How many phone calls did George Osbourne's office make today? Or perhaps it was Osbourne's attack on the BBC for only reporting the bad news and attacking the government all the time that did it.
The leading story on the BBC proclaims "IMF Supports UK Economic Policy". With so many attacks on the economic policy from a variety of esteemed sources, including OECD and the Bank of England, the government must be pleased to get big boy on their side.
There is a great deal of hyperbole over presumed economic gloom, it sells papers and consumes search engines. Redundancies, as Osbourne rightly observed (never thought i'd say that), are much more newsworthy than job creations. Therefore from the media alone it is very difficult to get a balanced view.
But for the BBC to respond so immediately to Osbourne's claims this afternoon implies that the gloom and persistent news about the gloom is worrying the government a bit too much to be ignored now.
Also, we have still to see any comment from Cameron on the forecasts, he appears to be happy to let Osbourne and Danny Alexander field the blows the press are launching from all sides.
Showing posts with label politcs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politcs. Show all posts
21 May 2011
Miliband's Mission to Nowhere
Ed Miliband makes another speech on the Saturday which means the top of the newsreels, saying something of little consequence and seemingly with no meaning whatsoever
Even the BBC could not make head nor tail of his comments, entitling their article;
And where exactly is this mission going?
Miliband witters on about social divide, potentially a vote winner with disenfranchised to use, if they voted. However, he seemingly fails to address the enormous role that Labour played in the last 13 years in maintaining and further expanding that social divide.
He coins it the "new inequality". the soundbite I suspect will become as distasteful as "broken Britain" and "alarm clock Britain". Will Miliband next start calling about "Britain's new inequality"?
I would hasten to point out that there is nothing new about inequality. if inequality and social divide due to the rich and the poor was a phenomenon, I'm sure we would have noticed. Alternatively, the Chartist revolution might never have happened. Given that Ed Miliband listed one of his favourite books as the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, I would suggest he needs to go back and read it again.
It should also be observed that he is one of the super rich that he is so quick to criticise, I would suggest he needs to be upfront and honest about this when he is is preaching on social divide that was exacerbated in by his own government when they increased capital gains tax to 28%.
Arguably, Miliband does acknowledge that the Labour government significantly contributed towards the social divide, yet he completely failed to set out anyways challenge this or at any way in which his party would be different than it was just over a year ago.
Speeches go, it had to be the epitome of mediocre, full of platitudinous rhetoric and, as Tim Farran MP stated, ultimately vacuous.
As a result, the great Labour mission is clearly on route to nowhere.
Even the BBC could not make head nor tail of his comments, entitling their article;
"Miliband urges Labour to inspire with national mission"
And where exactly is this mission going?
Miliband witters on about social divide, potentially a vote winner with disenfranchised to use, if they voted. However, he seemingly fails to address the enormous role that Labour played in the last 13 years in maintaining and further expanding that social divide.
He coins it the "new inequality". the soundbite I suspect will become as distasteful as "broken Britain" and "alarm clock Britain". Will Miliband next start calling about "Britain's new inequality"?
I would hasten to point out that there is nothing new about inequality. if inequality and social divide due to the rich and the poor was a phenomenon, I'm sure we would have noticed. Alternatively, the Chartist revolution might never have happened. Given that Ed Miliband listed one of his favourite books as the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, I would suggest he needs to go back and read it again.
It should also be observed that he is one of the super rich that he is so quick to criticise, I would suggest he needs to be upfront and honest about this when he is is preaching on social divide that was exacerbated in by his own government when they increased capital gains tax to 28%.
Arguably, Miliband does acknowledge that the Labour government significantly contributed towards the social divide, yet he completely failed to set out anyways challenge this or at any way in which his party would be different than it was just over a year ago.
Speeches go, it had to be the epitome of mediocre, full of platitudinous rhetoric and, as Tim Farran MP stated, ultimately vacuous.
As a result, the great Labour mission is clearly on route to nowhere.
Quietly Introducing Armed Police on Tubes
Justification of arming British Police forces grows stronger every day.
This week, it is arming British Transport Police on the Tube.
The justification, it seems, is the threat of a Mumbai-style terrorism attack.
We could of course, nod sagely and accept the carrying of guns by our police on such spurious arguments, because, they know best. And I do think the police resolve some terrorism threats without the issue ever coming to the public knowledge.
But I also feel terrorism is used as a whip with which to supress public objection to procedure, the banning of protesting on parliament square, for example.
The last time armed officers were on the tube, they killed an innocent man because of significant and terribe miscommunications. Charles de Menezes and the protection of civillians is an on going.
On the basis that guns protect people, we should all be locked up, have ID cards and be monitored every second by a government to "protect us".
Britain has managed to get so far without armed police, and I am loathe to see such a freedom erroded by spurious claims of terrorist threats.
And let's look at those threats, shall we?
Mumbai Terrorist Attacks in 2008 were cordinated threats across the city, targeting hotels, taxis and a port. At no point did they attack the city's transport infrastructure.
