The media's favourite for the England manager job, Harry Redknapp, has been overlooked for the role in favour of West Bromwich Albion boss, Roy Hodgson. As a consequence, quite a few toys have been pinging out of prams in some media institutions and in parts of Liverpool.
The depressingly predictable reaction was led by the Liverpudlian critics of the media. BBC Radio Five Live was producing interviews, with 'objective' Merseysiders sought for their opinions. Further noise was being made by the station about Hodgson being good for average teams punching above their weight and little else - perfect for England then!
Hodgson is a risky, but brave choice. As with Harry Redknapp, he has been managing for around three decades, mainly giving the smaller outfits a taste of the big time. Neither have set the world alight, and this parallel not be forgotten. For every one person who remembers how everything went wrong for Hodgson at Liverpool, how many remember Harry Redknapp's tenure at Southampton?
The top candidates were Arsene Wenger (who could do with one last challenge), Jose Mourinho (though now likely to stay at Madrid) and Pep Guardiola (depending on how serious he is about a break from the game). These are managers who have constantly achieved. If England is as great as the implied arrogance wishes us to believe, when people suggest that Hodgson is not right for the job because he is seen to fail with the very best, these are the managers we should be looking towards.
Hodgson is a good enough choice for England, though whether he will be given the chance, or whether (as with at Liverpool) minds are made up already, is anyone's guess. If it is the latter, then I have no desire to watch the miserable unfolding of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The one reason above all why Hodgson is good enough is because he is not the man the current senior players in the England squad wanted. I cannot say I have a great deal of warmth towards the modern day footballer, and any moment when they do not get their own way is a victory in my eyes. If we have nothing else, we have a manager who will not suck up, nor be intimidated, by the likes of Terry, Lampard, Ferdinand (Rio), Gerrard, Rooney and others, who have done absolutely nothing of note in their England careers.
Good luck as England manager, Roy.
Tuesday, 1 May 2012
No pride in how we manage our water supply
Ever since the day it was announced that parts of Britain were facing a drought, it seems to have rained relentlessly. Now parts of Britain are facing flooding.
The drought warnings and the hosepipe bans are now coupled with the threat of having to use sandbags to protect property from floods. Water companies are going to great pains, in addition to rather unhelpful messages discouraging hygiene, to remind people that the drought threat remains.
It is understood that one month of almost incessant rain is going to do little to make up for a two year shortfall in rainfall, but the message from the water companies remains warped.
Try explaining to people who live in the driest parts of America, that a country like this one ever has to place restrictions on its water supply. We do not hear much about leaky pipes anymore. It would be interesting to learn how much of our water supply vanishes in that way.
The key question is whether we should trust privatised water companies to invest in the infrastructure. The drought we face is partly down to the dry winters, but to be facing a drought concurrently with the risk of floods says a lot about the way this country manages its water supply.
The drought warnings and the hosepipe bans are now coupled with the threat of having to use sandbags to protect property from floods. Water companies are going to great pains, in addition to rather unhelpful messages discouraging hygiene, to remind people that the drought threat remains.
It is understood that one month of almost incessant rain is going to do little to make up for a two year shortfall in rainfall, but the message from the water companies remains warped.
Try explaining to people who live in the driest parts of America, that a country like this one ever has to place restrictions on its water supply. We do not hear much about leaky pipes anymore. It would be interesting to learn how much of our water supply vanishes in that way.
The key question is whether we should trust privatised water companies to invest in the infrastructure. The drought we face is partly down to the dry winters, but to be facing a drought concurrently with the risk of floods says a lot about the way this country manages its water supply.
Sunday, 15 April 2012
Grand National marred by more horse deaths - what next?
The traditional annual Grand National horse race was watched by millions on Saturday (14th April), but was marred by the deaths of two racehorses. This has led to the other annual tradition of soul-searching among horse racing supporters amidst condemnation from their animal welfare counterparts.
In truth, the 2012 Grand National is not one that either Aintree Racecourse or supporters of the jumping game will want to remember for any length of time. The race was already under intense scrutiny due to two horse deaths the previous year, therefore the last thing they wanted to witness was the death of the popular 2012 Cheltenham Gold Cup winner Synchronised, along with According to Pete.
