIP will continue to grow if the Tories do not move rightwards (unless your name is Warsi, then you imply that UKIP are mopping up estranged BNP voters). Some bitter backbenchers are delivering similar criticisms, and worryingly that means commentators are now actually taking the outbursts of Nadine Dorries seriously. Cameron himself has declared he will continue as he is, continuing to make those "tough" decisions, and presumably continuing to slide down the poll ratings.
His Tories could not even win in Chipping Norton. Labour's success in this area was laughed off as something ironic given the area being synonomous with Cameron and his News International pals. I would suggest the result is more reflective of the absolute embarrassment felt by local residents of the way their corner of the world has been brought into disrepute over the past twelve months. Also, as should be the case with local elections, there are also local difficulties that contributed to the result.
Cameron's management of both party and country does not lend itself to winning new voters anytime soon. Moving towards the right will not help either - voters already think their economic policies are too extreme and favour the top of society's food chain. That means Cameron's run of not being very good at winning elections is liable to continue. This is quite the opposite to a certain Boris Johnson, who for whatever reason seems to be well-regarded in London. The best advice for the Prime Minister should be to keep looking over his shoulder.
Tuesday, 1 May 2012
Murdoch crisis has exposed Cameron's unelectability and Tory dependence on his press
Whatever the outcome of the Leveson inquiry into media standards, and the many other investigations into the conduct of News Corporation, one thing for certain is the Tories will emerge with their reputations battered. Although David Cameron's asserts that all parties got too close to the Rupert Murdoch machine, there is no doubt the Tories are coming away with more muck on them than the others. It is hardly a surprise - they have showed themselves to be the party of the few and out of touch with the many.
The phone-hacking scandal and the subsequent fallout relating to Murdoch's undemocratic influence in Britain, is the gift that keeps on giving. This week, the Prime Minister resorted to personal jibes in the House of Commons, targeting veteran MP Dennis Skinner with a legally dubious remark about his age. This is because he had no robust defence of Skinner's question about Jeremy Hunt being given more employment protection by the PM than the average worker gets.
Past Labour Prime Ministers may have tried to gain some of that Murdoch stardust, but this is hardly surprising given the supposed impact his populist paper had on their 1992 election defeat. However, it is becoming clear some serious back-scratching must have occurred for Cameron to get such Murdoch support for the 2010 election (not to mention the fact the BBC and Sky News coverage of the election was also very unfriendly towards Gordon Brown). Cameron's Tories certainly need these media giants: the unelectable one still could not win an election off the back of almost universal media support, and had to beg Parliament's biggest bunch of chameleons to form a working majority. Embarrassing.
The list of Murdoch-related calamities so early in his tenure as PM reflects badly on Cameron, and he knows it. Firstly, Andy Coulson, the former News of the World editor, was recruited by Cameron, despite having to resign due to phone-hacking concerns as early as 2007. Following his necessary resignation as Cameron's communications director, he was arrested by police investigating the phone-hacking scandal.
Secondly, there is the question of David Cameron's own links with the Murdochs and Rebekah Brooks. It has now claimed that he DID discuss the BSkyB bid with James Murdoch - something that had been repeatedly denied.
Thirdly, Cameron is developing a fast-growing reputation as notoriously inefficient when it comes to sacking ministers who are clearly on borrowed time. First Liam Fox, now Jeremy Hunt - it is not good enough. Jeremy Hunt's office faces an onslaught due to its underhand support for the Murdoch's bid for BSkyB. The way Vince Cable was shifted from his role in assessing the BSkyB bid in favour of someone whose office have apparent Murdoch sympathies is suspicious to say the least.
Finally, it has emerged today that four Conservatives wasted their time sitting on the Culture Committee to question journalists. They refused to endorse the report that followed, dismissing it as "partisan" because it reached the conclusion Rupert Murdoch "is not fit to run not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company". This is the same Murdoch who either would not or could not do anything about systematic phone-hacking at one of his newspapers. As the Coulson example above demonstrates, the phone-hacking has been in the background since at least 2007. This will do nothing to extinguish the heat that is rising against the Tories, or the suspicion that they represent the wealthy, the elite and powerhouses like the Murdoch machine. It simply adds to the distaste of the saga.
Hopefully voters will find recent Tory performances equally as distasteful on May 3rd.