By this reasoning, should we not be arming police on the docks, and at every hotel?
The threat and the justification is weak and unrealistic, and, I fear, an excuse to gradually introduce more and more weapons in to national security.
This week, it is arming British Transport Police on the Tube.
The justification, it seems, is the threat of a Mumbai-style terrorism attack.
We could of course, nod sagely and accept the carrying of guns by our police on such spurious arguments, because, they know best. And I do think the police resolve some terrorism threats without the issue ever coming to the public knowledge.
But I also feel terrorism is used as a whip with which to supress public objection to procedure, the banning of protesting on parliament square, for example.
The last time armed officers were on the tube, they killed an innocent man because of significant and terribe miscommunications. Charles de Menezes and the protection of civillians is an on going.
On the basis that guns protect people, we should all be locked up, have ID cards and be monitored every second by a government to "protect us".
Britain has managed to get so far without armed police, and I am loathe to see such a freedom erroded by spurious claims of terrorist threats.
And let's look at those threats, shall we?
Mumbai Terrorist Attacks in 2008 were cordinated threats across the city, targeting hotels, taxis and a port. At no point did they attack the city's transport infrastructure.
By this reasoning, should we not be arming police on the docks, and at every hotel?
The threat and the justification is weak and unrealistic, and, I fear, an excuse to gradually introduce more and more weapons in to national security.
19 May 2011
Ken Clarkes Comments Do Indict Victims of Rape But Not As You Thought
Ken Clarke's blusterings on rape this week have been a fixation of the liberal (sometimes) intelligentsia in the new media.
Ken Clarke's comments came under scrutiny because he allegedly stated that some offences of rape was less serious than others. In fact, my learned friend @neilmonnery put up a rather good blog article on the reactionary responses to headline news. In short, the reaction was an overreaction which failed to take into account the legal, legislative and sentencing details of the offence of rape and varying degrees in which it can occur.
I would like to point out that here I'm not in any way justifying rapists or mitigating situation that lead to such offences.
Wider Context
However, while we can examine the current legislative state for rape, the statistics appear to only tell a small amount of the story. As Baroness Stern's review of rape in February 2010 identified;
It is estimated that only 10% of rapes are actually reported.
Of these, a defendant enters a guilty plea at an early enough stage will result in a plea to bargain which reduces the offence to sexual assault.
Therefore, there is a significantly distressing wider context in which Ken Clarke's comments can be applied.
If indeed Clarke's comments seek to persuade people to plead guilty, then the offender has a significant chance of any charge of rape being reduced by the Crown Prosecution Service to a charge of sexual assault, a lesser offence which carries a subsequent lesser sentence and therefore would, in theory allow the offender to go out and commit the same offence again. This is of course whether he is raping a man or a woman.
This is a far more distressing issue for victims and potential victims of rape and one that should be taken into serious consideration when examining Ken Clarke's statements.
While, and as Neil Monnery states, a judge has the discretion to decide the length of sentence based on the merits of the case, therefore if the man pleads guilty committed aggravated rape with a weapon, he is still likely to receive a substantial punitive sentence; An offender that does not get before a judge prior to the offence being committed is unlikely to receive a similarly punitive sentence.
At what point did we warrant Crown Prosecution Service lawyers the right to decide whether or not someone should be tried for rape on the basis of meeting their targets systems?
Especially, when one takes into account that only 10% of rapes are ever reported. We are therefore in theory potentially allowing this public service body to reduce the amount of prosecutions and therefore reduce the amount of "reported" rapes to less than 7%.
Sociocultural Issues
As a final thought, there needs to be a significant shift in cultural and social approaches to rape. It was a bone of contention when studying feminism and law, and many people examine jury's responses, normally along the lines of a Melanie Phillips response to women that "asking for it", and the subsequent vindication of a victim by finding a defendant not guilty.
This is largely what the "Slut Walk" is attempting to combat, albeit in unconventional and inappropriate manner. One can only hope that as generations mature there will be a significant cultural shift in acceptability of female and male behaviour that does not concede victimisation.
Ken Clarke's comments came under scrutiny because he allegedly stated that some offences of rape was less serious than others. In fact, my learned friend @neilmonnery put up a rather good blog article on the reactionary responses to headline news. In short, the reaction was an overreaction which failed to take into account the legal, legislative and sentencing details of the offence of rape and varying degrees in which it can occur.
I would like to point out that here I'm not in any way justifying rapists or mitigating situation that lead to such offences.
Wider Context
However, while we can examine the current legislative state for rape, the statistics appear to only tell a small amount of the story. As Baroness Stern's review of rape in February 2010 identified;
It is estimated that only 10% of rapes are actually reported.
Of these, a defendant enters a guilty plea at an early enough stage will result in a plea to bargain which reduces the offence to sexual assault.
Therefore, there is a significantly distressing wider context in which Ken Clarke's comments can be applied.