The death of Synchronised was compounded by questions of whether or not the horse should have taken part in the first place. Prior to the start of the race the horse became wound up, throwing experienced jockey Tony McCoy to the turf before going for a canter. Horse and jockey were eventually reunited, but Synchronised was edgy. These events have given those who campaign against the race an open goal for criticism, one which is nigh on impossible for the organisers to defend.
Those who follow racing more extensively will be aware that a horse being worked up prior to a race is nothing unusual, and is a known characteristic of some racehorses. Many have actually gone on to win their races. This will not make the understandable public anxieties any less relevant. There are now direct criticisms regarding the running of Synchronised that must be addressed.
Many people and organisations will simply call for a ban. This is highly unlikely, but it is interesting to note that even some ex-jockeys and racing journalists have started to question whether there will be a Grand National in twenty years' time.
For my part, the Grand National represents a huge moral dilemma. I loved the race as a child - captivated by the horses and jockeys going around a unique track. For many others, the race remains a national institution.
As a child, I knew nothing of the punishing outcomes of the race on the horses - I doubt many people did. We now live in the information age, and everything is reported, analysed and dissected. This has helped make us a more critical society, which is good. It has also exposed us to the unpleasant aspects of life.
We are learning the race Britain loves has a dark side. This has been reported by the press for years, but for whatever reason we are now more aware of it. Eventually, as with the case this year, the deaths become such big news that BBC News, and other news services are compelled to report them.
However, to think it is only the Grand National, and campaign solely against the deaths related to this high-profile race, is to deny a truth that hangs over the whole of jump racing like a dark cloud.
Scarcely a day goes by without a horse being killed at one of Britain's many jump racing venues. It is not meant to be part of the entertainment as such, but it is the price paid by the horses for the entertainment they provide. Far from being an explicitly more cruel race than any other, the Grand National is only a snapshot of the deaths that regular race-watchers are already familiar with. Even the flat racing scene has horse deaths, as was visibly the case in the Dubai World Cup last month.
It is not only Aintree's Grand National course that will need yet more modifications in order to make it safe, but the whole of the jump game, and perhaps the whole of racing, requires an image makeover. Questions are being floated on why the Thoroughbred racehorse is so fragile. What could be done to strengthen the animals without losing race ability? Probably not much. Some are also asking why horses are put down for having broken legs. Is it because of welfare, or are there more sinister reasons relating to the cost of looking after an economically valueless animal? Is there an insurance payout to be had on a dead thoroughbred? What is the horse's value as meat? Many of these things probably have nothing to do with why injured horses are put down, but someone in the industry needs to come forward and communicate with the public, or these theories will continue to circulate.
Going back to the Grand National itself, I have a number of questions. Should there be a minimum time span between horses racing, such as six weeks? After all, it was only last month that Synchronised triumphed at Cheltenham. Could the length of the Grand National be shortened by about half a mile without losing its appeal? And what about the fences? It is to this last question I now turn.
There is much debate as to how the fences could be made safer. One of the discussions involves the lowering of the fences. It has been pointed out that lowering the fences could result in horses approaching the fences at higher speed, and result in more fatalities. Given the number of recent fatalities at the notorious Becher's Brook fence, it is arguable that the modifications made to the fence have not made it safer, but on the contrary made it more treacherous.
Often, owing the the spruce used to decorate the fences, one forgotten aspect of the fences is their stiffness, as underneath lies solid timber that is very unforgiving if horses come into contact with it. This has to be the starting point of any safety modifications. In what would appear to be contradictory exercise, I would suggest each fence is built high to ensure they are respected by horses and jockeys, but with a more forgiving structure if horses come into contact with them. Maybe then they will come away with their legs intact. The spectacle of seeing horses jump grand obstacles would remain, with the pointless risk of contact with solid timber diminished.