The phone-hacking scandal and the subsequent fallout relating to Murdoch's undemocratic influence in Britain, is the gift that keeps on giving. This week, the Prime Minister resorted to personal jibes in the House of Commons, targeting veteran MP Dennis Skinner with a legally dubious remark about his age. This is because he had no robust defence of Skinner's question about Jeremy Hunt being given more employment protection by the PM than the average worker gets.
Past Labour Prime Ministers may have tried to gain some of that Murdoch stardust, but this is hardly surprising given the supposed impact his populist paper had on their 1992 election defeat. However, it is becoming clear some serious back-scratching must have occurred for Cameron to get such Murdoch support for the 2010 election (not to mention the fact the BBC and Sky News coverage of the election was also very unfriendly towards Gordon Brown). Cameron's Tories certainly need these media giants: the unelectable one still could not win an election off the back of almost universal media support, and had to beg Parliament's biggest bunch of chameleons to form a working majority. Embarrassing.
The list of Murdoch-related calamities so early in his tenure as PM reflects badly on Cameron, and he knows it. Firstly, Andy Coulson, the former News of the World editor, was recruited by Cameron, despite having to resign due to phone-hacking concerns as early as 2007. Following his necessary resignation as Cameron's communications director, he was arrested by police investigating the phone-hacking scandal.
Secondly, there is the question of David Cameron's own links with the Murdochs and Rebekah Brooks. It has now claimed that he DID discuss the BSkyB bid with James Murdoch - something that had been repeatedly denied.
Thirdly, Cameron is developing a fast-growing reputation as notoriously inefficient when it comes to sacking ministers who are clearly on borrowed time. First Liam Fox, now Jeremy Hunt - it is not good enough. Jeremy Hunt's office faces an onslaught due to its underhand support for the Murdoch's bid for BSkyB. The way Vince Cable was shifted from his role in assessing the BSkyB bid in favour of someone whose office have apparent Murdoch sympathies is suspicious to say the least.
Finally, it has emerged today that four Conservatives wasted their time sitting on the Culture Committee to question journalists. They refused to endorse the report that followed, dismissing it as "partisan" because it reached the conclusion Rupert Murdoch "is not fit to run not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company". This is the same Murdoch who either would not or could not do anything about systematic phone-hacking at one of his newspapers. As the Coulson example above demonstrates, the phone-hacking has been in the background since at least 2007. This will do nothing to extinguish the heat that is rising against the Tories, or the suspicion that they represent the wealthy, the elite and powerhouses like the Murdoch machine. It simply adds to the distaste of the saga.
Hopefully voters will find recent Tory performances equally as distasteful on May 3rd.
Sunday, 11 March 2012
Cameron taking us all for fools - We must all fight him harder
"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.
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.
Monday, 27 June 2011
Thatcher's Children Turn on their Teachers
It is a sick government, in terms of depravity rather than wellbeing, that uses the nation's children as pawns in a political game with the not-particularly militant teaching unions. The suggestion that parents could help keep schools open while teachers strike, a perverse idea by Education Secretary, Michael Gove, is perhaps the most dispiriting of all the divisive ideas coming from this government.
He is proof there is a bit of Thatcher in all of today's Conservative party. Is this a surprise? Not at all. Many of today's Tory parliamentarians were fresh-faced recruits during the days of Thatcher and soon after. Thatcherism drips across the Conservative party, perhaps more so than during her own time in power.
I grew up in the 1980s when teaching strikes happened occasionally. We would be given work to do at home. We loved it because it gave us a day off school. And however much inconvenience this may cause parents, they should be sticking with the teachers, not being encouraged to campaign against them.
'Big Society' was David Cameron's big idea for public participation in social affairs. It is something he talks about because it sounds nice, but parents and children being politicised in a struggle between teachers and government is not my idea of the 'Big Society' in action.
It makes me glad I am not a child in today's nasty society (which sounds more realistic than this 'Big Society' nonsense). I would not want to be the one beaten up on the playground by other children, blamed for keeping the school open by classmates who hoped they would be getting an unscheduled holiday. I would not want to be the one who the teachers give less assistance to in the classroom because their parents undermined their industrial action. Some militant teachers may be temped by this, mark my words.
The truth is, despite my use of the word 'militant' above, teachers are generally not that militant at all. They are not known for striking. The ATL (Association of Teachers and Lecturers) is a union definitely not renowned for striking, so you can be sure if they have downed tools, then they are not happy.