If indeed Clarke's comments seek to persuade people to plead guilty, then the offender has a significant chance of any charge of rape being reduced by the Crown Prosecution Service to a charge of sexual assault, a lesser offence which carries a subsequent lesser sentence and therefore would, in theory allow the offender to go out and commit the same offence again. This is of course whether he is raping a man or a woman.
This is a far more distressing issue for victims and potential victims of rape and one that should be taken into serious consideration when examining Ken Clarke's statements.
While, and as Neil Monnery states, a judge has the discretion to decide the length of sentence based on the merits of the case, therefore if the man pleads guilty committed aggravated rape with a weapon, he is still likely to receive a substantial punitive sentence; An offender that does not get before a judge prior to the offence being committed is unlikely to receive a similarly punitive sentence.
At what point did we warrant Crown Prosecution Service lawyers the right to decide whether or not someone should be tried for rape on the basis of meeting their targets systems?
Especially, when one takes into account that only 10% of rapes are ever reported. We are therefore in theory potentially allowing this public service body to reduce the amount of prosecutions and therefore reduce the amount of "reported" rapes to less than 7%.
Sociocultural Issues
As a final thought, there needs to be a significant shift in cultural and social approaches to rape. It was a bone of contention when studying feminism and law, and many people examine jury's responses, normally along the lines of a Melanie Phillips response to women that "asking for it", and the subsequent vindication of a victim by finding a defendant not guilty.
This is largely what the "Slut Walk" is attempting to combat, albeit in unconventional and inappropriate manner. One can only hope that as generations mature there will be a significant cultural shift in acceptability of female and male behaviour that does not concede victimisation.
18 May 2011
Time to Put a Stop to the Tories' Political Omnipotence
While Clegg dickers over NHS reforms, proposing to challenge the competition body, it appears the Tories are busy railroading other non-coalition agreement issues through.
We have the NHS and an attempt by Clegg to challenge the developments, but many feel his proposals will fall on deaf ears and that they are not addressing the entirity of the comments made at the Lib Dem conference earlier this year.
Now the Tories are on a replacement for Trident being approved immediately.
The Lib Dems are in a weak position in the Tory's eyes, and they seem intent on bullying the party, taking backbenchers comments as priorities over their coalition partners.
The threat, of course, is that if the Lib Dems were to stop these sideways attacks, the Conservatives could call an election, on the basis that the party performed so badly in local government elections this month that they would have a clear majority.
However, legislation on Fixed Term Parliaments will, in theory, prevent this.
Perhaps the Lib Dems should stand up to this blindsiding, and defend what they believe in. The self respect they would gain would be greatly beneficial and would challenge the Tories' infallibility claims. This would support them in the event the Conservatives did call an election.
15 May 2011
Tories Strategically Winning the Next Election
In a move that appeared from nowhere, Cameron has practically guaranteed his next election with the Military Covenant proposals.
The duty of care for military personnel wounded in action has been an issue the RBLI and Help for Heroes have campaigned on for years.
It is a favourite bugbear of the tabloids, who embrace a dedication to troops fighting and the rightful entitlement to care in the event they are injured.
Therefore, in what appears to be a finite proposal from our PM, he has swept the tabloids this Sunday and promoted the status of the military forces.
It's not in the coalition agreement, but Lib Dems would be making an egregious move to object. Labour cannot criticise and it further errodes their reputation for not having a clear policy nor introducing a solid foundation for soldiers while they were in power.
Of course, the other side of the coin is that these soldiers wouldnt be injured were we not to invest troops in escalating civil wars on spurious foundations.
I have to say, I'm impressed.
The duty of care for military personnel wounded in action has been an issue the RBLI and Help for Heroes have campaigned on for years.
It is a favourite bugbear of the tabloids, who embrace a dedication to troops fighting and the rightful entitlement to care in the event they are injured.
Therefore, in what appears to be a finite proposal from our PM, he has swept the tabloids this Sunday and promoted the status of the military forces.
It's not in the coalition agreement, but Lib Dems would be making an egregious move to object. Labour cannot criticise and it further errodes their reputation for not having a clear policy nor introducing a solid foundation for soldiers while they were in power.
Of course, the other side of the coin is that these soldiers wouldnt be injured were we not to invest troops in escalating civil wars on spurious foundations.
I have to say, I'm impressed.
13 May 2011
Reviving Maddie Cynicism
Want to ensure police take the disappearance of your daughter seriously?
Employ a PR officer.
Yesterday's Standard revealed the McCanns were appealing to Cameron to get Scotland Yard on board.
While I appreciate it must be a distressing situation for any family to go through, one wonders why Cameron does not invest the Met in any other of the millions of missing persons enquiries.
However, it clearly helps if you are from the same class structure and can employ your own media handling as well as, off the back, write a book for publication.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
Employ a PR officer.
Yesterday's Standard revealed the McCanns were appealing to Cameron to get Scotland Yard on board.
While I appreciate it must be a distressing situation for any family to go through, one wonders why Cameron does not invest the Met in any other of the millions of missing persons enquiries.