Action needs to be taken. The classic excuses peddled by owners, trainers and jockeys no longer wash. The old chestnut that 'horses are doing what they love' becomes increasingly difficult to justify when a horse that did not seem particularly keen to race was killed in action. The other nonsense that 'all sport carries risk' is hardly applicable to a horse which has less agency and power to make its own choices in life. Trying to justify it using the argument that 'meat eaters are hypocrites' does not wash either as there is a difference, although neither would appeal to vegetarians, between killing animals for food and killing animals in the name of entertainment. This, coming from a nation that looks down its nose at how the Spanish treat bulls.
The argument that 'the race is justified by the millions that watch it' is accurate though, which is why it is important that racing gets its house in order and makes the race more palatable to those who enjoy their once-a-year flutter.
In truth, the 2012 Grand National is not one that either Aintree Racecourse or supporters of the jumping game will want to remember for any length of time. The race was already under intense scrutiny due to two horse deaths the previous year, therefore the last thing they wanted to witness was the death of the popular 2012 Cheltenham Gold Cup winner Synchronised, along with According to Pete.
The death of Synchronised was compounded by questions of whether or not the horse should have taken part in the first place. Prior to the start of the race the horse became wound up, throwing experienced jockey Tony McCoy to the turf before going for a canter. Horse and jockey were eventually reunited, but Synchronised was edgy. These events have given those who campaign against the race an open goal for criticism, one which is nigh on impossible for the organisers to defend.
Those who follow racing more extensively will be aware that a horse being worked up prior to a race is nothing unusual, and is a known characteristic of some racehorses. Many have actually gone on to win their races. This will not make the understandable public anxieties any less relevant. There are now direct criticisms regarding the running of Synchronised that must be addressed.
Many people and organisations will simply call for a ban. This is highly unlikely, but it is interesting to note that even some ex-jockeys and racing journalists have started to question whether there will be a Grand National in twenty years' time.
For my part, the Grand National represents a huge moral dilemma. I loved the race as a child - captivated by the horses and jockeys going around a unique track. For many others, the race remains a national institution.
As a child, I knew nothing of the punishing outcomes of the race on the horses - I doubt many people did. We now live in the information age, and everything is reported, analysed and dissected. This has helped make us a more critical society, which is good. It has also exposed us to the unpleasant aspects of life.
We are learning the race Britain loves has a dark side. This has been reported by the press for years, but for whatever reason we are now more aware of it. Eventually, as with the case this year, the deaths become such big news that BBC News, and other news services are compelled to report them.
However, to think it is only the Grand National, and campaign solely against the deaths related to this high-profile race, is to deny a truth that hangs over the whole of jump racing like a dark cloud.
Scarcely a day goes by without a horse being killed at one of Britain's many jump racing venues. It is not meant to be part of the entertainment as such, but it is the price paid by the horses for the entertainment they provide. Far from being an explicitly more cruel race than any other, the Grand National is only a snapshot of the deaths that regular race-watchers are already familiar with. Even the flat racing scene has horse deaths, as was visibly the case in the Dubai World Cup last month.
It is not only Aintree's Grand National course that will need yet more modifications in order to make it safe, but the whole of the jump game, and perhaps the whole of racing, requires an image makeover. Questions are being floated on why the Thoroughbred racehorse is so fragile. What could be done to strengthen the animals without losing race ability? Probably not much. Some are also asking why horses are put down for having broken legs. Is it because of welfare, or are there more sinister reasons relating to the cost of looking after an economically valueless animal? Is there an insurance payout to be had on a dead thoroughbred? What is the horse's value as meat? Many of these things probably have nothing to do with why injured horses are put down, but someone in the industry needs to come forward and communicate with the public, or these theories will continue to circulate.
Going back to the Grand National itself, I have a number of questions. Should there be a minimum time span between horses racing, such as six weeks? After all, it was only last month that Synchronised triumphed at Cheltenham. Could the length of the Grand National be shortened by about half a mile without losing its appeal? And what about the fences? It is to this last question I now turn.
There is much debate as to how the fences could be made safer. One of the discussions involves the lowering of the fences. It has been pointed out that lowering the fences could result in horses approaching the fences at higher speed, and result in more fatalities. Given the number of recent fatalities at the notorious Becher's Brook fence, it is arguable that the modifications made to the fence have not made it safer, but on the contrary made it more treacherous.
