.
As someone who believes it's right to give credit where it's due, I have to say Cameron's performance on the Marr programme this morning was impressive. I have plenty of reservations about someone so young and with so little experience being able to run a country, but he really sounded like he's thought long and hard about how to run a government, and his performance was pretty flawless. What's more, he even sounded sincere.
He was calm, unflustered, and actually addressed Marr's questions, instead of making prepared statements, which is what we've become used to with Blair, Brown, and co. As a personality he's far more appealing than any of the New Labour mob, who were truly gruesome, with the sole exception of Harriet Harman. For example, I'm trying to remain open-minded about Ed Miliband's bid for the Labour leadership, but it's impossible to warm to him as an individual, and he's a very unconvincing speaker.
I'm not saying I like Cameron as an individual, but it's hard to actually dislike someone who appears genuine and sincere, even if he is a Tory. Down the years I've come to at least respect other 'liberal' conservatives such as the latter day Ted Heath, as well as Michael Heseltine and lately Michael Portillo. Today Cameron described himself as a liberal conservative, which is going to alienate him from at least half of his party, and this is much to his credit.
It strikes me that he has a great deal in common with Barack Obama, and not just politically. The Democratic Party occupies much the same part of the political spectrum as Cameron's 'progressive conservatism', and it has to be said that Cameron is developing the ability to speak convincingly, and to think calmly and objectively.
So what did he say today? Firstly, that he's asked Will Hutton to chair a fair pay review. BLOODY HELL! Will Hutton! Fair pay! If the last government had done this we'd have been ecstatic! Those bastards didn't even TALK about fair pay. This is amazing. The one thing I really wanted from the last government was to adopt the proposals Hutton made in 1995 in "The State We're In".
What's more, Cameron is actually talking about reducing inequality! When did New Labour ever do that? Those bastards were 'intensely relaxed' about the super rich. Cameron also said no civil servant should earn more than 20 times the pay of the lowest paid, which means that top pay has to be reduced or the lowest pay has to be increased. Bloody hell!
He also said that it's wrong for civil servants to be given bloody bonuses, and for £1.5 billion to be given to bloody consultants! Amazing. What New Labour never understood is that it's wrong to pay huge salaries to civil servants when their retirement pensions are also calculated on the basis of final salaries. When you do this, what incentive is there for civil servants to speak truth to power?
It's wrong to give 'commercial' salaries to people in safe government jobs AS WELL AS generous retirement pensions. It's got to be either one or the other, which is the way we used to do things in this country under the old social democratic concensus. You have to say it looks like New Labour were prepared to bribe their senior civil servants with fat salaries to keep them sweet and keep them onside.
But back to Cameron. He said he still has no plans to raise VAT, which is a tax that hits the poorest the hardest. Having put down this marker it will be hard for him to backtrack on it. Excellent.
He said he'd raise capital gains tax because people were cheating by calling part of their salaries 'capital gains' in order to get the lower rate of tax, and this isn't right. Excellent. He also mentioned the capital gains people get from selling second homes, etc, and said this shouldn't be seen as being as beneficial to society as capital gains arising from investment in business and industry. Why couldn't New Labour have said this?
He said he wants to see the big banks broken up and wants to crack down on their obscene bonuses. Why didn't New Labour do this?
He said he's a liberal conservative and modern Conservatism should be about achieving progressive ends. Yes!
He drew attention to the fact that he's legislating for fixed term parliaments, which takes away from his powers as Prime Minister.
We already knew this government will also legislate for a fully elected second chamber and for a referendum on voting reform.
They've also agreed to drop the Tory proposals for raising inheritance tax and for tax cuts for couples who marry.
I have to say that at this rate Cameron is going to win over a great many floating voters who were very afraid that the next Tory government would be hard line Thatcherite, and not at all progressive.
...........................................
Now this could all be window dressing - putting the most attractive goods out front in order to compensate for the fact that the shop in fact contains a lot of very nasty products inside. We shall see. But there's no getting away from the fact that this government is doing and saying plenty of things that New Labour should have said and done.
There must be a real chance, however, that Cameron is indeed the liberal/progressive Conservative he always claimed he was, and that he's about to drag his party into the genuine middle ground of one-nation conservatism. If so, he deserves the respect and gratitude of social democrats and democratic socialists, not their scorn and sniping.
The fact is, the country decided to boot out Labour and give the Tories a chance to run the country in alliance with LibDems, and the best that Tory opponents could hope for is a government that seems to give a damn about fairness, social justice, civil liberties, political reform, City and banking reforms, etc. To have them also talking about fair pay, capping civil service salaries, etc is a big bonus.
The left, in particular, should be grateful that, thanks to the loss of the election by New Labour, there's now an opportunity to purge the Labour party of its nasty elements and completely marginalise people like Adonis, Campbell, Balls, Blunkett, Prescott, and all the other muppets who were cheerleaders for Blair and Brown. They have no further use or credibility. Not that they really had any in the first place.
As for the Millipedes, only time will tell. I can't see that Brother Ed is going to excite anyone except a dyed in the wool New Labourite, and as for Brother David - well he may be making friendly noises towards the likes of John Cruddas, and giving himself a social democratic makeover, but as my son says - who's going to vote for HIM?
Oh well - there are maybe four or five years to go before the next election, which is time enough for a substantial figure to emerge. In fact, if this government holds to the centre ground, as it seems to want to do, and if it's at least competent, and if it successfully banishes the spectre of the Thatch, then there may well be a ten year stretch before the Labour party stands any chance of winning an election. By which time - who knows? - this government may have decided that PR isn't such a bad thing after all.
A world in which the key players are Obama, Clinton, Cameron and Clegg doesn't look nearly as scary as a world that was driven by Bush and Blair.
The Labour party has a lot to be ashamed of and a lot to recover from. In five years time the LibDems might easily be more popular than Labour, if all goes well with this government. I'm sure Cameron has factored that into his thinking, and will do what he can to assist the LibDems to go up in the polls. Besides, just being in the political spotlight, as we've seen, is bound to help the LibDems.
As for the Labour party - it must surely now set out its stall as a party of social democrats and democratic socalists, which is what it should have done back in 1997, and is what it's supposed to have been from its inception. Anything else is a waste of space, and those political careerists like the Balls Family and the Millipede Brothers can just fuck right off. They had their chance, and they blew it on the New Labour project. Very badly indeed.
These are very interesting times.
........................................
Wild Flowers and Full Moon Fever
I forgot to mention yesterday that one of Tom Petty's best albums is Wild Flowers. It's also one of his most melodic and original collections of songs. My favourite order of play is to begin with Crawling Back To You and Wake Up Time. I love the chord progressions within these tracks, and the feelings they evoke. Tom may not be in the same class as say, Dylan, as a lyricist, but he's a brilliant writer of melodies and a creator of music that is pure emotion. The use of an orchestra on Wake Up Time is also pretty special.
Full Moon Fever dates from the Wilbury period, and could easily be the third Traveling Wilburys album, since it has such a similar feel and is produced by Wilbury Jeff Lynne, who also co-wrote the tracks with TP. Interestingly the two Wilbury albums were called Volume One and Volume Three.
.
Showing posts with label hung parliament. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hung parliament. Show all posts
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Layer 308 . . . New Labour Were The Nasty Party Too; A News Conference and a Double Act
.
Who would you prefer as a work colleague if you were Nick Clegg - Ed Balls or William Hague?
I had an interesting text exchange with an old friend this morning:
Friend: I think the Tory poison is beginning to infect me. I heard William Hague on the radio earlier and I thought he really made sense. Aaaaaarrrrgghhh!
Me: True! His intelligence was never in question - just the ideology. And I'd much rather listen to his voice than Balls, Brown, Blair, Blunkett, Mandelson, etc.
Friend: I thought it was just me. If we voted according to voices [!] he'd be No. 1. And of course he didn't go to public school. But I still can't get the picture of him as a 17 year old at the Tory conference out of my head.
Me: I know. To me he'll always be the Mekon. But he also has a sense of humour, unlike New Labour. I think he's come a long way since the days of the baseball cap.
................................................................
And this is true.
But William's not the only one who's now older and somewhat wiser. Others who've gone down the Portillo road include Ian Duncan Smith and Teresa May, our new home secretary, who, to her credit, was the first to speak out (at the party conference!) and tell the Tories they were perceived as the Nasty Party.
Portillo, of course, has quit mainstream politics, but there are other pragmatists, and indeed pro-Europeans, like Kenneth Clark, in the new cabinet - so we're entitled to hope, at least, that Cameron will be more of a pragmatist than the hard-line ideological rightist that his party's funders might like him to be. If he really intends to be the first one-nation Tory leader of modern times then the hung parliament and the coalition give him the perfect justification.
Hague's been calling it "a new kind of government", and this is the really important issue. For those of us who believe in the new kind of politics that would be required under PR and the inevitable coalitions that PR would necessitate, this is the perfect chance to model how such a system can work - for the benefit of the country but also for the sake of a healthier political culture.
We need a culture where people get together and talk reasonably and with respect for others' views, instead of bellowing at one another from across the political divide. We need collaboration and not hostility. We need the careful discussion of ideas and proposals, and not government by prime ministerial dictat. We need reasonable people and not raving egomaniacs.
It seems fair to assume that part of the rejection of Labour's offer of coalition was a realisation by the LibDems that they'd very likely be treated as inferiors and minions, which has been part of the New Labour culture for so long. The government we've had since '97 has been stupendously arrogant and abrasive, and has treated all opponents, including those in the professions and the unions, as fools and inferiors. For that they can thank those who led them and provided the models of cloth-eared and bullying behaviour - Blair, Brown, Mandelson, Campbell, Blunkett, Prescott, etc. Fucking good riddance to the lot of them.
...................................................................
Press Conference #1
Surrounded by azeleas, wisteria and birdsong, at twin lecterns in Spring sunshine on the lawn of No 10, Clegg and Cameron held their first press conference this afternoon.
They spoke of being united behind three key principles - freedom, fairness and responsibility. Which is not that far from liberty, fraternity and equality. Pretty revolutionary stuff.
They spoke of their determination to work in the national interest and not narrow party interest. They talked about the politics of give and take. They said we'd had too much short-termism. They said we were going through a historic and seismic shift in our politics. They talked about recasting our political system, and working to a common purpose.
Cameron said we need a political culture where reasonable, civilised and grown up behaviour is seen as a sign of strength, not weakness.
Clegg said our society has been scarred by too much unfairness and inequality.
Did we ever hear this from the New Labour crew? Did they ever really do anything significant about it?
Clegg talked about everybody having the chance to be the person they want to be. About clean, open, plural politics. About a bold reforming government that puts fairness back into Britain. About handing back liberty and privacy. About British traditions of tolerance and fairness being restored.
Now let's see if they can walk the walk.
.
Who would you prefer as a work colleague if you were Nick Clegg - Ed Balls or William Hague?
I had an interesting text exchange with an old friend this morning:
Friend: I think the Tory poison is beginning to infect me. I heard William Hague on the radio earlier and I thought he really made sense. Aaaaaarrrrgghhh!
Me: True! His intelligence was never in question - just the ideology. And I'd much rather listen to his voice than Balls, Brown, Blair, Blunkett, Mandelson, etc.
Friend: I thought it was just me. If we voted according to voices [!] he'd be No. 1. And of course he didn't go to public school. But I still can't get the picture of him as a 17 year old at the Tory conference out of my head.
Me: I know. To me he'll always be the Mekon. But he also has a sense of humour, unlike New Labour. I think he's come a long way since the days of the baseball cap.
................................................................
And this is true.
But William's not the only one who's now older and somewhat wiser. Others who've gone down the Portillo road include Ian Duncan Smith and Teresa May, our new home secretary, who, to her credit, was the first to speak out (at the party conference!) and tell the Tories they were perceived as the Nasty Party.
Portillo, of course, has quit mainstream politics, but there are other pragmatists, and indeed pro-Europeans, like Kenneth Clark, in the new cabinet - so we're entitled to hope, at least, that Cameron will be more of a pragmatist than the hard-line ideological rightist that his party's funders might like him to be. If he really intends to be the first one-nation Tory leader of modern times then the hung parliament and the coalition give him the perfect justification.
Hague's been calling it "a new kind of government", and this is the really important issue. For those of us who believe in the new kind of politics that would be required under PR and the inevitable coalitions that PR would necessitate, this is the perfect chance to model how such a system can work - for the benefit of the country but also for the sake of a healthier political culture.
We need a culture where people get together and talk reasonably and with respect for others' views, instead of bellowing at one another from across the political divide. We need collaboration and not hostility. We need the careful discussion of ideas and proposals, and not government by prime ministerial dictat. We need reasonable people and not raving egomaniacs.
It seems fair to assume that part of the rejection of Labour's offer of coalition was a realisation by the LibDems that they'd very likely be treated as inferiors and minions, which has been part of the New Labour culture for so long. The government we've had since '97 has been stupendously arrogant and abrasive, and has treated all opponents, including those in the professions and the unions, as fools and inferiors. For that they can thank those who led them and provided the models of cloth-eared and bullying behaviour - Blair, Brown, Mandelson, Campbell, Blunkett, Prescott, etc. Fucking good riddance to the lot of them.
...................................................................
Press Conference #1
Surrounded by azeleas, wisteria and birdsong, at twin lecterns in Spring sunshine on the lawn of No 10, Clegg and Cameron held their first press conference this afternoon.