If last minute talks could avert a strike this Thursday, even at this late stage, nobody would be more happier than the teachers themselves. After all, they go into teaching because of a wish to help and develop young people. It certainly is not for the money, or the abuse they have to take from those they try to do their best for.
The lack of militancy from the teachers makes the fighting talk by Gove all the more exasperating. I would say roll on the next cabinet reshuffle, but the pool of Thatcher's children is hardly likely to produce anyone more sympathetic to society's educators.
He is proof there is a bit of Thatcher in all of today's Conservative party. Is this a surprise? Not at all. Many of today's Tory parliamentarians were fresh-faced recruits during the days of Thatcher and soon after. Thatcherism drips across the Conservative party, perhaps more so than during her own time in power.
I grew up in the 1980s when teaching strikes happened occasionally. We would be given work to do at home. We loved it because it gave us a day off school. And however much inconvenience this may cause parents, they should be sticking with the teachers, not being encouraged to campaign against them.
'Big Society' was David Cameron's big idea for public participation in social affairs. It is something he talks about because it sounds nice, but parents and children being politicised in a struggle between teachers and government is not my idea of the 'Big Society' in action.
It makes me glad I am not a child in today's nasty society (which sounds more realistic than this 'Big Society' nonsense). I would not want to be the one beaten up on the playground by other children, blamed for keeping the school open by classmates who hoped they would be getting an unscheduled holiday. I would not want to be the one who the teachers give less assistance to in the classroom because their parents undermined their industrial action. Some militant teachers may be temped by this, mark my words.
The truth is, despite my use of the word 'militant' above, teachers are generally not that militant at all. They are not known for striking. The ATL (Association of Teachers and Lecturers) is a union definitely not renowned for striking, so you can be sure if they have downed tools, then they are not happy.
If last minute talks could avert a strike this Thursday, even at this late stage, nobody would be more happier than the teachers themselves. After all, they go into teaching because of a wish to help and develop young people. It certainly is not for the money, or the abuse they have to take from those they try to do their best for.
The lack of militancy from the teachers makes the fighting talk by Gove all the more exasperating. I would say roll on the next cabinet reshuffle, but the pool of Thatcher's children is hardly likely to produce anyone more sympathetic to society's educators.
Sunday, 8 May 2011
Vote 2011 review - Lib Dems trounced
Who would be a Lib Dem right now? This week's trouncing in the local election is the latest in a string of calamities since leader Nick Clegg entered the coalition with the Conservatives.
Rocked by student protests, resignations from grassroots activists and the ongoing appearance of fronting unpopular Tory policies have led to the party's collapse in support.
Clegg had, up until now, pushed the argument that the Lib Dems 'did not win the election' suggesting it limited his options. While this is true to some extent, Thursday's results demonstrate the public dissatisfaction with their conduct.
The confusing part is the other mixed messages sent by the electorate. On one hand, the Lib Dems have been punished for what are, in effect, destructive Tory policies. On the other hand, the Tories actually gained seats. Some punishment that is!
It has to be said the British, or more specifically the English, have a peculiar relationship with the Conservative Party. Despite public unease about their policies, people keep voting for them.
It is little wonder the Scottish National Party has made great strides in Scotland. Perhaps the Scots are becoming increasingly sick and tired of being governed by Tories voted for by slavish Englanders and who can blame them? (I am English, by the way.)
So with the Tories emerging more or less unscathed, precisely why was it the Lib Dems suffered most? Political and social scientists will already be hard at work on this, but here are a couple of provisional theories.
Firstly, though there may be two wings of the Liberal Democrats within the party - a left and a more economically liberal right - many of the voters are (perhaps unsurprisingly) social liberals who do not support non-welfarist conservatism. In many affluent areas, the Lib Dems are the Tories' natural opposition. If they have a state-stripping coalition placed in front of them with near 100 percent collegiality, what motivation is there to vote Lib Dem in these areas?
Secondly, there have been some major Lib Dem calamities which have proven totally unforgivable to some voters. On a personal note, I spent three years campaigning to fellow university students that the Lib Dems was the party against student fees. The decision to go ahead with the trebling of fees devastated the Lib Dems' youth vote.
The outcome of this policy, which was to smash the Lib Dems to pieces, was a result beyond they wildest dreams of even the most tribal Conservative.