However, it clearly helps if you are from the same class structure and can employ your own media handling as well as, off the back, write a book for publication.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
12 May 2011
The Conservatives are Beginning to Unveil Their True Agenda
Chris Blackhurst argues in the Evening Standard that those pesky Lib Dems are attempting to divide and disrupt parliamentary proceedings and slow down addressing the financial deficit.
I would imagine he considers the cuts, the redundancies, the reductions in services and the hikes in fares not swift enough. Clearly not a Labour columnist then.
His concern is chiefly with political infighting distracting from the work that apparently 'needs' to be done.
He is, of course, making a subjective point based on a Conservative ideology. What he fails to appreciate is that it is not a Conservative Administration and the apparent pec-flexing of the Liberal Democrats is not , as he dictates, peers and MPs being pains in the arses but in fact their right as (a) politicians and (b) politicians in a coalition.
With a clear interest in economy, Blackhurst denounces Cable as 'too much of a social thinker to...champion commerce'. I would suggest that is exactly what we need in politics, people with a social and strategic nature inclined to see the bigger picture, not blinkered bankers out to make a profit and sod the people.
And above all it is strong Tories like this that make me so very glad the Lib Dems are involved to sand the corners off their worst and misanthropic policies in the name of preserving the pound.
During the Tory Autumn Conference, members interviewed said they didn't feel the cuts were severe or quick enough. And this is exactly the argument Blackhurst is making. With added Lib Dem squeeze like a cherry on top.
I fear we will see more and more of these style of articles as the Tories prepare to go for a majority government. They may as well stoke the fire.
I just hope there are enough sensible people out there to realise just how much worse a Tory majority would be than our coalition.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
I would imagine he considers the cuts, the redundancies, the reductions in services and the hikes in fares not swift enough. Clearly not a Labour columnist then.
His concern is chiefly with political infighting distracting from the work that apparently 'needs' to be done.
He is, of course, making a subjective point based on a Conservative ideology. What he fails to appreciate is that it is not a Conservative Administration and the apparent pec-flexing of the Liberal Democrats is not , as he dictates, peers and MPs being pains in the arses but in fact their right as (a) politicians and (b) politicians in a coalition.
With a clear interest in economy, Blackhurst denounces Cable as 'too much of a social thinker to...champion commerce'. I would suggest that is exactly what we need in politics, people with a social and strategic nature inclined to see the bigger picture, not blinkered bankers out to make a profit and sod the people.
And above all it is strong Tories like this that make me so very glad the Lib Dems are involved to sand the corners off their worst and misanthropic policies in the name of preserving the pound.
During the Tory Autumn Conference, members interviewed said they didn't feel the cuts were severe or quick enough. And this is exactly the argument Blackhurst is making. With added Lib Dem squeeze like a cherry on top.
I fear we will see more and more of these style of articles as the Tories prepare to go for a majority government. They may as well stoke the fire.
I just hope there are enough sensible people out there to realise just how much worse a Tory majority would be than our coalition.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
28 Apr 2011
The Elephant in the Room is Overtly Racist
We, or certainly I, complain about personal politics in the UK, but it is nothing compared to the day of lunacy in the US.
Casting aspertions, Donald Trump appears to have launched his presidential bid by attacking Obama for potentially not being born in the US.
His argument has been on a subtle nuance in the US Constitution that he must be born in the country.
Such a detrimental argument has helped fuel race tensions in the country, which are as quiet as coalition tensions in the UK coalition for all their subtlety.
Barack has weathered this carnival side show, but it is indicative of a brutal campaign to follow. The gauntlets have been thrown.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
Casting aspertions, Donald Trump appears to have launched his presidential bid by attacking Obama for potentially not being born in the US.
His argument has been on a subtle nuance in the US Constitution that he must be born in the country.
Such a detrimental argument has helped fuel race tensions in the country, which are as quiet as coalition tensions in the UK coalition for all their subtlety.
Barack has weathered this carnival side show, but it is indicative of a brutal campaign to follow. The gauntlets have been thrown.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
24 Apr 2011
Discussing the Deserving and Undeserving Poor
Much debate has been had in the last week on the "deserving and undeserving poor".
As Stephen Tall puts it, "David Cameron has been pitching to the right-wing nut-job vote in recent weeks", and a brilliant example of this is the amount of people claiming incapacity benefits for alledgedly spurious reasons.
Churning out such debates is a good way to retain traditional Conservative voters, but the subject opens up a kettle of fish for many people.
What is the issue?
The welfare state is there to protect people who cannot work for whatever reason. The state provides this universal benefit to citizens in social solidarity, guranteeing a minimum level of well being. Apparently.
However, the term Social Solidarity means different things to different people.
What is the debate?
Smoking is a classic example, where upon people divide into different camps to debate the subject of smoking related illnesses in full colour.
But smoking is the tip of the iceberg. When one considers smoking to be the most socially acceptable of addictions, introducing illegal addictions is gasoline on a smouldering barbecue.
The difficulty with a welfare state is always exposed when one introduces firstly morality and secondly fault into the debate.