They spoke of being united behind three key principles - freedom, fairness and responsibility. Which is not that far from liberty, fraternity and equality. Pretty revolutionary stuff.
They spoke of their determination to work in the national interest and not narrow party interest. They talked about the politics of give and take. They said we'd had too much short-termism. They said we were going through a historic and seismic shift in our politics. They talked about recasting our political system, and working to a common purpose.
Cameron said we need a political culture where reasonable, civilised and grown up behaviour is seen as a sign of strength, not weakness.
Clegg said our society has been scarred by too much unfairness and inequality.
Did we ever hear this from the New Labour crew? Did they ever really do anything significant about it?
Clegg talked about everybody having the chance to be the person they want to be. About clean, open, plural politics. About a bold reforming government that puts fairness back into Britain. About handing back liberty and privacy. About British traditions of tolerance and fairness being restored.
Now let's see if they can walk the walk.
.
Layer 307 . . . Meet the New Boss
.
Meet the new boss -
Same as the old boss . . .
The Who
Won't Get Fooled Again
So it's 'steady as she goes' Britain - the country's new leaders stand on pretty much the same political ground as the old ones.
Had we not had a hung parliament and a coalition then without a doubt we'd now have a centre-right government. As things stand, however, the new government, thanks to the LibDem presence, has had to commit to the far left of the right-wing spectrum - i.e. somewhat to the left of where the Blair/Brown governments stood. We'll now get banking regulation, abolition of the FSA and return of control over banking to the B of E, greater decentralisation, abolition of the targets culture, fixed term parliaments, a vote on AV/PR, etc. There will also be, potentially, more parliamentary scrutiny and influence over the executive. The executive will have to be more open and transparent about decision-making , thanks to the coalition. There will be much less government by a clique around an over-powerful prime minister.
It's not hard to imagine that Cameron will indeed turn out to be a one-nation Tory, the likes of which we've not seen since the days of MacMillan, or possibly Heath. He'll be helped, not hindered, by the coalition, in his efforts to modernise the Tory party, make it more 'progressive', and minimise the influence of the real 'nasties'. He may even get some of the real dinosaurs and regressives to push off and start their own party. I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he really would like a more equal society, and is less intensely relaxed about the super rich than New Labour was.
Another up-side is not having to listen to the smug and arrogant voices of Balls and Mandelson, Alexander and Cooper, ever again. Thanks to them being thrown down to the same level as the rest of us we can now give them the humbling they so richly deserve.
The Milibands are another matter. It's going to be interesting to observe the political progress of David and Ed. Cruddas and Compass will also be worth watching.
.
Meet the new boss -
Same as the old boss . . .
The Who
Won't Get Fooled Again
So it's 'steady as she goes' Britain - the country's new leaders stand on pretty much the same political ground as the old ones.
Had we not had a hung parliament and a coalition then without a doubt we'd now have a centre-right government. As things stand, however, the new government, thanks to the LibDem presence, has had to commit to the far left of the right-wing spectrum - i.e. somewhat to the left of where the Blair/Brown governments stood. We'll now get banking regulation, abolition of the FSA and return of control over banking to the B of E, greater decentralisation, abolition of the targets culture, fixed term parliaments, a vote on AV/PR, etc. There will also be, potentially, more parliamentary scrutiny and influence over the executive. The executive will have to be more open and transparent about decision-making , thanks to the coalition. There will be much less government by a clique around an over-powerful prime minister.
It's not hard to imagine that Cameron will indeed turn out to be a one-nation Tory, the likes of which we've not seen since the days of MacMillan, or possibly Heath. He'll be helped, not hindered, by the coalition, in his efforts to modernise the Tory party, make it more 'progressive', and minimise the influence of the real 'nasties'. He may even get some of the real dinosaurs and regressives to push off and start their own party. I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he really would like a more equal society, and is less intensely relaxed about the super rich than New Labour was.
Another up-side is not having to listen to the smug and arrogant voices of Balls and Mandelson, Alexander and Cooper, ever again. Thanks to them being thrown down to the same level as the rest of us we can now give them the humbling they so richly deserve.
The Milibands are another matter. It's going to be interesting to observe the political progress of David and Ed. Cruddas and Compass will also be worth watching.
.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Layer 305 . . . Rats and Sinking Ships
.
More and more of the Labour troops are coming forward to say they think Labour can't or shouldn't do a deal with the LibDems - and so the party should let the Tories and LibDems do whatever they want to do. Fucking amazing.
Charlie Faulkener is one who's saying "I think we're doing ourselves damage now, as a party."
And this seems to be the main concern of many of these bastards - they're more bothered about the wellbeing of their party than the wellbeing of the people they're supposed to represent.
I wouldn't be surprised if they quite fancy a period of time out of the driving seat. In which case they should fuck off and let someone else from within their party take over. They should do that anyway.
Many of them will no doubt be thinking they quite fancy making a pot of money from little sidelines elsewhere if they're not in government.
A great many of them are such careerist and tribalist bastards they're no doubt thinking - and rubbing their hands with glee - about the shit that's going to land on the Tories when they start slashing and burning. Pure political calculation, without giving a toss for the fact that over 50% of us actually voted for a left-leaning government.
The final point is that many of these tribalists and careerists don't want anything to do with proportional representation, or even STV. Kate Hooey's one of these anti-PR people who say Labour should jack it in. Fine for her - this is all she's got to disturb her orderly little life. She doesn't bat an eyelid at the sheer unfairness of FPTP either.
Fuck the lot of them. It's going to be interesting to find out sooner or later who were the ones prepared to fight, and who didn't feel a jot of responsibility for carrying out the wishes of the majority of the electorate.
And there's one more category of Labourite that wants to pack it in. There seem to be a few of them who relish the prospect of having an almighty internal punch-up in the aftermath - many of them because they can't stomach the likes of Balls, Alexander, Milibands, Cooper, etc carrying on with their career trajectory, and want very badly to see them done down and beaten up. In many ways I agree, but this is a luxury that the vulnerable people of this country can't afford.
Large holdalls are currently being loaded into the backs of cars at the rear of No 10 . . .
.
More and more of the Labour troops are coming forward to say they think Labour can't or shouldn't do a deal with the LibDems - and so the party should let the Tories and LibDems do whatever they want to do. Fucking amazing.
Charlie Faulkener is one who's saying "I think we're doing ourselves damage now, as a party."
And this seems to be the main concern of many of these bastards - they're more bothered about the wellbeing of their party than the wellbeing of the people they're supposed to represent.
I wouldn't be surprised if they quite fancy a period of time out of the driving seat. In which case they should fuck off and let someone else from within their party take over. They should do that anyway.
Many of them will no doubt be thinking they quite fancy making a pot of money from little sidelines elsewhere if they're not in government.
A great many of them are such careerist and tribalist bastards they're no doubt thinking - and rubbing their hands with glee - about the shit that's going to land on the Tories when they start slashing and burning. Pure political calculation, without giving a toss for the fact that over 50% of us actually voted for a left-leaning government.
The final point is that many of these tribalists and careerists don't want anything to do with proportional representation, or even STV. Kate Hooey's one of these anti-PR people who say Labour should jack it in. Fine for her - this is all she's got to disturb her orderly little life. She doesn't bat an eyelid at the sheer unfairness of FPTP either.
Fuck the lot of them. It's going to be interesting to find out sooner or later who were the ones prepared to fight, and who didn't feel a jot of responsibility for carrying out the wishes of the majority of the electorate.
And there's one more category of Labourite that wants to pack it in. There seem to be a few of them who relish the prospect of having an almighty internal punch-up in the aftermath - many of them because they can't stomach the likes of Balls, Alexander, Milibands, Cooper, etc carrying on with their career trajectory, and want very badly to see them done down and beaten up. In many ways I agree, but this is a luxury that the vulnerable people of this country can't afford.
Large holdalls are currently being loaded into the backs of cars at the rear of No 10 . . .
.
Layer 304 . . . Political Dinosaurs, Progressive Alliances, Legitimate Governments, Ashdown, Gary Younge, and The Markets
.
Two of New Labour's biggest dinosaurs - David Blunkett and John Reid - have come out and said the Lib Dems and the Tories should now get on with forming a government. This is at the very moment that a progressive anti-Tory alliance is beginning to gel - an alliance that's vital for keeping out what will be without doubt a very brutal right-wing plan to create a voting system, through constituency boundary changes, that will permanently entrench right-wing power in this country, which the Alternative Vote system will do very little to change, even if it were adopted, which is by no means certain.
Maybe the Reid/Blunkett logic is that a Tory/LibDem government would, by doing its planned fiancial slashing and burning, make itself so unpopular within a short space of time that a refreshed and made-over Labour party would easily win the next election.
What these old Stalinists don't get is that it's the poor fucking infantry that will become the victims of their grand strategy. What's more, these guys are so undemocratic that they'll never agree that proper proportional representation is required to make any voting system legitimate, any more than Stalin would have agreed.
Or do they just want a minority Tory government which can be held in check by the combined forces of the opposition in Parliament? I can see what fun that might be, but again, this is fucking with the lives of real people, who will always be the ones to lose out under any Tory government, no matter how constrained it might be.
I don't know much about Reid, and I don't want to either, but Blunkett for sure is too stupid to realise there's a moral imperative for a parliament consisting of parties which are largely on the left on the political spectrum to work together in order to run the country in a progressive direction that is for the wellbeing of the majority of people and not just the few. The key factor, I say again, is ensuring a fair voting system that will no longer allow the kind of disgraceful and unfair apportioning of votes we've again witnessed. Blunkett can never understand this, given the kind of top-down neanderthal he obviously is. I'm dying to know how many of his constituents agree with his views.
George Osborne's already been on the radio, quoting David Blunkett favourably. What a surprise. Maybe Blunkett could change sides or just agree to join the Tory coalition.
.................................................
In contrast, Paddy Ashdown spoke very well on the Today programme just now. He immediately slapped down the stupid notion that we 'can't have' an 'unelected prime minister', which is an idea I'm very tired of hearing - how many times do we have to say that we don't fucking elect a prime minister under our system?
Paddy pointed out that a Lab/LibDem minority government would not in fact be voted down by nationalists voting with Tories. It would have legitimacy in that the majority of voters support it - just over 50% in fact, which is something that governments have not had for the past 50 years or more. There's a technical majority in Parliament against it in terms of seats and votes, but there are no possible circumstances in which the progressive and socialist-leaning fringe parties would support the Tories, assuming the Tories don't come up with some socialist proposals.
Very well said, Paddy. I'd MUCH rather have him as a prime minister than someone on the Balls/Milibands axis. I now cringe every time I'm forced to listen to the sound of their voices, and that's before I've even taken in what they're actually saying. Whereas Paddy actually speaks like a real person. I do hope Clegg's listening to him. I'd love to see Ashdown installed as a minister too. Since the last government included various 'lords' such as the vile Adonis and the even viler Mandelson, then the future Lab/LibDem government must surely include Ashdown. Foreign minister anyone? I'm off to place a bet.
Ashdown is the perfect antidote to scumbags like Adonis, Mandelson, Blears, Balls and Blunkett. Maybe he should be PM. Now that's what I call an unelected prime minister.
................................................
I'm so glad Gary Younge is back in the country, being a part of what's happening, and commenting on what's going on with his usual sharp analysis. This is part of what he said yesterday:
.....................
There was a good letter in the Guardian yesterday, from Paul Dunn:
...................................
The Guardian editorial's verdict is:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/10/liberal-democrats-decision
It could be a very interesting day, again.
.
Two of New Labour's biggest dinosaurs - David Blunkett and John Reid - have come out and said the Lib Dems and the Tories should now get on with forming a government. This is at the very moment that a progressive anti-Tory alliance is beginning to gel - an alliance that's vital for keeping out what will be without doubt a very brutal right-wing plan to create a voting system, through constituency boundary changes, that will permanently entrench right-wing power in this country, which the Alternative Vote system will do very little to change, even if it were adopted, which is by no means certain.
Maybe the Reid/Blunkett logic is that a Tory/LibDem government would, by doing its planned fiancial slashing and burning, make itself so unpopular within a short space of time that a refreshed and made-over Labour party would easily win the next election.
What these old Stalinists don't get is that it's the poor fucking infantry that will become the victims of their grand strategy. What's more, these guys are so undemocratic that they'll never agree that proper proportional representation is required to make any voting system legitimate, any more than Stalin would have agreed.
Or do they just want a minority Tory government which can be held in check by the combined forces of the opposition in Parliament? I can see what fun that might be, but again, this is fucking with the lives of real people, who will always be the ones to lose out under any Tory government, no matter how constrained it might be.
I don't know much about Reid, and I don't want to either, but Blunkett for sure is too stupid to realise there's a moral imperative for a parliament consisting of parties which are largely on the left on the political spectrum to work together in order to run the country in a progressive direction that is for the wellbeing of the majority of people and not just the few. The key factor, I say again, is ensuring a fair voting system that will no longer allow the kind of disgraceful and unfair apportioning of votes we've again witnessed. Blunkett can never understand this, given the kind of top-down neanderthal he obviously is. I'm dying to know how many of his constituents agree with his views.
George Osborne's already been on the radio, quoting David Blunkett favourably. What a surprise. Maybe Blunkett could change sides or just agree to join the Tory coalition.
.................................................