That is assuming the Tories did not already forecast the impact of forcing through the student fees legislation. As Vince Cable stated earlier today, the Tories are tribal. It would be no surprise if their strategists were canny enough to realise who would pay the political price for for increased student fees. Shame on the Lib Dems for falling for it.
For many students and former students alike, campaigning for the Lib Dems is now untenable. How can they expect to retain their vote? Nick Clegg and his band of dodgy policy salesmen cynically toured university campuses with a signed pledge to abolish student fees. In my view, this gave the policy more salience than a typically breakable manifesto pledge. There is no question the issue of student fees should have been a red line in the coalition agreement. The number of Lib Dem voters between the ages of 18 and 25 who are lost forever does not bear contemplation.
I have worked alongside dedicated grassroots Lib Dems. Some of them were worryingly too liberal for their own good, others more rugged, but all of them worked hard fighting Tories up and down the country. They would fight for every single vote. Every letterbox was an opportunity. Every doorstep was a point of access to a potential voter. All their best efforts lay in tatters because of their useless/useful* (delete as appropriate) idiot.
Their failings surfaced on Thursday for all to see. It was the day Britain returned to two-party politics (simply replace Conservative with SNP north of the border). In the unlikely event the Lib Dems gain enough seats to force another hung parliament, I cannot see them rushing into another coalition any time soon.
Rocked by student protests, resignations from grassroots activists and the ongoing appearance of fronting unpopular Tory policies have led to the party's collapse in support.
Clegg had, up until now, pushed the argument that the Lib Dems 'did not win the election' suggesting it limited his options. While this is true to some extent, Thursday's results demonstrate the public dissatisfaction with their conduct.
The confusing part is the other mixed messages sent by the electorate. On one hand, the Lib Dems have been punished for what are, in effect, destructive Tory policies. On the other hand, the Tories actually gained seats. Some punishment that is!
It has to be said the British, or more specifically the English, have a peculiar relationship with the Conservative Party. Despite public unease about their policies, people keep voting for them.
It is little wonder the Scottish National Party has made great strides in Scotland. Perhaps the Scots are becoming increasingly sick and tired of being governed by Tories voted for by slavish Englanders and who can blame them? (I am English, by the way.)
So with the Tories emerging more or less unscathed, precisely why was it the Lib Dems suffered most? Political and social scientists will already be hard at work on this, but here are a couple of provisional theories.
Firstly, though there may be two wings of the Liberal Democrats within the party - a left and a more economically liberal right - many of the voters are (perhaps unsurprisingly) social liberals who do not support non-welfarist conservatism. In many affluent areas, the Lib Dems are the Tories' natural opposition. If they have a state-stripping coalition placed in front of them with near 100 percent collegiality, what motivation is there to vote Lib Dem in these areas?
Secondly, there have been some major Lib Dem calamities which have proven totally unforgivable to some voters. On a personal note, I spent three years campaigning to fellow university students that the Lib Dems was the party against student fees. The decision to go ahead with the trebling of fees devastated the Lib Dems' youth vote.
The outcome of this policy, which was to smash the Lib Dems to pieces, was a result beyond they wildest dreams of even the most tribal Conservative.
That is assuming the Tories did not already forecast the impact of forcing through the student fees legislation. As Vince Cable stated earlier today, the Tories are tribal. It would be no surprise if their strategists were canny enough to realise who would pay the political price for for increased student fees. Shame on the Lib Dems for falling for it.
For many students and former students alike, campaigning for the Lib Dems is now untenable. How can they expect to retain their vote? Nick Clegg and his band of dodgy policy salesmen cynically toured university campuses with a signed pledge to abolish student fees. In my view, this gave the policy more salience than a typically breakable manifesto pledge. There is no question the issue of student fees should have been a red line in the coalition agreement. The number of Lib Dem voters between the ages of 18 and 25 who are lost forever does not bear contemplation.
I have worked alongside dedicated grassroots Lib Dems. Some of them were worryingly too liberal for their own good, others more rugged, but all of them worked hard fighting Tories up and down the country. They would fight for every single vote. Every letterbox was an opportunity. Every doorstep was a point of access to a potential voter. All their best efforts lay in tatters because of their useless/useful* (delete as appropriate) idiot.
Their failings surfaced on Thursday for all to see. It was the day Britain returned to two-party politics (simply replace Conservative with SNP north of the border). In the unlikely event the Lib Dems gain enough seats to force another hung parliament, I cannot see them rushing into another coalition any time soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)