This is where I refer you back to the term "universal". The universiality of Britain's Welfare State should be the founding and ultimate principle. Whether you break your leg horse riding or because of an industrial accident, the welfare state should provide regardless.
The Facts?
The debate, however, is somewhat circumspect when one examines the facts.
People are so het up with the issue of fault, they did not question the facts. Mark Easton made the most brilliant post on the facts which far suppasses my paultry attempts at interpretation.
The truth is, addiction and obesity may make up some of the figures in recipient of Incapacity, however, this number has reduced by a third in the last two years.
And therefore, the debate is almost elementary.
And for good measure
If the welfare state was indeed introduced to remove the stigma of charity, how exactly does one reconcile the Big Society and Localism debates in current politics?
Have we come full circle, to where Charity provisions are acceptable and preferable to the state?
Will we now begin a fresh cycle where pride will build up and people will eventually reject the stigma once again?
As Stephen Tall puts it, "David Cameron has been pitching to the right-wing nut-job vote in recent weeks", and a brilliant example of this is the amount of people claiming incapacity benefits for alledgedly spurious reasons.
Churning out such debates is a good way to retain traditional Conservative voters, but the subject opens up a kettle of fish for many people.
What is the issue?
The welfare state is there to protect people who cannot work for whatever reason. The state provides this universal benefit to citizens in social solidarity, guranteeing a minimum level of well being. Apparently.
However, the term Social Solidarity means different things to different people.
What is the debate?
Smoking is a classic example, where upon people divide into different camps to debate the subject of smoking related illnesses in full colour.
But smoking is the tip of the iceberg. When one considers smoking to be the most socially acceptable of addictions, introducing illegal addictions is gasoline on a smouldering barbecue.
The difficulty with a welfare state is always exposed when one introduces firstly morality and secondly fault into the debate.
This is where I refer you back to the term "universal". The universiality of Britain's Welfare State should be the founding and ultimate principle. Whether you break your leg horse riding or because of an industrial accident, the welfare state should provide regardless.
The Facts?
The debate, however, is somewhat circumspect when one examines the facts.
People are so het up with the issue of fault, they did not question the facts. Mark Easton made the most brilliant post on the facts which far suppasses my paultry attempts at interpretation.
The truth is, addiction and obesity may make up some of the figures in recipient of Incapacity, however, this number has reduced by a third in the last two years.
And therefore, the debate is almost elementary.
And for good measure
If the welfare state was indeed introduced to remove the stigma of charity, how exactly does one reconcile the Big Society and Localism debates in current politics?
Have we come full circle, to where Charity provisions are acceptable and preferable to the state?
Will we now begin a fresh cycle where pride will build up and people will eventually reject the stigma once again?
23 Apr 2011
What are We Missing While the Coalition Allegedly Argues?
Media diversion tactics a-hoy.
The Liberal Democrats complain vigourously about misrepresentation of their coalition part in the press. Scathing attacks across all papers are damaging electoral prospects nationwide,while the Conservatives are portrayed as paragons of virtue by the right wing press.
RUmours started at the beginning of the month with Downing Street apparently being "discontent" with Lib Dem Press Strategies.
Then (good ol') Vince launched a vitriolic attack on Cameron's extremist inciting speech.
So called "cabinet tensions" play into delighted media who talk of coalition splits, bust-ups and dilemmmas.
Strategies
All in all, it's a very clever strategy for both parties.
They can be seen to disagree without offending their core votes too much.
This has never been clearer than today's rise to internships (see my post on this.
Clegg proclaims traditional Lib Dem Views of social liberalism, supporting social mobility, challenging social divide and still promoting the aspirational status of the middle classes. Ticks most left wing voters', free market or not, boxes.
Cameron announces his attitude is "relaxed" towards internships, maintaining conservative values of maintaining traditional values of networking, retaining class separation and hierachial institution. Ticking those bozes of entropic tradionalism and right wing establishmentarianism.
The fundemental differences between the parties is demonstrated, no one gets offended and no one gets (too) attacked.
Much better than when Andy Coulson was in charge.
Diversion Tactics
So while Parliament is in recess, we are presented with an image of a coalition in turmoil, each party straining to maintain their individuality to their voters in time for the local elections, and, indeed, for the electoral reform referendum.
But what are we missing?
Well, while parliament is in recess, we are sidelined into a debate about the strength and potential longevity of the coalition.
This neatly diverts us from anything Milliband (reserved to paragraphs 5 and 6 in most news articles now anyway) may have to say. Reducing any effect Labour may hope to have on parliamentary process, and, indeed, on the council elections.
It also, quietly, distracts us from the ongoing NHS saga.
The discourse over the future of the NHS has escalated to such a point the government has been forced to "take a pause". However, such a pause can be ignored, and legislation slowly progressed, when the press is occupied with far more pressing, and news worthy stories such as Kate Middleton's knickers and the coalition chances over the next four years.
Such insidious behaviour could have come from a Yes Minister sketch, where by bad news is hidden behind bigger headlines.