In contrast, Paddy Ashdown spoke very well on the Today programme just now. He immediately slapped down the stupid notion that we 'can't have' an 'unelected prime minister', which is an idea I'm very tired of hearing - how many times do we have to say that we don't fucking elect a prime minister under our system?
Paddy pointed out that a Lab/LibDem minority government would not in fact be voted down by nationalists voting with Tories. It would have legitimacy in that the majority of voters support it - just over 50% in fact, which is something that governments have not had for the past 50 years or more. There's a technical majority in Parliament against it in terms of seats and votes, but there are no possible circumstances in which the progressive and socialist-leaning fringe parties would support the Tories, assuming the Tories don't come up with some socialist proposals.
Very well said, Paddy. I'd MUCH rather have him as a prime minister than someone on the Balls/Milibands axis. I now cringe every time I'm forced to listen to the sound of their voices, and that's before I've even taken in what they're actually saying. Whereas Paddy actually speaks like a real person. I do hope Clegg's listening to him. I'd love to see Ashdown installed as a minister too. Since the last government included various 'lords' such as the vile Adonis and the even viler Mandelson, then the future Lab/LibDem government must surely include Ashdown. Foreign minister anyone? I'm off to place a bet.
Ashdown is the perfect antidote to scumbags like Adonis, Mandelson, Blears, Balls and Blunkett. Maybe he should be PM. Now that's what I call an unelected prime minister.
................................................
I'm so glad Gary Younge is back in the country, being a part of what's happening, and commenting on what's going on with his usual sharp analysis. This is part of what he said yesterday:
The people have spoken. Don't let the markets shout them down
The clash of democracy and capitalism is as acute as ever as a discredited financial sector seeks to dictate political terms
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/10/people-markets-democracy-capitalism
Last Thursday in Sheffield Hallam students who did not have a chance to vote tried to block the path of election officials taking away ballot boxes. In Hackney police broke up a sit-in of voters who were in a similar situation. In several other cities across the country police were called to stem or prevent unrest as disgruntled and disenfranchised voters were turned away by incompetent officials. In Sheffield roughly 100 staged a demonstration outside Nick Clegg's house and tried to post their ballots through his letter box.
The spontaneous militancy, presumably by voters from across the electoral spectrum, to defend the right to vote on election day in the UK was heartening.
It was also encouraging to see more than a thousand people demonstrate on Saturday in favour of proportional representation outside the building where the Liberal Democrats were meeting to discuss their next move. When Clegg goes behind closed doors it's important that he has the demands of his base ringing in his ears.
Whomever Clegg decides to go to the ball with, when it comes to the most crucial issue of the moment – the public debt – he and his partner will be dancing to the markets' tune.
True, there was no Bankers party on the ballot papers . . . but maybe there should have been. For ultimately it is they who will decide how swift and savage the impending cuts to public spending shall be, and it is their endorsement – not the electorate's – that the politicians both seek and feel they need. And if they had been on the ballot they would almost certainly have lost.
[Almost?]
There is no "new politics" worthy of the name that demonstrates at polling stations and in Westminster for proportional representation and does not then go to the City to demand the democratisation of our financial sector.
Not long ago such a demand would have seemed both radical and unfeasible. But no longer. For the stark evidence of recent years is that even though markets remain omnipotent, they are by no means omniscient and anything but infallible. Far from it. The very governments those markets turned to, to prevent a collapse of the financial system during the credit crisis, must now assert their democratic will as that same system seeks to dictate terms over the coming weeks.
This particular contradiction between democracy and capitalism is not new. But during this period of economic and financial crisis in Europe it has become particularly acute.
Greece burned and other democratically elected governments across the Mediterranean panicked after ratings agencies downgraded their public debt – all the indications that whomever you vote for, the markets get in.
The notion that these ratings agencies are simply passing judgment on the creditworthiness of nations ignores how poor their judgment has proved to be in recent times, and in whose interests those judgments have been made.
These bodies that see public debt as a burning issue today foresaw no problems with the unsustainable private debts of the banks investing in sub-prime holdings a few years ago.
The incentives in the market for rating agency services favoured, and still favour, short-term profits over credit quality."
There's a reason for this. These agencies are primarily funded by the banks that they are supposed to be rating, creating what several former officials testified was a fundamental conflict of interest. In the words of Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."
So the very sector we bailed out with public money, run by incompetent people who are once again paying themselves bonuses, is now threatening to destabilise the next government unless it fires thousands of low-paid workers, cuts their wages and withdraws the services to millions of mostly poor people.
It's as though you borrowed money against your home to save a wayward relative from penury only to have them roll up a week later in a brand new Porsche and tell you to cut your food bill or they'll repossess the property.
Given the consensus, the markets didn't really care who won or even if there was a hung parliament. Just so long as there was a government that was prepared to wield the knife. All they wanted was stability and austerity.
There are many ways of tackling the deficit that don't hit the poorest hardest; but those are not the ways the markets are most interested in.
The election results have produced parliamentary permutations that make stability unlikely in the face of the market's dramatic demands for a swift and severe austerity plan.
The people have spoken. We should not now let the markets dictate.
.....................
There was a good letter in the Guardian yesterday, from Paul Dunn:
I'm amazed at the cheek of the City, which wants a government installed by today to calm the markets. Perhaps the City could be asked to clean up the graft, insider trading, greed and inappropriate bonus payments by today too?
...................................
The Guardian editorial's verdict is:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/10/liberal-democrats-decision
Any agreement is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The plain fact about this complex and imperfect political situation is that it is nevertheless also a historic opportunity for reform. There is a broad identity of purpose between the Liberal Democrats and Labour that does not exist between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives. Their common approach extends far beyond electoral reform, important though that is. The best reason for exploring and, if possible, making a Lib Dem-Labour agreement is that this would be the best way of ensuring fairness in the handling of the immensely hard decisions on the economy and public spending that will face whichever government now takes office. Electoral and political reform would be a huge additional reward. This is moment for setting the future direction of British politics. The Liberal Democrats have to choose with whom they will now stand.
It could be a very interesting day, again.
.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Layer 303 . . . Whitehall Revisited, and Still Deadlocked
.
This should have been posted this morning. Arrived home this evening to find Brown's announced he intends to resign, the Lib Dems say they now want formal talks with Labour, and the Tories have belatedly said they'll offer a referendum on PR if the Lib Dems stick with them. So it's all still going to plan. Excellent.
.......................................................
First item on Start the Week on Radio 4 . . . Whitehall, and its geography and history. It's been there as a thoroughfare for 1,000 years.
..........................................
Still no conclusion to the talks that have been going on all weekend about the right to govern Britain. This is a good thing. Serious thinking is taking place up and down the country as well as up and down Whitehall and Westminster about the meaning of mandates, political allegiances and the future of politics in this country.
Polly Toynbee wrote a good column yesterday, again insisting that The Lib Dems must not make common cause with the Tories, and will only destroy themselves as a party if they refuse to be part of a grand alliance with the other left of centre parties.
Oxzen commented:
"But how depressing to hear old tribalists like David Blunkett today rejecting PR."
Depressing, Polly? Why are you even surprised? Right from '97 the man was an appalling education secretary, one that made common cause with the likes of Woodhead, and took his reactionary and ignorant agenda ever further to the right. What on earth has Blunkett ever said or done that would cause anyone to think he's anything but the most right wing politician within the New Labour camp? He may talk the anti-Tory talk but his politics are well to the right of the Lib Dem progressive wing. Sadly he's by no means the only top-down authoritarian bully within New Labour's ranks.
Why would anyone give a damn any more about what David Blunkett thinks or says? Cheer up Polly - whatever happens next the Labour party finally has an opportunity to clear out both the Blairites and the Brownites and begin to rehabilitate itself as a proper social democratic party. Whether or not it takes it is another matter, however.
.
This should have been posted this morning. Arrived home this evening to find Brown's announced he intends to resign, the Lib Dems say they now want formal talks with Labour, and the Tories have belatedly said they'll offer a referendum on PR if the Lib Dems stick with them. So it's all still going to plan. Excellent.
.......................................................
First item on Start the Week on Radio 4 . . . Whitehall, and its geography and history. It's been there as a thoroughfare for 1,000 years.
Whitehall has become a byword for government bureaucracy, but beyond the facade of civil service offices are the rooms that shaped our nation’s history. In Whitehall, a “biography of the most important street in Britain”, Colin Brown explores the hidden gems behind closed doors. From Henry VIII’s tennis courts, to Cardinal Wolsey’s wine cellar and the secret passage still in use today, Colin Brown reveals the long history of political drama and despair, spin and scandal in the street of Whitehall.
Whitehall: The Street that Shaped a Nation is published by Simon & Schuster.
..........................................
Still no conclusion to the talks that have been going on all weekend about the right to govern Britain. This is a good thing. Serious thinking is taking place up and down the country as well as up and down Whitehall and Westminster about the meaning of mandates, political allegiances and the future of politics in this country.
Polly Toynbee wrote a good column yesterday, again insisting that The Lib Dems must not make common cause with the Tories, and will only destroy themselves as a party if they refuse to be part of a grand alliance with the other left of centre parties.
A done deal? No, Tory-Lib is a marriage made in hell
Brown's letter captures a despondent mood. But Labour must not give up on a progressive alliance
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/09/election-clegg-cameron-brown-alliance?
Clegg is right to try all he can to get a deal from Cameron, on the economy as on PR. He can only legitimately turn towards Labour if it is self-evident that no way can this radical and progressive party fold in with a sub-Thatcherite programme. Clegg and Cable are against the £6bn cuts this year, and cautious about removing the stimulus too fast. This marriage made in hell is unlikely. And Labour panickers should take a deep breath (get some sleep) and trust in the great bulk of Lib Dem members who are progressives, not Orange Bookers, decent people. There are more thoroughly conservative types in Labour than among the Lib Dem clan. It would be good for both to bring the two together as repairing the rift in the left is the goal. The likes of Shirley Williams, Tom McNally (their leader in the Lords), Matthew Oakeshott, Charles Kennedy and as many other grandees as you care to mention are not about to end their long and honourable careers tricked into a coalition in which all pledges would be jettisoned within weeks. The southwest Lib Dem MPs who fear alliance with Labour are plain wrong: a large chunk of their vote is Labour people lending their votes, voting tactically, who would not support them again if they turned to the Tories.
The prize of an alliance government, far better than Labour on its own, is still there to be seized. But how depressing to hear old tribalists like David Blunkett today rejecting PR. Labour has its own internal fights to resolve, too.
Oxzen commented:
"But how depressing to hear old tribalists like David Blunkett today rejecting PR."
Depressing, Polly? Why are you even surprised? Right from '97 the man was an appalling education secretary, one that made common cause with the likes of Woodhead, and took his reactionary and ignorant agenda ever further to the right. What on earth has Blunkett ever said or done that would cause anyone to think he's anything but the most right wing politician within the New Labour camp? He may talk the anti-Tory talk but his politics are well to the right of the Lib Dem progressive wing. Sadly he's by no means the only top-down authoritarian bully within New Labour's ranks.
Why would anyone give a damn any more about what David Blunkett thinks or says? Cheer up Polly - whatever happens next the Labour party finally has an opportunity to clear out both the Blairites and the Brownites and begin to rehabilitate itself as a proper social democratic party. Whether or not it takes it is another matter, however.
.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Layer 301 . . . The Day After The Day After : Demanding Democracy, Taking Back Parliament, All Along The Watchtower, and Having A Laugh
.
Oona King, ex-MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, on the radio this morning, spoke about her 'inheritance track', and incredibly chose my own track - Jimi Hendrix's version of Bob Dylan's 'All Along The Watchtower'. Amazing woman, this Oona. Love her to bits. She's so well-off being out of politics - and she knows it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oona_King
I don't know why I'm so amazed that Oona chose this track. I'm more amazed that everybody doesn't choose it.
.....................................
There was a superb episode of The News Quiz yesterday - one of the best ever. It's now in its 71st series. A real national gem. Thank goodness for Sandi Toksvig, Jack Dee, Jeremy Hardy, Francis Wheen, and Sue Perkins. Comic geniuses, every one of them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00s7fb0/b00s7f5z/The_News_Quiz_Series_71_Episode_4/
"The UKIP campaign didn't really take off, did it?"
"Zak Goldsmith's mate! - Hooray!"
"Hazel Blears is back in Eccles and Salford . . . or Salford and Eccles - depending on which way she's flipped them."
"Nick Griffin blamed his rout on immigrants that didn't vote for him."
The polling stations were obviously run by the people who run the Post Office.
In Hackney there was a sit-in after disgruntled voters realised the polling station was much nicer than their homes.
The markets! - "We're all disoriented! - let's do something something mental, like sell pork bellies."
Four points all - we've got a hung quiz!
The headmaster at Eton says he's not just looking for brainboxes, but all-rounders who can rub along with other boys.
Lembit Opik lost his seat - but at least he's now free to return to the mothership.
.................................................
Actually I take back what I've said about The Opik. He was on Election Have I Got News For You, and was very funny indeed - in a hurt, humbled and unemployed kind of a way. Great gurner. Can also play the harmonica - for spare change.
............................................
Two more of the nation's comic geniuses also appeared in an election special yesterday - Paul Merton and Ian Hislop. At one point in the programme they moved around and sat together in a coalition, at the suggestion of Jo Brand, who was chairing.