Often, owing the the spruce used to decorate the fences, one forgotten aspect of the fences is their stiffness, as underneath lies solid timber that is very unforgiving if horses come into contact with it. This has to be the starting point of any safety modifications. In what would appear to be contradictory exercise, I would suggest each fence is built high to ensure they are respected by horses and jockeys, but with a more forgiving structure if horses come into contact with them. Maybe then they will come away with their legs intact. The spectacle of seeing horses jump grand obstacles would remain, with the pointless risk of contact with solid timber diminished.
Action needs to be taken. The classic excuses peddled by owners, trainers and jockeys no longer wash. The old chestnut that 'horses are doing what they love' becomes increasingly difficult to justify when a horse that did not seem particularly keen to race was killed in action. The other nonsense that 'all sport carries risk' is hardly applicable to a horse which has less agency and power to make its own choices in life. Trying to justify it using the argument that 'meat eaters are hypocrites' does not wash either as there is a difference, although neither would appeal to vegetarians, between killing animals for food and killing animals in the name of entertainment. This, coming from a nation that looks down its nose at how the Spanish treat bulls.
The argument that 'the race is justified by the millions that watch it' is accurate though, which is why it is important that racing gets its house in order and makes the race more palatable to those who enjoy their once-a-year flutter.
Sunday, 1 April 2012
Galloway by-election win needs Labour reflection, not revolution
This was meant to be Ed Miliband's finest week since taking up the reins as leader of the Labour party. As one scandal after another hit the Tories, Miliband found himself suddenly in the driving seat; the likely victor of a future general election. The Tories floundered under the weight of criticism against taxes on pasties and pensioners, the creation of a fuel crisis and NHS reforms. At one point, Labour built up a massive 17 point lead in the polls. Nothing could go wrong. Then along came George...
George Galloway, Labour's self-created nemesis when he was expelled from the party in 2003, triumphed in the Bradford West by-election on Thursday to remind Labour he still has great nuisance value. While the rest of us were busy point-scoring off the back of the Tories' nightmare week, Galloway was putting the final touches to a typically well-crafted campaign. In the campaign, he used every available resource to communicate with voters, found out what was troubling them (probably jobs, the economic outlook and welfare provision, in addition to locally specific concerns over foreign policy and alienation with the political system). From this starting point, his job was simply to tell them the words they wanted to hear. There was no photo finish. Galloway mopped up 56 percent of the vote. He won fair and square. The margin of victory suggested votes came from all sections of the community, not just Muslims and leftists whom he built the solid foundations from.
I would not have voted for Galloway, for I already have my party loyalty towards one I deeply care about - probably the same party that Galloway too still holds a torch for. However, I think if public attitudes towards politics in general is to be truly reshaped, then the attitude from politicians must change, but so too must the attitude of those who discuss politics in the media. The overall reaction to Galloway's win, from all areas of the discursive political sphere, smacked of sour grapes.
Of course, Galloway's shoulders are more than big enough to withstand the critical onslaught in the aftermath of his victory. He will happily take on those who criticise or merely attempt an inquisitive interview with him, in some cases quite brutally. A particularly unpleasant exchange was between him and the interviewer Cathy Newman of Channel Four News. From the interview, it was immediately apparent that Newman is no Jeremy Paxman, nor is she ever likely to be, though she gave it her best shot. The mildly challenging questions she posed were batted away with the well-rehearsed "I can see you and I are not getting on very well" and "I really do have a lot of very important interviews to do". Seasoned Galloway-watchers will be familiar with this tactic. He was working from an fairly similar script to the one he used in his post-2005 General Election interview with Jeremy Paxman (who unquestionably deserved to be brought down a couple of notches). Although the video is incomplete, I recall the interview was also terminated by Galloway.
Galloway should realise though that the hostile Paxmanesque inquisition is now the norm for political interviews. To some extent, they're all Paxmans now. As soon as a politician is being interviewed, that politician must not just explain their work, but explain their entire existence. Nobody working in any other field would be spoken to so universally in that fashion. Doctors, teachers and other professionals would be required to explain themselves when they fail to reach the standards expected of them. Those who desire to be an elected representative have to explain themselves the moment they hit the campaign trail, before they have even won an election.