As the joke goes, the best day to announce a tax increase is on the anniversary of Princess Diana's death.
Convinient distraction is one thing, but diversion tactics that remove a democratic process in one of the country's institutions is quite another.
The Liberal Democrats complain vigourously about misrepresentation of their coalition part in the press. Scathing attacks across all papers are damaging electoral prospects nationwide,while the Conservatives are portrayed as paragons of virtue by the right wing press.
RUmours started at the beginning of the month with Downing Street apparently being "discontent" with Lib Dem Press Strategies.
Then (good ol') Vince launched a vitriolic attack on Cameron's extremist inciting speech.
So called "cabinet tensions" play into delighted media who talk of coalition splits, bust-ups and dilemmmas.
Strategies
All in all, it's a very clever strategy for both parties.
They can be seen to disagree without offending their core votes too much.
This has never been clearer than today's rise to internships (see my post on this.
Clegg proclaims traditional Lib Dem Views of social liberalism, supporting social mobility, challenging social divide and still promoting the aspirational status of the middle classes. Ticks most left wing voters', free market or not, boxes.
Cameron announces his attitude is "relaxed" towards internships, maintaining conservative values of maintaining traditional values of networking, retaining class separation and hierachial institution. Ticking those bozes of entropic tradionalism and right wing establishmentarianism.
The fundemental differences between the parties is demonstrated, no one gets offended and no one gets (too) attacked.
Much better than when Andy Coulson was in charge.
Diversion Tactics
So while Parliament is in recess, we are presented with an image of a coalition in turmoil, each party straining to maintain their individuality to their voters in time for the local elections, and, indeed, for the electoral reform referendum.
But what are we missing?
Well, while parliament is in recess, we are sidelined into a debate about the strength and potential longevity of the coalition.
This neatly diverts us from anything Milliband (reserved to paragraphs 5 and 6 in most news articles now anyway) may have to say. Reducing any effect Labour may hope to have on parliamentary process, and, indeed, on the council elections.
It also, quietly, distracts us from the ongoing NHS saga.
The discourse over the future of the NHS has escalated to such a point the government has been forced to "take a pause". However, such a pause can be ignored, and legislation slowly progressed, when the press is occupied with far more pressing, and news worthy stories such as Kate Middleton's knickers and the coalition chances over the next four years.
Such insidious behaviour could have come from a Yes Minister sketch, where by bad news is hidden behind bigger headlines.
As the joke goes, the best day to announce a tax increase is on the anniversary of Princess Diana's death.
Convinient distraction is one thing, but diversion tactics that remove a democratic process in one of the country's institutions is quite another.
Why Do We Even Need Internships?
I'd never heard of internships until I graduated.
Now they seem to be in the news every other day.
When I was 15, we had work experience at school. My dad offered to have me work with him, but I declined, wanting to see what the school got me as it would be a different, more exciting world. It was, I got to work at a K'Nex factory where I basically played with stuff all day.
How did that set me up for life? Well, it didn't.
At fourteen, I was working in a riding stables mucking out, then I got my first paid job in a clothes shop for a tiny £2.50 per hour. I then did the usual rigmarol of waitressing, fast food, and other customer service to fund my room in a shared house so I could do my A-Levels.
Following that, I got a full time job in a wine merchants and put myself through my degree in the evenings.
At no point did I "need" to work for someone for free, nor could I afford to.
Social Mobility
So from a personal point of view, I disagree with both Clegg and Cameron.
I'm not relaxed about internships, I'm positively chippy. Why should people be granted a leg-up in any industry to succeed?
What is wrong with volunteering where your skills are needed?
We've seen the ludicrous furore over Clegg's comments, where most people ignored the fact that it was in spite of his own "leg-up", he was promoting active social mobility.
Now Cameron has jumped in and said he is "relaxed" about internships and social mobility.
This is a great news story. It addresses the differences between the parties without offending the membership of either party, and Downing Street ought to be very pleased with themselves. But more about distractions in the press another day.
Cameron thinks internships are great, having no issue with "giving work experience to personal acquaintances". But, as we know, Cameron thinks nothing of spending £600 on trimming his wisteria, while some of us spend that on a week's rent.
Clegg may think nothing of paying that for his wisteria, but at least he acknowledges the more humble of us with our Lidl shopping.
Do we need interns?
Ultimately, I do not understand why internships exist at all. They are an excuse to exploit those eager to learn, and will always be a luxury of people who can afford to do them without needing to work as well.
The only way addressing internships will affect social mobility is when the government, Blue, Red or Yellow, decides definitively that interns should be paid, at least minimum wage and have protected employment rights.
Anything else will always favour the rich, who do not have to worry about wisteria, and discriminate against the poor, who may not know what wisteria is.
Afterall, you do not see Apprenticeships being offered on a travel-to-work-allowance only.
Now they seem to be in the news every other day.
When I was 15, we had work experience at school. My dad offered to have me work with him, but I declined, wanting to see what the school got me as it would be a different, more exciting world. It was, I got to work at a K'Nex factory where I basically played with stuff all day.