"Especially recorded after the election so that we'd know what the result is."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00sbqfw/Have_I_Got_News_for_You_Series_39_Have_I_Got_Election_News_for_You/
"We have no government. Does that mean we can do whatever we want?"
"The result of the election's still up in the air - unlike UKIP's plane."
Merton even made himself laugh at his mime of Gordon Brown slipping out of his troosers round at the house of that "bigoted woman".
"You should really write porn", said Jon Richardson, who was also very good.
Quick as a flash Merton replied, "Too busy living it, mate!"
"Now they're applauding pornography! After the air crash this audience'll applaud anything! I've got a dead kitten in my pocket!"
........................................
..........................................................
Polly Toynbee has another must-read column in the paper today -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/08/hopes-decades-clegg-unthinkable
........................................
http://www.power2010.org.uk/blog/entry/demo-for-democracy-saturday-may-8th-2pm-trafalgar-square/
“There must be some way out of here,” said the joker to the thiefhttp://www.bobdylan.com/#/songs/all-along-the-watchtower
“There’s too much confusion, I can’t get no relief
Businessmen, they drink my wine, plowmen dig my earth
None of them along the line know what any of it is worth”
“No reason to get excited,” the thief, he kindly spoke
“There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke
But you and I, we’ve been through that, and this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late”
All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl . . .
Oona King, ex-MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, on the radio this morning, spoke about her 'inheritance track', and incredibly chose my own track - Jimi Hendrix's version of Bob Dylan's 'All Along The Watchtower'. Amazing woman, this Oona. Love her to bits. She's so well-off being out of politics - and she knows it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oona_King
I don't know why I'm so amazed that Oona chose this track. I'm more amazed that everybody doesn't choose it.
.....................................
There was a superb episode of The News Quiz yesterday - one of the best ever. It's now in its 71st series. A real national gem. Thank goodness for Sandi Toksvig, Jack Dee, Jeremy Hardy, Francis Wheen, and Sue Perkins. Comic geniuses, every one of them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00s7fb0/b00s7f5z/The_News_Quiz_Series_71_Episode_4/
"The UKIP campaign didn't really take off, did it?"
"Zak Goldsmith's mate! - Hooray!"
"Hazel Blears is back in Eccles and Salford . . . or Salford and Eccles - depending on which way she's flipped them."
"Nick Griffin blamed his rout on immigrants that didn't vote for him."
The polling stations were obviously run by the people who run the Post Office.
In Hackney there was a sit-in after disgruntled voters realised the polling station was much nicer than their homes.
The markets! - "We're all disoriented! - let's do something something mental, like sell pork bellies."
Four points all - we've got a hung quiz!
The headmaster at Eton says he's not just looking for brainboxes, but all-rounders who can rub along with other boys.
Lembit Opik lost his seat - but at least he's now free to return to the mothership.
.................................................
Actually I take back what I've said about The Opik. He was on Election Have I Got News For You, and was very funny indeed - in a hurt, humbled and unemployed kind of a way. Great gurner. Can also play the harmonica - for spare change.
............................................
Two more of the nation's comic geniuses also appeared in an election special yesterday - Paul Merton and Ian Hislop. At one point in the programme they moved around and sat together in a coalition, at the suggestion of Jo Brand, who was chairing.
"Especially recorded after the election so that we'd know what the result is."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00sbqfw/Have_I_Got_News_for_You_Series_39_Have_I_Got_Election_News_for_You/
"We have no government. Does that mean we can do whatever we want?"
"The result of the election's still up in the air - unlike UKIP's plane."
Merton even made himself laugh at his mime of Gordon Brown slipping out of his troosers round at the house of that "bigoted woman".
"You should really write porn", said Jon Richardson, who was also very good.
Quick as a flash Merton replied, "Too busy living it, mate!"
"Now they're applauding pornography! After the air crash this audience'll applaud anything! I've got a dead kitten in my pocket!"
........................................
Malcolm Tucker's May 7 outbox
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/07/malcolm-tucker-may-7-outbox
It's time to throw in the towel and call in Dave "Dude, Where's My Majority?" Cam and let him deal with the horrendous fuck-pie of cock-stew that's bubbling. Let him do the cuts. Where there is discord, may he bring petrol bombs. Where there is error, may he bring bullshit. Where there is doubt, may he bring Osborne. And where there is despair, may he bring the noise.
Let's get some kip and catch you on the flip side.
Regards,
M x
..........................................................
Polly Toynbee has another must-read column in the paper today -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/08/hopes-decades-clegg-unthinkable
The hopes of decades rest with Clegg. He must hold his nerve
For once, Lib Dems are in a position to demand crucial voting reform. A once unthinkable progressive coalition is on the table
If not now, when? For the first time the prize is within grasp. The people have spoken – and none of the above won. Radical reform to an electoral system that has fallen apart is at last on offer. The deadly duopoly between two moribund parties has broken. But will it be cobbled together again as if nothing had happened?
All depends on the nerve of Nick Clegg. Has he the spine and the iron resolve to stick to the one condition that offers a chance of a progressive future?
All through the election the Conservatives' City friends have done all they could to spook voters into fearing coalitions, though coalitions offer the most stable economies across Europe. Imagine the reassuring sight of Alistair Darling and Vince Cable working together to steady the markets, deciding together how to cut the deficit with the least damage and the fairest tax rises. Those who believe in electoral reform want exactly this kind of open pluralism. To make it happen, join the electoral reform protest in Trafalgar Square today at 2pm.
........................................
Demo for democracy, Saturday May 8th 2pm Trafalgar Square
http://www.power2010.org.uk/blog/entry/demo-for-democracy-saturday-may-8th-2pm-trafalgar-square/
.
POWER2010 is joining together with other organisations to Take Back Parliament.
If enough of us turn out and join the call for reform the politicians will be forced to listen.
"The Tories got 36% of the vote, but Labour and the Liberal Democrats, promising a referendum on electoral reform, got 52% of the vote. There is an undeniable, democratic mandate for Parliament to deliver that referendum."
Friday, May 7, 2010
Layer 300 . . . A General Election, A Hung Parliament
.
It was a big enough challenge just to find the polling station - the signposting was pathetic, and I wasn't the only one walking round in circles. It was even more irritating to find a long queue to get in! First time this has happened to me - it was almost like something out of Soweto.
So why the queue? Obviously a bigger turn out, but why only 4 booths, and only one person dishing out the ballot papers? This was rubbish organisation. Even so, everyone was surprisingly patient.
Elsewhere, however, it seems there were even longer queues, and in fact hundreds of people were unable to vote by the deadline at 10.00pm. There appear to be places where polling stations have been occupied by sit-ins of frustrated would-be voters.
My daughter said she'd been intending to vote, in her safe seat constituency, but on seeing the length of the queue she'd turned round and gone home to her family. There were probably hundreds and even thousands like her.
Cameron's speech in his constituency was measured and sensible. I guess the Tories are fortunate to have him as their leader and figurehead - and where would they be without him? The Tory party would still be up shit creek if they were relying on polibots like Hague, Osborne and Gove.
Lembit Opik's been thrown out by his constituents. What a joker he was. What a prat.
Another prat is Bill Wyman - interviewed on TV he said he wants a Conservative government. So much for being a working class hero.
Jacqui Smith and Charles Clark defeated! Excellent. Well done Redditch and Norwich.
=================================
It's now official - we have a hung parliament. Very good news. Tories massively pissed off, especially as they were looking at a 40%+ share of the vote prior to the election.
Lib Dems more or less kept their share of the vote in spite of having the most radical policies - not replacing Trident; PR; mansion tax. There's no question the mansion tax promise cost them dear in the Tory/Lib marginals.
Brown can't stick around for long, and will certainly be gone by the time we have another election. Possibly by the autumn. Very important for middle of the road English voters that Labour is headed by a genuine social democratic English person. Can they find one, though? Picking one of Brown's current cronies just won't do.
Tories sounding shit scared of a possible referendum for PR if they can't form a government. They were pinning such hopes on creating newer and fewer parliamentary seats to give them a guaranteed electoral advantage.
==============================
To the surprise of many Clegg, on his arrival in London, told us all that he was sticking to his view that the Tories should have first shot at offering a referendum on PR, if they thought they could be a government that acted in the national interest. Or words to that effect.
Brown then very smartly came out of No 10 and said he was content to wait whilst Clegg talked to Cameron, and they could have all the time they wanted!
Around 2.30pm Cameron, looking pretty rattled, made a feeble little speech in which he offered merely a cross-party committee of enquiry into electoral reform. As well he might. He knows, and we know, that the Tories would be doomed by PR, in that this country has a permanent majority of social democratic and liberal people. Had Cameron been able to offer a referendum on PR there and then - it would undoubtedly have been all over for Gordie and New Labour. But he can't do that - he'd be shafted by the people who actually run the Tory party, within days, if not hours. His only hope now is that Clegg and co will be tempted by an offer of cabinet posts, a deal on the timing of the repayment of national debt, and the smell of real power.
And so what it all comes back to is the single issue that this election has been all about all along - thanks to the TV leadership debates. Gordie has already said he'll legislate for a referendum on PR as his urgent priority, if he stays as PM. Everyone with half a brain knows that this is a potential turning point for our constitutional and electoral history. It's now or possibly never for PR, or at least for very many years, and possibly a lifetime. Everyone now realises that Cameron's priority would be to fiddle the constituency boundaries to give the Tories a perpetual advantage.
And if Clegg fluffs this one, then his party will be doomed as well. Personally I think he's played his cards very well. He's forced the Tories to say yea or nay to PR, and to have their say about it immediately. I think he's smart enough, and he has smart enough advisers, to go with Gordie's offer, just as soon as Cameron confirms he'll never allow us to vote on PR.
What will then follow a Lab/Lib deal is a referendum within months, followed soon after by another general election, by which time Labour will have found a new party leader and a new set of policies.
In many ways this is a better day than the one following the election in 1997, given that the Blairs, Mandelson, Brown, Blunkett, Straw and co were always a revolting crew. This is assuming that those in favour of full PR can win their case in the referendum, and assuming Clegg does the right thing this weekend.
I think Cameron's failed. I think things can only get better.
.
It was a big enough challenge just to find the polling station - the signposting was pathetic, and I wasn't the only one walking round in circles. It was even more irritating to find a long queue to get in! First time this has happened to me - it was almost like something out of Soweto.
So why the queue? Obviously a bigger turn out, but why only 4 booths, and only one person dishing out the ballot papers? This was rubbish organisation. Even so, everyone was surprisingly patient.
Elsewhere, however, it seems there were even longer queues, and in fact hundreds of people were unable to vote by the deadline at 10.00pm. There appear to be places where polling stations have been occupied by sit-ins of frustrated would-be voters.
My daughter said she'd been intending to vote, in her safe seat constituency, but on seeing the length of the queue she'd turned round and gone home to her family. There were probably hundreds and even thousands like her.
Cameron's speech in his constituency was measured and sensible. I guess the Tories are fortunate to have him as their leader and figurehead - and where would they be without him? The Tory party would still be up shit creek if they were relying on polibots like Hague, Osborne and Gove.
Lembit Opik's been thrown out by his constituents. What a joker he was. What a prat.
Another prat is Bill Wyman - interviewed on TV he said he wants a Conservative government. So much for being a working class hero.
Jacqui Smith and Charles Clark defeated! Excellent. Well done Redditch and Norwich.
=================================
It's now official - we have a hung parliament. Very good news. Tories massively pissed off, especially as they were looking at a 40%+ share of the vote prior to the election.
Lib Dems more or less kept their share of the vote in spite of having the most radical policies - not replacing Trident; PR; mansion tax. There's no question the mansion tax promise cost them dear in the Tory/Lib marginals.
Brown can't stick around for long, and will certainly be gone by the time we have another election. Possibly by the autumn. Very important for middle of the road English voters that Labour is headed by a genuine social democratic English person. Can they find one, though? Picking one of Brown's current cronies just won't do.
Tories sounding shit scared of a possible referendum for PR if they can't form a government. They were pinning such hopes on creating newer and fewer parliamentary seats to give them a guaranteed electoral advantage.
==============================
To the surprise of many Clegg, on his arrival in London, told us all that he was sticking to his view that the Tories should have first shot at offering a referendum on PR, if they thought they could be a government that acted in the national interest. Or words to that effect.
Brown then very smartly came out of No 10 and said he was content to wait whilst Clegg talked to Cameron, and they could have all the time they wanted!
Around 2.30pm Cameron, looking pretty rattled, made a feeble little speech in which he offered merely a cross-party committee of enquiry into electoral reform. As well he might. He knows, and we know, that the Tories would be doomed by PR, in that this country has a permanent majority of social democratic and liberal people. Had Cameron been able to offer a referendum on PR there and then - it would undoubtedly have been all over for Gordie and New Labour. But he can't do that - he'd be shafted by the people who actually run the Tory party, within days, if not hours. His only hope now is that Clegg and co will be tempted by an offer of cabinet posts, a deal on the timing of the repayment of national debt, and the smell of real power.
And so what it all comes back to is the single issue that this election has been all about all along - thanks to the TV leadership debates. Gordie has already said he'll legislate for a referendum on PR as his urgent priority, if he stays as PM. Everyone with half a brain knows that this is a potential turning point for our constitutional and electoral history. It's now or possibly never for PR, or at least for very many years, and possibly a lifetime. Everyone now realises that Cameron's priority would be to fiddle the constituency boundaries to give the Tories a perpetual advantage.