It is true that people have become sick of politicians because they are sick of being lied to. This was never more blatant than when Liberal Democrats walked around university campuses with camera crews on hand to witness their worthless signed pledge regarding university tuition fees. The expenses scandal also lives in the recent memory. Despite these facts, there is no excuse for the media contributing to the loss of respect for politicians by wrongly presenting a narrative that it is acceptable to speak them as though they are scum. Galloway therefore must realise he is not being treated any differently to anyone else, and to not take the media jibes so personally.
The media coverage of his victory has been harsh and unfair though. Aside from the prickly interviews, the print media (including the more leftist newspapers) have taken aim at his tactics, notably Nick Cohen, from the Observer, and David Aaronovitch. In typical Galloway style, he responded to the pair in the strongest of terms. The BBC meanwhile showed its usual disregard for editorial impartiality by playing a montage of his past 'crime-sheet' before his Radio 2 interview with Vanessa Feltz, including predictably the notorious fawning speech he delivered to Saddam Hussein and the cat impersonation on Big Brother. Vanessa handled the interview itself admirably, and did not fall for the Paxman 2005 script - unlike Cathy Newman over at Channel 4.
He has not only received media criticism, but individuals have also been quick to condemn Galloway's success. Here is a clip of a man expressing his dissatisfaction with a democratic outcome by aiming eggs in the direction of the victor.
Most of the soul-searching must come from Labour. How bad was the result for the party? Should there be reflection or revolution? Is it time to chuck out Ed Miliband and replace him with someone of greater presence? Such an idea represents a huge gamble. There are elections coming up in May, and Labour candidates are set to do well. I believe the Bradford West by-election is an isolated setback, orchestrated by an experienced, aggressive and well-known campaigner. Some are suggesting that to dismiss it as a freak result is reckless complacency, but on this occasion maybe the result is just extraordinary. Galloway is, after all, a man of great political skill and oratory, but he cannot be cloned and sent to every area of the country to campaign - imagine that! In any case, there are many places where the conditions would not be right for him to win. For example, when he stood in Scottish Parliament elections, the Scottish sent him packing.
The Respect Coalition is not much of a force outside of the Galloway bubble either. There will also be no influx of celebrity candidates for future elections as a result of Galloway's success. That has been tried before and did not work. The public are wiser than to vote for political lightweights who were not as popular as TV casting executives thought they were in the first place. Galloway's victory is not the start of a wave of independent election candidates that will radically alter the way elections are conducted.
The Labour man in me remains optimistic about what remains an awful week for the Conservatives. Few newspapers led with the story of Galloway's triumph, as government incompetence continues to give them more mileage. For now, it is a time for reflection in the Labour ranks; not revolution. Galloway captivated Bradford. A refounded Labour can captivate the rest of Britain.
George Galloway, Labour's self-created nemesis when he was expelled from the party in 2003, triumphed in the Bradford West by-election on Thursday to remind Labour he still has great nuisance value. While the rest of us were busy point-scoring off the back of the Tories' nightmare week, Galloway was putting the final touches to a typically well-crafted campaign. In the campaign, he used every available resource to communicate with voters, found out what was troubling them (probably jobs, the economic outlook and welfare provision, in addition to locally specific concerns over foreign policy and alienation with the political system). From this starting point, his job was simply to tell them the words they wanted to hear. There was no photo finish. Galloway mopped up 56 percent of the vote. He won fair and square. The margin of victory suggested votes came from all sections of the community, not just Muslims and leftists whom he built the solid foundations from.
I would not have voted for Galloway, for I already have my party loyalty towards one I deeply care about - probably the same party that Galloway too still holds a torch for. However, I think if public attitudes towards politics in general is to be truly reshaped, then the attitude from politicians must change, but so too must the attitude of those who discuss politics in the media. The overall reaction to Galloway's win, from all areas of the discursive political sphere, smacked of sour grapes.