How did that set me up for life? Well, it didn't.
At fourteen, I was working in a riding stables mucking out, then I got my first paid job in a clothes shop for a tiny £2.50 per hour. I then did the usual rigmarol of waitressing, fast food, and other customer service to fund my room in a shared house so I could do my A-Levels.
Following that, I got a full time job in a wine merchants and put myself through my degree in the evenings.
At no point did I "need" to work for someone for free, nor could I afford to.
Social Mobility
So from a personal point of view, I disagree with both Clegg and Cameron.
I'm not relaxed about internships, I'm positively chippy. Why should people be granted a leg-up in any industry to succeed?
What is wrong with volunteering where your skills are needed?
We've seen the ludicrous furore over Clegg's comments, where most people ignored the fact that it was in spite of his own "leg-up", he was promoting active social mobility.
Now Cameron has jumped in and said he is "relaxed" about internships and social mobility.
This is a great news story. It addresses the differences between the parties without offending the membership of either party, and Downing Street ought to be very pleased with themselves. But more about distractions in the press another day.
Cameron thinks internships are great, having no issue with "giving work experience to personal acquaintances". But, as we know, Cameron thinks nothing of spending £600 on trimming his wisteria, while some of us spend that on a week's rent.
Clegg may think nothing of paying that for his wisteria, but at least he acknowledges the more humble of us with our Lidl shopping.
Do we need interns?
Ultimately, I do not understand why internships exist at all. They are an excuse to exploit those eager to learn, and will always be a luxury of people who can afford to do them without needing to work as well.
The only way addressing internships will affect social mobility is when the government, Blue, Red or Yellow, decides definitively that interns should be paid, at least minimum wage and have protected employment rights.
Anything else will always favour the rich, who do not have to worry about wisteria, and discriminate against the poor, who may not know what wisteria is.
Afterall, you do not see Apprenticeships being offered on a travel-to-work-allowance only.
2 Apr 2011
My Submissions to BBC Radio 4 Any Questions
1. Is the news that the Daily and Sunday Sport are going into receivership an indirect win for gender equality in the UK?
I for one am delighted that my newsagents will not be adorning borderline pornography in the Newspaper aisles, now I can only hope for the same fate to become of Nuts, GQ etc.
2. When we impose democratic regime on other countries, does this include lack of tolerance of freedom of political expression?
As per the attacks on UN Workers in Afghanistan yesterday, we are imposing a democratic regime on Middle Eastern Countries but that should not contravene religious expression, and when such religious expression causes such dire human rights breaches, we must reexamine the social regulations we are thrusting upon countries.
I have concerns that History will look back on the Western imposition of democracy on Middle Eastern Nations rather like we now look back on the British Empire imposing Christianity on the Chinese.
Even though we consider that "democracy is not an ideal political system, but it's better than the alternatives".
I for one am delighted that my newsagents will not be adorning borderline pornography in the Newspaper aisles, now I can only hope for the same fate to become of Nuts, GQ etc.
2. When we impose democratic regime on other countries, does this include lack of tolerance of freedom of political expression?
As per the attacks on UN Workers in Afghanistan yesterday, we are imposing a democratic regime on Middle Eastern Countries but that should not contravene religious expression, and when such religious expression causes such dire human rights breaches, we must reexamine the social regulations we are thrusting upon countries.
I have concerns that History will look back on the Western imposition of democracy on Middle Eastern Nations rather like we now look back on the British Empire imposing Christianity on the Chinese.
Even though we consider that "democracy is not an ideal political system, but it's better than the alternatives".
29 Mar 2011
(The Guardian Claims) Police Brutality Towards UK Uncut
Most people find it hard to understand why I am cyanical over the latest footage from The Guardian about the protests on Saturday 26th March.
Further to my blog post being published on The New Current, a lot of people have critcised me for not automatically backing the protestors, and for, quite outrageously in their opinion, not criticising the police.
The Guardian has provided a really stunning video, with an article steeped in perjorative language about Police Actions towards UK Uncut.
My immediate response is that the video is very carefully edited. Clips cut and pasted together. I counted eleven separate pieces of footage.
Other people, predominately on Twitter, which is my main debating channel, have stated that Police Officers are saying that the people will not be arrested, and that they are told they will not be kettled, and then they are kettled.
However, word geek that I am, I studied the language used very carefully. It should be observed that the police officer states in the initial footage that she doesnt beleive that they will be contained, but it is not "an absolute definite".
Let's turn this on it's head, shall we?
If you take police officers, who have watched colleagues be set on fire outside, had amonia filled lightbulbs thrown at them and seen from the footage, the violent people outside break into Fortnum and Mason and apparently join the sit-in, they will feel the need to identify all persons to take the aggressive protestors into custody.
UK Uncut claim they had a peaceful demonstration (although how it could be peaceful with bagpipes is beyond me!). However, it is clear from the footage outside the store that members of nefarious balaclava clad gang entered the store and potentially joined in with the UK Uncut group.