And if Clegg fluffs this one, then his party will be doomed as well. Personally I think he's played his cards very well. He's forced the Tories to say yea or nay to PR, and to have their say about it immediately. I think he's smart enough, and he has smart enough advisers, to go with Gordie's offer, just as soon as Cameron confirms he'll never allow us to vote on PR.
What will then follow a Lab/Lib deal is a referendum within months, followed soon after by another general election, by which time Labour will have found a new party leader and a new set of policies.
In many ways this is a better day than the one following the election in 1997, given that the Blairs, Mandelson, Brown, Blunkett, Straw and co were always a revolting crew. This is assuming that those in favour of full PR can win their case in the referendum, and assuming Clegg does the right thing this weekend.
I think Cameron's failed. I think things can only get better.
.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Layer 298 . . . Monbiot, Parasites, Paralysing Fear, Mass Democracy, Brown, and Momentous Times Ahead
.
I was looking for some images of parasites to use here, but on Google they're too disgusting to even consider. So let's settle for these instead:
parasite
George Monbiot's column this week was enjoyably hard-hitting:
..............................................
Ever since the 'just a bigoted woman' incident took place Gordon Brown seems to have given up on chatting with 'the people' (quelle surprise) and has reverted to the traditional big speeches to mobs of people in town centres kind of approach. Surprisingly, he suddenly seems animated and passionate about some genuine beliefs, and he's managing to attack his opponents to some good effect. But is it too late? The latest poll puts Labour up to 30%, and the Lib Dems down to 26% - a reversal of the position a week ago. Possibly a good thing for a hung parliament since it would give Labour the biggest number of seats of the three main parties, and thus make it more difficult for Clegg to go with Cameron & co in any circumstance, even if the Tories were to offer a referendum on PR, which they won't, and which Brown has already pledged to do.
Yesterday Brown had a column in the Guardian, saying some sensible things, to which one can only say - yes, but why the fuck didn't you do this stuff 13 wasted years ago?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/03/in-tory-labour-marginals-vote-labour
True. Why haven't you done it already?
Good. Why haven't you done it already?
I think we knew this a long time ago. But why didn't you even show any interest in starting this off in Britain when many of us were demanding it? You haven't even been making the argument in favour of it till now.
Bastard. What about strengthening and improving the lot of the working classes? This is pathetic language, coming from a self-proclaimed middle class man who's presided over 13 years of declining 'social mobility' and increasing inequality.
Bastard. The right moment to seize it was when you came to power with a landslide, not when you're about to be booted out. Three wasted landslides, and only now he talks about a new constitutional and political settlement.
And I know in my bones, and in my grey matter, that not only has New Labour not diminished poverty significantly, or increased the real incomes of the majority of our people, or reduced inequality, it's never even shown the slightest 'passion' in any of its actions to actually do something truly significant.
Why haven't you done it already?
Why hasn't New Labour done these things already!!!!!!!!
I was looking for some images of parasites to use here, but on Google they're too disgusting to even consider. So let's settle for these instead:
parasite
Mandelson
George Monbiot's column this week was enjoyably hard-hitting:
New Labour is a parasite. A vote for them is born of fear, not hope
Voting with fear has let this movement for social justice abandon everything it stood for. On Thursday we must heed our hopes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/03/parasite-new-labour-fear-hope
Cling on to nurse for fear of something worse. Though she has become crabbed and vicious, though she has usurped our parents, swiped our inheritance, binned our toys and sold the nursery, we must cower behind her skirts for fear of the beasts that prowl beyond. This, in essence, is what Polly Toynbee, Jonathan Freedland, Seumas Milne and Nick Cohen are now telling us to do.
By instructing us, over the years, to heed fears, not hopes, such voices have allowed Labour to abandon everything it once stood for, and hand us, trussed and oven-ready, to big business and the Daily Mail. We'll be trapped like this for ever, in New Labour's Bermuda triangulation, unless we vote for what we believe in rather than just against what we don't.
This paralysing fear has licensed four tragic developments. It has allowed a parliamentary consensus to form that is well to the right of public feeling, alienating voters. It has created space for ideas – such as the creeping privatisation of almost everything – which were unacceptable to previous generations. It has allowed the Conservatives to appeal to moderate swing voters: if there is so little that divides the two parties, such voters figure, can the Tories really be so bad? And it has permitted a once progressive party to form the most rightwing government this country has suffered since 1945.
Let us begin where my colleagues claim the party's record is strongest: poverty and inequality. During the first seven years of the Labour government there was real progress on poverty. But from 2004 onwards the trend went into reverse. In the three years to 2007-08 the number of people in households living on less than 60% of median income rose by 1.3 million – producing a total better than in 1997, but worse than in 1989. This was before the recession hit, so God knows what the next set of figures will show.
The number of people in extreme poverty (living on less than 40% of median income) never substantially fell: it held steady through the first eight years of Labour government, then rose. There are now 700,000 more people in this condition than when Labour took office, and more than at any point since records began. The average real incomes of the poorest tenth declined by 2% in the 10 years to 2007-08. These figures, again, predate the recession.
The rich, on the other hand, have seldom done better. Of the extra income enjoyed by British households over the Labour years, 40% has accrued to the richest 10% (all references are on my website). The richest 1%, according to Injustice, Danny Dorling's new book, have captured a higher share of national income than at any time since the early 1930s. Inequality in the United Kingdom is now higher than at any point since consistent records began, in 1979. I feel that needs repeating. After 13 years of Labour government, the UK has higher levels of inequality than after 18 years of Tory government.
The old workers' party has switched allegiance to the bosses, handing key positions to corporate executives and private equity tycoons, even appointing Digby Jones, the neanderthal former head of the CBI, a minister of the crown.
Having promised to scrap it when in opposition, it has extended the private finance initiative into sectors the Tories didn't dare to touch. Labour left sweeteners in PFI contracts for corporations to find, rigged the figures to make it look as if the scheme delivered value for money, then had to bail out the private operators when it began to collapse.
While Labour has liberated billionaires, it has trussed up the rest of us with 3,500 new criminal offences, including provisions that allow the police to declare any demonstration illegal . . . It has colluded in kidnapping and torture. Britain now has more CCTV cameras than any other nation, and a DNA database that is five times the size of its nearest competitor. The number of prisoners in the UK has risen by 41% since Labour took office.
This government blocked a ceasefire in the Lebanon; sacked Britain's ambassador to Uzbekistan after he complained that the regime was boiling its prisoners to death; gave aid to a Colombian military that collaborates with fascist death squads; announced a policy of pre-emptive nuclear war; and decided to waste our money on replacing Trident. But worse, far worse than any of this, it launched an illegal war in which hundreds of thousands have died. This is the government that colleagues of mine on the Guardian want to save.
This is New Labour. It has colonised a movement that fought for social justice, distribution and decency, rewired its brain and delivered it to the fat cats who were once its enemies.
I understand the hazards of voting for the smaller parties and allowing the right-hand glove puppet to replace the left-hand glove puppet. I know that the Tories are even worse than this government. But by voting for the candidates on the list compiled by the democracy campaign Hang 'em – not all of whom are Liberal Democrats, but all of whom are reformers with a good chance of taking or keeping seats – we can break this rotten system while remaining true to our beliefs.
Whatever the outcome of the election, the real fight begins after 6 May, as we build a mass democracy movement that ensures that we can never be colonised by a parasitic political class – of any colour – again. It starts with a rally in Parliament Square at 2pm on Saturday. During and after this election, we must demand something better, rather than fleeing from something worse.
..............................................
Nice to see you!
Ever since the 'just a bigoted woman' incident took place Gordon Brown seems to have given up on chatting with 'the people' (quelle surprise) and has reverted to the traditional big speeches to mobs of people in town centres kind of approach. Surprisingly, he suddenly seems animated and passionate about some genuine beliefs, and he's managing to attack his opponents to some good effect. But is it too late? The latest poll puts Labour up to 30%, and the Lib Dems down to 26% - a reversal of the position a week ago. Possibly a good thing for a hung parliament since it would give Labour the biggest number of seats of the three main parties, and thus make it more difficult for Clegg to go with Cameron & co in any circumstance, even if the Tories were to offer a referendum on PR, which they won't, and which Brown has already pledged to do.
Yesterday Brown had a column in the Guardian, saying some sensible things, to which one can only say - yes, but why the fuck didn't you do this stuff 13 wasted years ago?
Don't kid yourself, Nick. No Lib Dem I know sees any Tory progressive bond
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/03/in-tory-labour-marginals-vote-labour
Doh!
I passionately believe that in the momentous times that lie ahead, Britain needs a new model for running our economy and a new way of doing politics.
True. Why haven't you done it already?
A progressive agenda for economic and political reform under Labour.
Good. Why haven't you done it already?
The economic crisis has taught us that we need a global constitution for our financial system, with a global system of financial sector taxation to underpin it.
I think we knew this a long time ago. But why didn't you even show any interest in starting this off in Britain when many of us were demanding it? You haven't even been making the argument in favour of it till now.
These reforms will help bring about a new era of social mobility which will strengthen and extend Britain's middle class.
Bastard. What about strengthening and improving the lot of the working classes? This is pathetic language, coming from a self-proclaimed middle class man who's presided over 13 years of declining 'social mobility' and increasing inequality.
I want to seize this moment to place progressive ideals at the heart of a new constitutional and political settlement.
Bastard. The right moment to seize it was when you came to power with a landslide, not when you're about to be booted out. Three wasted landslides, and only now he talks about a new constitutional and political settlement.
I know in my bones that Labour is the only party with a passion to eradicate poverty.
And I know in my bones, and in my grey matter, that not only has New Labour not diminished poverty significantly, or increased the real incomes of the majority of our people, or reduced inequality, it's never even shown the slightest 'passion' in any of its actions to actually do something truly significant.
We will stand by our obligations to the elderly by delivering a national care service, allowing more people to live in dignity in their homes.
Why haven't you done it already?
A vote for Labour is a vote for electoral reform, an elected House of Lords, fixed term parliaments and a right to recall your local MP.
Why hasn't New Labour done these things already!!!!!!!!
Sorry!
.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Layer 288 . . . Bravo Cleggo, Leadership Debates, Mos Eisley Spaceport, Spin Alley, Satire, Universities, Geriatric Judo and Aerial
.
Nick Clegg was on Andrew Marr's programme this morning, and was very good indeed. He was confident, convincing and didn't stumble in any way. He's making the case extremely well for a sizeable vote for his party as an instant demonstration that Britain is sick of the old two-party monopoly and needs a proper proportional voting system in order to have a more mature and credible democracy. As it happens his party's priorities are right in line with what Britain also needs. He's managed, with the help of his colleagues, to position the Lib Dems perfectly as the more radical and progressive party. If there's any justice in the world the electorate will do the right thing and ensure that neither the Tories nor New Labour get anything like an outright majority. S'exciting!
It's true that prior to the financial crisis Clegg was on the right wing (the 'Orange Book') side of his party, and supported the Chicago School / Friedmanite vision of neo-liberal economics, but that was then and this is now. It's reasonable to suppose he's learnt lessons, as have millions of others during the financial catastrophe that's gripped the world.
http://www.liberator.org.uk/media/lib-0904.pdf
And in any case, as has been said elsewhere, this is now, chiefly, a one-issue election - proportional representation.
......................................................
The Leadership Debates - Part Two
Last week's debate (on Sky News!) threw up no surprises, and most reactions suggested there's a pretty even split in public perception over who was the 'winner'. Oxzen, however, took issue with the Guardian editorial about the event -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/22/leaders-debates-nickclegg?
............................................
Marina Hyde wrote a brilliant piece about the insane happenings in the interview area - 'Spin Alley' - immediately after the debate:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/22/sky-leaders-debate-spin-room-abortion-democracy
...........................................
Satire
Last week's 'In Our Time', as it happens, had satire as its subject.
In ancient times satirical attacks were known as satori!
Mocking the so-called elite in order to correct folly was seen as a noble calling.
Democracies need those who are prepared to attack the pomposity and snobbery of political elites, and need those satirists to be aggressively outspoken and even rude in order to drive home their points. The hypocrisy, pretense, falsehoods, self-indulgence, love of luxury and depravity of the ruling classes ought to be targeted.
.....................................
Polly Toynbee's column yesterday was very good, and so far has attracted well over 1,000 comments on CiF:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/24/clegg-electoral-reform-tactics-romance?
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Cif comments included:
..............................................................
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/18/students-universityteaching?
Oxzen's comment:
How would it be if universities were places where people of all ages could go in order to pursue their own educational agendas, with a right to be as narrow or as broad in their learning pathways as they see fit? Maybe we could have universities that set out to meet the needs of learners, whatever they might be, with a view to creating a nation of well-balanced, highly intelligent, creative, enlightened and productive individuals who could make creative, enlightened and useful contributions to society? This might even make a refreshing change from generations of narrow, over-specialised and uncreative individuals pursuing self-interest and greed to the exclusion of any other goal in life.
..........................................
The end of the affair?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/apr/23/sharon-shoesmith-crisis-child-protection
.........................................
Elderly 'should learn martial arts'
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100422/thl-elderly-should-learn-martial-arts-d831572.html
Fighting disciplines such as kung fu, karate and judo involve techniques that can help brittle-boned patients fall more safely, research suggests.
.......................
Album of the Week - Aerial, by Kate Bush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_%28album%29
http://www.katebush.co.uk/katebush_html/lyrics.html
.