Of course, Galloway's shoulders are more than big enough to withstand the critical onslaught in the aftermath of his victory. He will happily take on those who criticise or merely attempt an inquisitive interview with him, in some cases quite brutally. A particularly unpleasant exchange was between him and the interviewer Cathy Newman of Channel Four News. From the interview, it was immediately apparent that Newman is no Jeremy Paxman, nor is she ever likely to be, though she gave it her best shot. The mildly challenging questions she posed were batted away with the well-rehearsed "I can see you and I are not getting on very well" and "I really do have a lot of very important interviews to do". Seasoned Galloway-watchers will be familiar with this tactic. He was working from an fairly similar script to the one he used in his post-2005 General Election interview with Jeremy Paxman (who unquestionably deserved to be brought down a couple of notches). Although the video is incomplete, I recall the interview was also terminated by Galloway.
Galloway should realise though that the hostile Paxmanesque inquisition is now the norm for political interviews. To some extent, they're all Paxmans now. As soon as a politician is being interviewed, that politician must not just explain their work, but explain their entire existence. Nobody working in any other field would be spoken to so universally in that fashion. Doctors, teachers and other professionals would be required to explain themselves when they fail to reach the standards expected of them. Those who desire to be an elected representative have to explain themselves the moment they hit the campaign trail, before they have even won an election.
It is true that people have become sick of politicians because they are sick of being lied to. This was never more blatant than when Liberal Democrats walked around university campuses with camera crews on hand to witness their worthless signed pledge regarding university tuition fees. The expenses scandal also lives in the recent memory. Despite these facts, there is no excuse for the media contributing to the loss of respect for politicians by wrongly presenting a narrative that it is acceptable to speak them as though they are scum. Galloway therefore must realise he is not being treated any differently to anyone else, and to not take the media jibes so personally.
The media coverage of his victory has been harsh and unfair though. Aside from the prickly interviews, the print media (including the more leftist newspapers) have taken aim at his tactics, notably Nick Cohen, from the Observer, and David Aaronovitch. In typical Galloway style, he responded to the pair in the strongest of terms. The BBC meanwhile showed its usual disregard for editorial impartiality by playing a montage of his past 'crime-sheet' before his Radio 2 interview with Vanessa Feltz, including predictably the notorious fawning speech he delivered to Saddam Hussein and the cat impersonation on Big Brother. Vanessa handled the interview itself admirably, and did not fall for the Paxman 2005 script - unlike Cathy Newman over at Channel 4.
He has not only received media criticism, but individuals have also been quick to condemn Galloway's success. Here is a clip of a man expressing his dissatisfaction with a democratic outcome by aiming eggs in the direction of the victor.
Most of the soul-searching must come from Labour. How bad was the result for the party? Should there be reflection or revolution? Is it time to chuck out Ed Miliband and replace him with someone of greater presence? Such an idea represents a huge gamble. There are elections coming up in May, and Labour candidates are set to do well. I believe the Bradford West by-election is an isolated setback, orchestrated by an experienced, aggressive and well-known campaigner. Some are suggesting that to dismiss it as a freak result is reckless complacency, but on this occasion maybe the result is just extraordinary. Galloway is, after all, a man of great political skill and oratory, but he cannot be cloned and sent to every area of the country to campaign - imagine that! In any case, there are many places where the conditions would not be right for him to win. For example, when he stood in Scottish Parliament elections, the Scottish sent him packing.
The Respect Coalition is not much of a force outside of the Galloway bubble either. There will also be no influx of celebrity candidates for future elections as a result of Galloway's success. That has been tried before and did not work. The public are wiser than to vote for political lightweights who were not as popular as TV casting executives thought they were in the first place. Galloway's victory is not the start of a wave of independent election candidates that will radically alter the way elections are conducted.
The Labour man in me remains optimistic about what remains an awful week for the Conservatives. Few newspapers led with the story of Galloway's triumph, as government incompetence continues to give them more mileage. For now, it is a time for reflection in the Labour ranks; not revolution. Galloway captivated Bradford. A refounded Labour can captivate the rest of Britain.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)