Nick Clegg was on Andrew Marr's programme this morning, and was very good indeed. He was confident, convincing and didn't stumble in any way. He's making the case extremely well for a sizeable vote for his party as an instant demonstration that Britain is sick of the old two-party monopoly and needs a proper proportional voting system in order to have a more mature and credible democracy. As it happens his party's priorities are right in line with what Britain also needs. He's managed, with the help of his colleagues, to position the Lib Dems perfectly as the more radical and progressive party. If there's any justice in the world the electorate will do the right thing and ensure that neither the Tories nor New Labour get anything like an outright majority. S'exciting!
It's true that prior to the financial crisis Clegg was on the right wing (the 'Orange Book') side of his party, and supported the Chicago School / Friedmanite vision of neo-liberal economics, but that was then and this is now. It's reasonable to suppose he's learnt lessons, as have millions of others during the financial catastrophe that's gripped the world.
http://www.liberator.org.uk/media/lib-0904.pdf
And in any case, as has been said elsewhere, this is now, chiefly, a one-issue election - proportional representation.
......................................................
The Leadership Debates - Part Two
Last week's debate (on Sky News!) threw up no surprises, and most reactions suggested there's a pretty even split in public perception over who was the 'winner'. Oxzen, however, took issue with the Guardian editorial about the event -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/22/leaders-debates-nickclegg?
"all three leaders agreed on the fundamentals of every question. If voters want to see real difference between the three main parties they will have to look elsewhere."
Really? The one thing that stood out in this debate was Clegg's brave and principled insistence that it's foolish to renew or replace Trident with a similar weapons system, that fresh thinking is needed about the place of nuclear weapons, and that we should take a significant step towards ridding the world of nuclear weapons by not rushing into the purchase of a new generation of such weapons when there's no actual need to.
Brown certainly seized on this difference during the debate. How come the author of this piece didn't even notice it? Whether or not you agree with Clegg you must give him credit for remaining consistent on this fundamental difference, which Brown and Cameron are too afraid or too lacking in vision to grapple with themselves.
............................................
Marina Hyde wrote a brilliant piece about the insane happenings in the interview area - 'Spin Alley' - immediately after the debate:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/22/sky-leaders-debate-spin-room-abortion-democracy
Sky leaders' debate spin room: the live abortion of democracy
"Mos Eisley spaceport," sighs Ben Kenobi in Star Wars. "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy ... " Evidently Obi Wan never visited Sky's post-debate spin room, which – pound-of-flesh for pound-of-flesh – must have been one of the most distasteful places to be in this galaxy or any other tonight.
The venue was an interactive science museum in Bristol, magically transformed by Rupert Murdoch's news network into a fully operational 10th circle of hell. Behold, the cream of Britain's arseoisie, as journalists, spin doctors and politicians interact in scenes that just scream "Come, friendly bombs …"
It was like watching the live abortion of democracy. Had the network decided the evening should have been immortalised in oil paint (surely only a matter of time), Hieronymus Bosch would have declined the commission on the basis that it was a hellscape too far even for him.
Still, the premise is simple. Even before the party leaders have finished debating, legions of spinners and spinners' lackeys materialise to explain exactly why everything you thought you saw and heard was wrong.
Having vapourised seconds before the debate, the spindroids were suddenly all back in the room, presumably having just slid through a haunted TV screen to begin immediately the task of dispensing weapons grade wisdom.
In America, they call these media pens Spin Alley, so those searching for a suitably small-time UK equivalent should alight on something like Fibbers' Close, or Bollocks Avenue.
To isolate the biggest whopper told in the room in the wake of the debate would be a task for a more sophisticated listening system than the human ear, but an audit even of those overheard in a mere six foot radius would have to include Douglas Alexander's "Gordon dominated the debate tonight. He left Nick and David Cameron trailing in his wake." In fairness, everyone was giving their best Iraqi information minister. "The infidels are nowhere near the airport! No one could ever want to slap David Cameron round the face with a wet fish!"
The entire affair is, quite simply, a two bath event, which is to say that when one finally escapes it, a single immersion in scalding water doesn't begin to get the psychological dirt off.
...........................................
Satire
Last week's 'In Our Time', as it happens, had satire as its subject.
In ancient times satirical attacks were known as satori!
Mocking the so-called elite in order to correct folly was seen as a noble calling.
Democracies need those who are prepared to attack the pomposity and snobbery of political elites, and need those satirists to be aggressively outspoken and even rude in order to drive home their points. The hypocrisy, pretense, falsehoods, self-indulgence, love of luxury and depravity of the ruling classes ought to be targeted.
The father of the genre, Lucilius, is the writer credited with taking satire decisively towards what we now understand by the word: incisive invective aimed at particular personalities and their wrongs.
All this happened under the Roman Republic, in which there was a large measure of free speech. But then the Republic was overthrown and Augustus established the Empire.
The great satirist Horace had fought to save the Republic, but now reinvented himself as a loyal citizen of the Imperium.
His satirical work explores the strains and hypocrisies of trying to maintain an independent sense of self at the heart of an autocracy.
This struggle was deepened in the work of Persius, whose Stoicism-inflected writing was a quietist attempt to endure under the regime without challenging it.
The work of the last great Roman satirist, Juvenal, was famously savage - yet his targets were either generic or long dead.
So was satire a conservative or a radical genre? Was it cynical or did it aim to 'improve' people? Did it have any real impact? And was it actually funny?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00s0gwd#supporting-content
.....................................
Polly Toynbee's column yesterday was very good, and so far has attracted well over 1,000 comments on CiF:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/24/clegg-electoral-reform-tactics-romance?
Your heart might say Clegg. But vote with your head
Until the electoral system is reformed, progressives are stuck. If you do not want a Tory government, it's tactics, not romance
Get real. Keep your head screwed on. What result do you want? I will assume, dear Guardian reader, that like me you have two prime purposes. One is to prevent Cameron walking into Downing Street on 7 May. Equal first is to secure electoral reform so that we are never again presented with such a disgraceful voting choice. If that's not your view, you can save time, stop reading here and push off to some Murdoch organ that will amply satisfy your needs.
Hundreds of posters on Guardian threads yesterday wanted a Liberal Democrat win. No surprise, since there is no doubt that Clegg was the best in both debates. He talks human not slogans, he is sincere, and he stands by unpopular positions without trimming. Those who squirmed at Gordon Brown asserting that Trident will protect us against Iran and North Korea – or his failure to answer on what to do about long-term illegal migrants, their children and, soon, grandchildren: stateless, exploited and paying no taxes – will think Clegg a brave and decent man. So he is on human rights, and how to "punch above our weight" in Europe. He might make a good prime minister. But it won't happen this election because the abominable voting system makes it impossible. Win electoral reform and he might win next time, if there is a rerun after we have got voting reform.
But until that day, never take your eye off the ball, whatever it takes. If many go with heart not head against such ferocious odds, and Cameron gets the crown, electoral reform will be a dead duck, and it's back to square one.
I have never much minded what the best anti-Tory party is called, I just want the left of centre to win. I will always back whichever group combines being furthest left with winnability: that's always a trade-off.
It's not a game. The people who always, without fail, get hit hardest by Conservative governments are the powerless, the weakest, the voiceless – and they may not even vote. It is an absolute certainty that inequality will always worsen under the Tories, always did, always will.
This time it will happen faster . . .
It's low tactics, not high romance. Vote what best keeps the Tory out where you are. Buck that arithmetic at your peril.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Cif comments included:
rednorth
These damn Tories take people for simpletons.
If you are reasonably well off, there are good reasons to vote Tory, so why not just be honest and admit you vote Tory out of self interest, instead of persisting with this ludicrous conscience-salving charade that the Tories have social mobility and the poor's best interests at heart?
It always amazes me that Tories dislike Modern 'broken' Britain so much. It was, after all, built in their image by Thatcher, and sustained by Blair.
What do you people think this is? a fucking game?
We're heading for a Libcon pact. Ideas of a Libdem clean sweep are fanciful rubbish. The task of the clued-in social democrat is to frustrate Toryism when and wherever you encounter it. The Tories are not a political party in the same sense as Labour and the Libdems. They are a Conspiracy, funded by business and corporations, and kept in power by the power elites and media barons, class interests and landowners.
They, in Bevan's words, are lower than vermin, and our job, as left of centre voters, is to don any kind of nose peg, plastic bag or gas mask and put down the seeds of democracy everywhere they feed.
Democracy to Tories is poison.
TiggerNoFan
YouGov 22 Apr - Con 33 Lib Dem 31 Lab 27
Seats: Con 253, Lab 256, Lib Dem 112
OnePoll 24 Apr - Con 32 Lib 32 Lab 23.
Seats: Cons 262, Lab 213, LD 146
Now then Polly, remind us which one of these massive Tory overall majorities it is that you're so worried about?
That's right - there isn't one.
One poll I spotted an hour or two ago gave me pause for thought:
Mums Net voting intentions following 2nd debate - LD - 50.3% Lab 20% Con 18%
Seats: Lib Dem 598, Lab 23, Con 3, others 26
Funny how close the MumsNet 50.3% is to the 49% who would allegedly vote Lib Dem if they thought the Lib Dems had any chance of winning...
Maybe that's what both the Guardian and the Murdoch empires are so worried about that they want to frighten you into not voting Lib Dem.
Natacha
A very good article, one of the few truly intelligent pieces of journalism produced in this election.
For all the excitement Clegg has generated a couple of facts remain;
If we have a Tory government after May 6th Clegg might as well never have existed.
If we have a Tory government after May 6th there will be no electoral reform.
If we have a Tory government after May 6th the LibDems will find it much harder to achieve a breakthrough next time.
If we have a Tory government after May 6th Cameron has said he will actually make the current electoral system worse and even more skewed against the LibDems.
If we have a Tory government after May 6th Clegg will go back to being a nobody.
I am now a member of Hampstead and Kilburn Labour Party and I am risking being thrown out by saying this but everyone, Labour as well as LibDem voters, should vote tactically against the Tories.
In doing so you are voting positively for PR, social justice, a sensible economy and better public services. Cameron and Osborne's malicious, mendacious incompetence is the last thing the UK needs.
..............................................................
Graduates: a problem in four parts
Only when students, academics, employers and politicians can agree what university is for will answers emerge
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/18/students-universityteaching?
Oxzen's comment:
How would it be if universities were places where people of all ages could go in order to pursue their own educational agendas, with a right to be as narrow or as broad in their learning pathways as they see fit? Maybe we could have universities that set out to meet the needs of learners, whatever they might be, with a view to creating a nation of well-balanced, highly intelligent, creative, enlightened and productive individuals who could make creative, enlightened and useful contributions to society? This might even make a refreshing change from generations of narrow, over-specialised and uncreative individuals pursuing self-interest and greed to the exclusion of any other goal in life.
..........................................
The end of the affair?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/apr/23/sharon-shoesmith-crisis-child-protection
.........................................
Elderly 'should learn martial arts'
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100422/thl-elderly-should-learn-martial-arts-d831572.html
Fighting disciplines such as kung fu, karate and judo involve techniques that can help brittle-boned patients fall more safely, research suggests.
.......................
Album of the Week - Aerial, by Kate Bush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_%28album%29
http://www.katebush.co.uk/katebush_html/lyrics.html
.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Layer 284 . . . Rising Hopes for a New Politics, the Clegg Ascendancy, Good Riddance To New Labour, Greens Turning Sharp Left, and Bank Crime
.
This is from today's Observer - "My Vote . . . by Katharine Whitehorn":
......................................................
Now where was I? . . . Oh yes - the Tories entering shit creek, and the rise of the Lib Dems.
Martin Kettle started his column yesterday with this:
Whereas Oxzen had predicted last Thursday - just before The Debate (Part 1) -
So mark my words - by the time this election takes place the Lib Dem share of the vote will have gone up by around 5% and the Greens by 3%, with the Tories down by 8% on current projections. What's more, the Lib Dems started the last campaign at around 18% and put on 6 percentage points, whereas this time they're starting from 24%.
So - sorry about that folks. A slight miscalculation. I'd assumed the Tories were on 39 or 40% and would come down 8% to 31 or 32%. Pretty accurate with the Lib Dems and their 30% though.
What's more, the Greens haven't really got going, yet, and there may be even more to come from the Lib Dems, since Clegg seems to have made an even better impression than I'd imagined.
What's even more, a ComRes poll for the Independent on Sunday and Sunday Mirror today puts the Tories on only 31%, with the Lib Dems on 29% and Labour on 27%.
At this rate and under first past the post the Lib Dems could end up with more than 100 seats, with Labour getting just over 250 seats and the Tories just under 250. Which means that the Lib Dems would easily hold the balance of power in a hung parliament. Excellent.
[Under a proper system of proportional representation Labour ought to get, on the current projections, around 182 seats, and the Tories around 215. No matter - if New Old Labour, the Lib Dems and the Greens worked together for progressive policies then the Tories would never again get even a sniff of power or influence.]
The Tory party would then go back into civil war mode, and probably split, with the Cameroons on one side and The Nasty Party on the other, each of them fighting for the right to leadership and direction as Progressive Conservatives versus Traditional and True Conservatives.
Labour, of course, will need to have its own internal revolution, as Mandelson, Brown and the rest of the gang fight to stay in control, and their opponents let rip with as much aggression and determination to get rid of them as they can muster.
......................................................
On the back page of this week's London Review of Books, and on the back page of the Guardian's "Review" section in yesterday's paper, is an excellent advertisement for the New Left Review. In it they simply quote several passages from their archives, including this from Ralph Miliband, written in 1960 [yes - the father of David & Ed] -
http://www.newleftreview.org/
There's also a quotation from the current edition of the review, in an article by Tony Wood called Good Riddance To New Labour -
Read the entire article here - http://www.newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2830
..............................
This is in today's Observer:
.........................................................
Andrew Rawnsley writes this today:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/18/election-television-debate
...............................................
A new politics is up for grabs
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/18/general-election-2010-liberaldemocrats1
Finally, we're getting around to examining the operations of the big banks as actual fraud, and not just incompetence and stupidity:
.
This is from today's Observer - "My Vote . . . by Katharine Whitehorn":
"I voted Labour in 1997 - at least, that's what I thought I was doing. I didn't know then that Tony Blair was on record as saying he'd have been a Conservative, except it took too long to get to the top; nor that he shared with the Right a touching fundamentalist belief in the efficacy of the market; nor that no notice whatever would be taken of our marching against war in Iraq. I'll vote Lib Dem this time for several reasons. Vince Cable seems more sensible about the economy than most and Nick Clegg wowed us all on TV; but more to the point , I want a hung parliament. Then laws will actually have to be passed because parliament has so decided, not because they seemed a good idea on the sofa in 10 Downing Street. And I can't wait to see - I can dream, can't I? - a withering of the lunatic Whitehall mini-management of targets and box-ticking that has driven so many honest and competent professionals to desperation."
......................................................
Now where was I? . . . Oh yes - the Tories entering shit creek, and the rise of the Lib Dems.
Martin Kettle started his column yesterday with this:
The Sun/You Gov poll on Saturday morning is the first proper national post-debate opinion poll. Its results are absolutely explosive. It shows the Conservatives on 33% (down 4% from the last YouGov), the Liberal Democrats on 30% (up 8%) and Labour on 28% (down 3%).http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/17/1
Whereas Oxzen had predicted last Thursday - just before The Debate (Part 1) -
So mark my words - by the time this election takes place the Lib Dem share of the vote will have gone up by around 5% and the Greens by 3%, with the Tories down by 8% on current projections. What's more, the Lib Dems started the last campaign at around 18% and put on 6 percentage points, whereas this time they're starting from 24%.
So - sorry about that folks. A slight miscalculation. I'd assumed the Tories were on 39 or 40% and would come down 8% to 31 or 32%. Pretty accurate with the Lib Dems and their 30% though.
What's more, the Greens haven't really got going, yet, and there may be even more to come from the Lib Dems, since Clegg seems to have made an even better impression than I'd imagined.
What's even more, a ComRes poll for the Independent on Sunday and Sunday Mirror today puts the Tories on only 31%, with the Lib Dems on 29% and Labour on 27%.
At this rate and under first past the post the Lib Dems could end up with more than 100 seats, with Labour getting just over 250 seats and the Tories just under 250. Which means that the Lib Dems would easily hold the balance of power in a hung parliament. Excellent.
[Under a proper system of proportional representation Labour ought to get, on the current projections, around 182 seats, and the Tories around 215. No matter - if New Old Labour, the Lib Dems and the Greens worked together for progressive policies then the Tories would never again get even a sniff of power or influence.]
The Tory party would then go back into civil war mode, and probably split, with the Cameroons on one side and The Nasty Party on the other, each of them fighting for the right to leadership and direction as Progressive Conservatives versus Traditional and True Conservatives.
Labour, of course, will need to have its own internal revolution, as Mandelson, Brown and the rest of the gang fight to stay in control, and their opponents let rip with as much aggression and determination to get rid of them as they can muster.
......................................................
On the back page of this week's London Review of Books, and on the back page of the Guardian's "Review" section in yesterday's paper, is an excellent advertisement for the New Left Review. In it they simply quote several passages from their archives, including this from Ralph Miliband, written in 1960 [yes - the father of David & Ed] -
The last election has shocked many more people into a recognition that the Labour Party is a sick party . . . Neither on issues of home affairs, nor in relation to Nato and foreign affairs generally, have the Labour leaders appeared as a clear alternative to the Tories. The reason for this is not that they were unable - somehow - to put over their case. The reason is that they were not such an alternative.
http://www.newleftreview.org/
There's also a quotation from the current edition of the review, in an article by Tony Wood called Good Riddance To New Labour -
The clinching argument against New Labour is one of simple democratic principle. Any government with a record as appalling as this one's deserves to be punished at the polls., if accountability to the voting public is to have any meaning. The specifics of Labour's years in power - one murderous war after another; slavish devotion to finance; promotion of rampant inequality; repeated assaults on civil liberties; fragmentation and privatisation of public services; endemic corruption - make plain that they fully merit being turfed out of office. Good riddance; this execrable government deserves to go.
Read the entire article here - http://www.newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2830
..............................
This is in today's Observer:
Greens turn sharp lefthttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/18/general-election-2010-green-party
The Greens are Britain's new, and only, leftwing party. If you don't believe me, read their manifesto
by Mary Fitzgerald
While Nick Clegg's performance in the first leadership debate has suddenly made the Lab-Con stranglehold on power look weaker, one of the most dramatic political developments of a generation has gone relatively unnoticed.
With their new manifesto, the Greens have transformed themselves from a single-issue outfit into Britain's new – and only – leftwing party. They have pledged soak-the-rich tax hikes, aimed at radically redistributing Britain's wealth and delivering social justice for all.
They will use some £112bn in new taxes by 2013 to fund higher minimum wages and pensions, free home insulation, free social care for the elderly, big tax breaks for people on lower incomes, as well as the expected huge investment in transport.
It's short-sighted not to see the wider significance of this shift. It's true that our first-past-the post system means the Green manifesto is of almost no relevance to the outcome on 6 May. But think ahead to the local elections.
The Green party is positioning itself, politically, as a radical alternative to the near-identical policy platforms trotted out this Thursday on ITV. The Greens are now aiming their message not just at the growing numbers who care about the environment, but those concerned about social justice as well.
Given the extent to which New Labour has moved to the centre, this will hold powerful sway among disenchanted one-time Labour voters, as well as with more radical left-wingers (note that Beatrix Campbell, a former Communist, is standing as a Green candidate in Hampstead and Kilburn). Meanwhile, taxes on airplanes and the other environmentally-focused policies appeal across the political spectrum: climate change, in Britain at least, is not exclusively a concern of leftist voters.
.........................................................
Andrew Rawnsley writes this today:
Nick Clegg's victory in the televised debate presents both his complacent rivals with some serious dilemmas
David Cameron's strategists are already arguing among themselves about how aggressively they should "take the fight" to Nick Clegg. For most of David Cameron's leadership, his approach has been to try to hug the Lib Dems to death. The Lib Dem leader disdained the Tory's attempts to love bomb him during the first debate. Influential voices around David Cameron are telling him to forget any more loving and concentrate on bombing. Their visceral instinct is to go for the Lib Dems as wet on crime, reckless on defence, soft on immigration and in love with Europe.
The risk for the Tories is that this lures David Cameron back on to Michael Howard territory and will look like a lurch to the right which is repulsive to the liberal, centrist voters that he needs. Michael Gove has already experimented with one line of attack by patronising the Lib Dems as "outside the mainstream and a little bit eccentric". The trouble for both the Tories and Labour is that being "outside the mainstream" does not look the least bit "eccentric" to the many voters distrustful of and disillusioned with the old duopoly. It looks jolly attractive.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/18/election-television-debate
...............................................
A new politics is up for grabs
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/18/general-election-2010-liberaldemocrats1
If you want a "well" hung parliament, your strategy should be very simple indeed: vote Lib Dem. Not only will that guarantee a Lib Dem bloc in parliament holding the balance of power, it will discredit the electoral system itself. Worst case scenario: a truly phenomenal number of people end up voting a Lib Dem government into office which will have a clear mandate to introduce proportional representation, Lords reform, stronger local government, more direct democracy and, in effect, give its own power away. So not much of a risk at all then............................................
What is needed at this stage is not nuanced psephological arguments but a clear, disruptive, brutal message: vote Liberal Democrat and change the system.
When my computer starts doing odd things, I don't spend hours faffing about trying to debug the operating system. I hit the reset button. When my phone jams, I hit the reset button.
Courtesy of Nick Clegg's phenomenal performance this week, a vote for the Liberal Democrats has just become the equivalent of a bloody great big reset button. You can either press that button on 6 May or sit there in your respective comfort zones complaining about nobody has any real power to change things. It really is up to you now.
Finally, we're getting around to examining the operations of the big banks as actual fraud, and not just incompetence and stupidity:
Now we know the truth. The financial meltdown wasn't a mistake – it was a conhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/18/goldman-sachs-regulators-civil-charges
Hiding behind the complexities of our financial system, banks and other institutions are being accused of fraud and deception, with Goldman Sachs just the latest in the spotlight. This has become the most pressing election issue of all
by Will Hutton
The global financial crisis, it is now clear, was caused not just by the bankers' colossal mismanagement. No, it was due also to the new financial complexity offering up the opportunity for widespread, systemic fraud. Friday's announcement that the world's most famous investment bank, Goldman Sachs, is to face civil charges for fraud brought by the American regulator is but the latest of a series of investigations that have been launched, arrests made and charges made against financial institutions around the world. Big Finance in the 21st century turns out to have been Big Fraud. Yet Britain, centre of the world financial system, has not yet levelled charges against any bank . . . We have to live with the fiction that our banks and bankers are whiter than white, and any attempt to investigate them and their institutions will lead to a mass exodus to the mountains of Switzerland. The politicians of the Labour and Tory party alike are Bambis amid the wolves.
.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Layer 280 . . . Santana Again, Who Needs Fathers?, Politics, Shock Doctrine and Democracy
.
Brother B's back in the Pacific, living a life of Reilly, experiencing the odd exciting earthquake, and listening to Santana!
Today I found the following piece on Spotify, which sums up very nicely Santana's first album, and its 'Legacy' edition:
.................................................
D's back home, after a parting of the ways. It's good to have him around again. His dog also arrived here yesterday. Dawg n me took a long walk around the Downs this morning, rejoicing in the Spring sun. Synchronicity moment - met up with a woman walking two Staffies on behalf of her son, D, who was still dossing in bed.
..............................................
Who Needs Fathers? BBC TV, produced by Films of Record, a Ten Alps company.
This week's episode was about young men who have lost contact with their fathers, and in particular one who managed to track down and meet a father who last saw him when he was 18 months old.
According to their website,
"Films of Record specialise in tackling difficult subjects, securing access to previously impenetrable institutions and producing challenging and honest films that impact the viewer."
This seems pretty accurate. Three weeks ago, in Layer 267, Oxzen commented on another documentary made by this outfit - Requiem For Detroit. Another brilliant film.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00rkm3y - blurb for Requiem For Detroit
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00rwnrx - iPlayer for current programme
The parent company, Ten Alps, have been responsible for other superb documetaries shown recently - last night's Dispatches programme on the London Marathon and its suspect management and finances; the new series that began this week on the Great Ormond Street children's hospital, The Berlusconi Show, etc. Gritty and insightful programmes which these companies can be very proud of. I seem to remember blogging recently that documentary-making is the new rock n roll. It's a lot more entertaining and rewarding than what passes for rock n roll in 2010.
.......................................................
Back to Politics
The one and only Malcolm Tucker, and his election briefing:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/09/bottom-feeders-battlefield-cider-potheads
....................................................
My vote is for mayhem
We should embrace the mystery and hilarity of a hung parliament: it may be the trigger for vital constitutional reform
by Marina Hyde
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/09/vote-mayhem-mystery-hung-parliament
.................................................................
As democracy unravels at home, the west thuggishly exports it elsewhere
While the US and Britain slide towards oligarchy, the forced elections in Afghanistan and Iraq have brought no good
by Simon Jenkins
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/08/democracy-iraq-afghanistan-britain-us
...................................................................
More Disaster Capitalism and Shock Doctrine
What's becoming very clear is that whatever the outcome of the general election we're going to get an even bigger dose of what Naomi Klein calls Disaster Capitalism and the Shock Doctrine - the remedies of Milton Friedman and the Chicago school of economics.
Oxzen said this in Layer 188: The Shock Doctrine, Michael Moore, Friedman, Capitalism . . .
http://oxzen.blogspot.com/2009/09/layer-188-shock-doctrine-michael-moore.html
The truth is that the entire planet has been ravaged and raped by over-mighty corporations driven by crazed megalomaniacs and oligarchs that busted into countries around the world after the doors had been beaten down by armies that battered, tortured and killed on the direct orders of mad politicians and supine parliaments.
In some countries, of course, like the UK, there was no need to do any battering – Thatch willingly embraced these ideas – directly from Hayek (Friedman's guru), as it happens – and set about dismantling social democracy: selling off state assets for peanuts, cutting social spending and public services, passing anti-union legislation, deregulating capitalism and the banks, etc, etc. If anyone tried to get in their way – well Mags had no hesitation in sending in the cops to batter the miners into submission and bust their strikes. A lady with a mandate, you see.
http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine
http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/the-book
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvG0gbvZ4tY
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4231109320246838401#
....................................................
Here are some more Klein-related Oxzens to (re)visit;
http://oxzen.blogspot.com/2009/03/layer-129-changing-consciousness-paxo.html
http://oxzen.blogspot.com/2009/01/layer-112-more-balls-spirit-of-east.html
http://oxzen.blogspot.com/2009/01/layer-109-welcome-to-2009.html
....................................................
Vince Cable attacks 'nauseating' businessmen over NI letter
Lib Dem Treasury spokesman accuses Tories of 'barefaced cheek' by co-ordinating letter criticising national insurance rise
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/09/vince-cable-business-national-insurance
....................................................
Pope's on the Ropes
Pope hit by fresh allegations of paedophile priests cover-up
Pope failed to defrock paedophile priest in 1985
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/10/pope-paedophile-priests-cover-up
.........................................................
There was a wonderful little documentary on TV this evening, telling the story of the escape from a PoW camp near Bridgend of 70 German prisoners during WW2.
As soon as the tunnel and the escape was discovered the guards activated Plan X. They went out through the main gates and looked up and down the road to see if they could spot any prisoners running away!
Some of the escapees stole cars but soon discovered they couldn't go anywhere because all the signposts had been taken down.
Some of them planned to steal boats and planes, but failed dismally.
Some of them were quite pleased to be recaptured when they realised a) they were in Wales, and b) returning to Germany might not be the smartest move they could make.
As far as the local population was concerned - "It was exciting! Bridgend wasn't exactly the centre of the universe at that time!"
At that time!
.
Brother B's back in the Pacific, living a life of Reilly, experiencing the odd exciting earthquake, and listening to Santana!
Today I found the following piece on Spotify, which sums up very nicely Santana's first album, and its 'Legacy' edition:
The Sony Legacy Edition of Santana's 1969 self-titled debut album is exactly the kind of deluxe treatment that the repackaging and remastering of a classic album deserves. Fine liner notes by Hal Miller guide the listener through the historical journey of this record. First, there is a stunningly remastered version of the original album, front and center with alternate takes of "Savor" and "Soul Sacrifice" added, as well as a studio jam. Musically, Santana is the spot on the map marking the point where everything came together, mutated, and changed. Here Afro-Cuban son, blues, rock, jazz, and funk collided head on, and decided to become something else. Gregg Rolie's swirling, atmospheric organ provided the sonic root equation. Santana's guitar provided the frenzied flight, and Michael Shrieve's Elvin Jones/Roy Haynes-inspired driving kit work provided a dynamic commensurate with the visceral nature of rock. This was not aided, but made possible and furthered by the percussion work of Joe Areas and Michael Caravello, and anchored to earth only by David Brown's rock-solid, dirty-assed bassing.
Sure, "Evil Ways" was a monster single, but it doesn't begin to tell the story of the album. Interestingly, with the all the bonus material added, the album doesn't even tell the story of the album. What does offer the key is disc two, which includes the band's original studio sessions for the album -- before the addition of Shrieve and Areas to the band. These tracks, almost all of which appeared in different form on the final version, revealed a talented, original, but loosely focused and slightly timid jamming ensemble that put together some compelling riffs and ideas, but hadn't jelled in a studio setting.
Add to this Santana's complete Woodstock performance (with four previously unreleased tracks which took place before the album's release date) and the listener gets floored just contemplating the final release. That in four months, this band had gone from being green and naïve to becoming command performers. This is a remarkable, welcome, and definitive addition to the Santana catalog and raises the watermark for all reissues as well. ~ Thom Jurek, All Music Guide
.................................................
D's back home, after a parting of the ways. It's good to have him around again. His dog also arrived here yesterday. Dawg n me took a long walk around the Downs this morning, rejoicing in the Spring sun. Synchronicity moment - met up with a woman walking two Staffies on behalf of her son, D, who was still dossing in bed.
..............................................
Who Needs Fathers? BBC TV, produced by Films of Record, a Ten Alps company.
This week's episode was about young men who have lost contact with their fathers, and in particular one who managed to track down and meet a father who last saw him when he was 18 months old.
According to their website,
"Films of Record specialise in tackling difficult subjects, securing access to previously impenetrable institutions and producing challenging and honest films that impact the viewer."
This seems pretty accurate. Three weeks ago, in Layer 267, Oxzen commented on another documentary made by this outfit - Requiem For Detroit. Another brilliant film.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00rkm3y - blurb for Requiem For Detroit
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00rwnrx - iPlayer for current programme
The parent company, Ten Alps, have been responsible for other superb documetaries shown recently - last night's Dispatches programme on the London Marathon and its suspect management and finances; the new series that began this week on the Great Ormond Street children's hospital, The Berlusconi Show, etc. Gritty and insightful programmes which these companies can be very proud of. I seem to remember blogging recently that documentary-making is the new rock n roll. It's a lot more entertaining and rewarding than what passes for rock n roll in 2010.
.......................................................
Back to Politics
The one and only Malcolm Tucker, and his election briefing:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/09/bottom-feeders-battlefield-cider-potheads
Frankly, I think you're getting the wrong advice on the debates. As you know, people who saw Nixon and Kennedy on TV thought Kennedy won, and those who heard it on the radio thought Nixon won. But, really, we don't give a flying wad of wet Daily Express about either of these groups. What we need to know is: what about the people who were sitting through JFK-Nixon on the can doodling specs on cartoon-strip pictures of Daffy Duck and making themselves laugh with the sounds of their own farts? Who did they think won? Most people are not going to see these Bestivals of bore. After all, with the 478 debate rules in place they're going to have all the drama of three middle-aged guys fencing with limp dicks. The only ones watching are going to be the pointless bastards who already know what they think.
We need to get to the people who only hear the rumours. Bottom feeders who get their views via the quotes from the models in the Daily Star. Van drivers who guard their vast ignorance with concealed Stanley knives. Businessmen who like to expose their self-aggrandising cynicism to schoolgirls on the Thameslink. These dumb motherfuckers are the battlefield. Shitheels. Dunderheads. People who when you talk to them it's like shouting through six pieces of double glazing. Potheads, cider drinkers, kids who don't know who Thatcher was and think the NHS grew on a big fucking NHS tree. Wankers. People who count to 11 using their 10 fingers and their head and still get it wrong. This is who we have to get to via the debates. So we are going to have to shout extremely fucking loud.
....................................................
My vote is for mayhem
We should embrace the mystery and hilarity of a hung parliament: it may be the trigger for vital constitutional reform
by Marina Hyde
No one knows whether a hung parliament would be good or bad for the country. The cabinet secretary says he doubts the financial markets would be destabilised. Yet yesterday's Telegraph splash read: "Tory win best for economy say top bankers". (I forget precisely who are our "top bankers" these days, but perhaps they'll forgive us if we respond to their economic advice by shrieking with laughter before inviting them to run along now.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/09/vote-mayhem-mystery-hung-parliament
.................................................................
As democracy unravels at home, the west thuggishly exports it elsewhere
While the US and Britain slide towards oligarchy, the forced elections in Afghanistan and Iraq have brought no good
by Simon Jenkins
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/08/democracy-iraq-afghanistan-britain-us
The west's proudest export to the Islamic world this past decade has been democracy. That is, not real democracy, which is too complicated, but elections. They have been exported at the point of a gun and a missile to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died and millions been driven from their homes – including almost all Iraq's ancient population of Christians. The import of democracy has so far just inflamed local tension and fuelled fundamentalism.
At least in Iraq western troops are leaving the country to its fate. The west's guilt at the mayhem left behind will start to diminish with time.
In Afghanistan, a similar saga has been running for nine years, and is growing ever more tragic. Last year saw the deaths of more Afghans (2,412) and more western troops (520) than since the 2001 invasion.
Democracy in both America and Britain is coming under scrutiny these days. Quite apart from the antics of MPs and congressmen, it is said to be sliding towards oligarchy, with increasing overtones of autocracy. Money and its power over technology are making elections unfair. The military-industrial complex is as powerful as ever, having adopted "the menace of global terrorism" as its casus belli. Lobbying and corruption are polluting the government process. In a nutshell, democracy is not in good shape.
How strange to choose this moment to export it, least of all to countries that have never experienced it in their history. The west not only exports the stuff, it does so with massive, thuggish violence, the antithesis of how self-government should mature in any polity. The tortured justification in Iraq and Afghanistan is that elections will somehow sanctify a "war against terrorism" waged on someone else's soil. The resulting death and destruction have been appalling. Never can an end, however noble, have so failed to justify the means of achieving it.
The high-minded attacks on corruption in Muslim states from London and Washington is futile . . . Nor is the west that clean. Britain showered corruption on the Saudis to obtain arms contracts. The activities of American firms in "rebuilding" Iraq were wholly corrupt.
As Britons go the polls, they should challenge their candidates to justify what is being done in their name. A system of government that they have spent two centuries evolving and still not perfected is being rammed down the throats of poor and insecure people, who are then hectored for not handling it properly. Why should they? The invasions of their countries was not their choice. They did not ask to be a model for Britain's moral exhibitionism. They did not plead for their villages to be target practice for western special forces.
Amid this bluff the only certainty for Karzai is that, one day, Nato will get fed up and leave him to his fate, as it is now leaving Maliki in Baghdad.
Democracy has been greatly oversold.
...................................................................
More Disaster Capitalism and Shock Doctrine
What's becoming very clear is that whatever the outcome of the general election we're going to get an even bigger dose of what Naomi Klein calls Disaster Capitalism and the Shock Doctrine - the remedies of Milton Friedman and the Chicago school of economics.
Oxzen said this in Layer 188: The Shock Doctrine, Michael Moore, Friedman, Capitalism . . .
http://oxzen.blogspot.com/2009/09/layer-188-shock-doctrine-michael-moore.html
The truth is that the entire planet has been ravaged and raped by over-mighty corporations driven by crazed megalomaniacs and oligarchs that busted into countries around the world after the doors had been beaten down by armies that battered, tortured and killed on the direct orders of mad politicians and supine parliaments.
In some countries, of course, like the UK, there was no need to do any battering – Thatch willingly embraced these ideas – directly from Hayek (Friedman's guru), as it happens – and set about dismantling social democracy: selling off state assets for peanuts, cutting social spending and public services, passing anti-union legislation, deregulating capitalism and the banks, etc, etc. If anyone tried to get in their way – well Mags had no hesitation in sending in the cops to batter the miners into submission and bust their strikes. A lady with a mandate, you see.
http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine
http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/the-book
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvG0gbvZ4tY
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4231109320246838401#
....................................................
Here are some more Klein-related Oxzens to (re)visit;
http://oxzen.blogspot.com/2009/03/layer-129-changing-consciousness-paxo.html
http://oxzen.blogspot.com/2009/01/layer-112-more-balls-spirit-of-east.html
http://oxzen.blogspot.com/2009/01/layer-109-welcome-to-2009.html
....................................................
Vince Cable attacks 'nauseating' businessmen over NI letter
Lib Dem Treasury spokesman accuses Tories of 'barefaced cheek' by co-ordinating letter criticising national insurance rise
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/09/vince-cable-business-national-insurance
Businessmen on inflated salaries lecturing the rest of Britain on how to run the country are "utterly nauseating" and "being used" by the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, Vince Cable, says today.
In an interview with the Guardian Cable said of the business leaders: "If they are going to wade into this debate, they do have an obligation to explain how this national insurance cut is going to be paid for and that is where they are failing and they are being used."
He accused the Tories of "barefaced cheek".
More than 80 businessmen, including the executive chairman of Marks & Spencer, Sir Stuart Rose, have signed a letter, co-ordinated by the Tories, saying they oppose the national insurance rise, and believe the government should fund the potential gains through cutting waste.
Cable said: "I just find it utterly nauseating all these chairmen and chief executives of FTSE companies being paid 100 times the pay of their average employees lecturing us on how we should run the country. I find it barefaced cheek."
In the Guardian interview Cable also says Gordon Brown should "hit back" at the businessmen, but is too compromised. He claims: "Brown, having kowtowed to the City for the best part of a decade, and having tried to co-opt captains of industry into the big tent, is in a very weak position."
Cable said that he does not deny national insurance is an issue for businesses, but his remark that they are being used follows claims by the prime minister that they had been deceived.
Cable, the public's current choice for chancellor, according to polls, said it was highly plausible that as many as 120,000 public sector jobs would have to be lost, and suggested that voters were "in for a nasty shock".
He accused the main two parties of spending the first week of the election campaign trying to evade the central issue of how to deal with the structural deficit and urged all three parties to come together after the election to form a "council for financial stability", to agree the timetable and scale of deficit reduction.
....................................................
Pope's on the Ropes
Pope hit by fresh allegations of paedophile priests cover-up
Pope failed to defrock paedophile priest in 1985
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/10/pope-paedophile-priests-cover-up
.........................................................
There was a wonderful little documentary on TV this evening, telling the story of the escape from a PoW camp near Bridgend of 70 German prisoners during WW2.
As soon as the tunnel and the escape was discovered the guards activated Plan X. They went out through the main gates and looked up and down the road to see if they could spot any prisoners running away!
Some of the escapees stole cars but soon discovered they couldn't go anywhere because all the signposts had been taken down.
Some of them planned to steal boats and planes, but failed dismally.
Some of them were quite pleased to be recaptured when they realised a) they were in Wales, and b) returning to Germany might not be the smartest move they could make.
As far as the local population was concerned - "It was exciting! Bridgend wasn't exactly the centre of the universe at that time!"
At that time!
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)