When you then see the protestors marching and chanting, note the amount of people in all black, ominous outfits with their faces covered. The police would have noticed this too, and considered processing of all people to be of necessity of public safety.
Take into account also the haste and energy within the march, within the officers hard at work and the pressure from media, politics and other groups, the only practical way to identify the main perpetraitors of violence, criminal damage and offences against the person is to process everyone there.
The Actual Video Footage
There is, quite clearly, parts of the video that have been edited. The video is carefully edited to place the burden of responsibility of bad behaviour on members of the Police and present UK Uncut as the parragons of virtue they claim to be.
The subtle lawyer language used by the officer, nuanced deliberately, is enough to say that this officer is not incharge of what will happen outside and she states she cannot guarantee safe passage, per se.
The language is crafted as such, that you cannot deduce from her statements what the intended outcome of UK Uncut protestors leaving the store will be. Consdier that Police understand a Kettle to be a "safe place" contained with which to defuse violence, the colloquial and actual definitions blur significantly.
Now consider that every fade out to black is a change in footage. What cannot be determined, therefore, is the actions of protestors through out these "black outs" Arguably this could be because the video is long and tedious and full of students reciting some appauling march theme, which wouldnt really engage with the Guardian Audience.
However, by not providing full, solid, unedited footage, it is impossible to draw guilty and innocent verdicts on the scenes shown. It is impossible to test the validity or credibility of the footage given, even the boy accusing police of brutatlity when he is "a legal observer" and "was doing nothing".
We only see a "kettle" at the end of the video, in the last 12 seconds. The missing links may show unfair treatment, but they may as equally show criminal behaviour by protestors.
Prior to this, we see Protestors marching, shouting, clinging to each other and their face masks, while Police stand back and let them walk through. This is not, in any interprestation, a "Kettle".
Finally, we see evidence of kettling, with opportunistic protestors carrying thousands of pounds worth of camera equipment (sorry, more cuts did you say?!) to photograoh apparent brutality, as enthusiastic voices yell over the footage.
However, what we do not see is the footage between the little march and the kettle.
The ranting could have escalated to antagonistic proportions, but we will never know as the footage was edited.
I am not in the habit of jumping on The Guardian Bandwagons when presented with such flimsy evidence. But I question the presentation of a story where the facts are so conviniently arranged in black and white for all to leap on the defensive to protect those who protest (even when they break the law).
By doing so, of course, The Guardian is stirring up the potential for more money to be wasted on several years worth of inquries from which there will be no conclusion.
I would remind readers not to be so quick to judge, unless the full facts are presented. Without editing.
Further to my blog post being published on The New Current, a lot of people have critcised me for not automatically backing the protestors, and for, quite outrageously in their opinion, not criticising the police.
The Guardian has provided a really stunning video, with an article steeped in perjorative language about Police Actions towards UK Uncut.
My immediate response is that the video is very carefully edited. Clips cut and pasted together. I counted eleven separate pieces of footage.
Other people, predominately on Twitter, which is my main debating channel, have stated that Police Officers are saying that the people will not be arrested, and that they are told they will not be kettled, and then they are kettled.
However, word geek that I am, I studied the language used very carefully. It should be observed that the police officer states in the initial footage that she doesnt beleive that they will be contained, but it is not "an absolute definite".
Let's turn this on it's head, shall we?
If you take police officers, who have watched colleagues be set on fire outside, had amonia filled lightbulbs thrown at them and seen from the footage, the violent people outside break into Fortnum and Mason and apparently join the sit-in, they will feel the need to identify all persons to take the aggressive protestors into custody.
UK Uncut claim they had a peaceful demonstration (although how it could be peaceful with bagpipes is beyond me!). However, it is clear from the footage outside the store that members of nefarious balaclava clad gang entered the store and potentially joined in with the UK Uncut group.
When you then see the protestors marching and chanting, note the amount of people in all black, ominous outfits with their faces covered. The police would have noticed this too, and considered processing of all people to be of necessity of public safety.
Take into account also the haste and energy within the march, within the officers hard at work and the pressure from media, politics and other groups, the only practical way to identify the main perpetraitors of violence, criminal damage and offences against the person is to process everyone there.
The Actual Video Footage
There is, quite clearly, parts of the video that have been edited. The video is carefully edited to place the burden of responsibility of bad behaviour on members of the Police and present UK Uncut as the parragons of virtue they claim to be.
The subtle lawyer language used by the officer, nuanced deliberately, is enough to say that this officer is not incharge of what will happen outside and she states she cannot guarantee safe passage, per se.
The language is crafted as such, that you cannot deduce from her statements what the intended outcome of UK Uncut protestors leaving the store will be. Consdier that Police understand a Kettle to be a "safe place" contained with which to defuse violence, the colloquial and actual definitions blur significantly.
Now consider that every fade out to black is a change in footage. What cannot be determined, therefore, is the actions of protestors through out these "black outs" Arguably this could be because the video is long and tedious and full of students reciting some appauling march theme, which wouldnt really engage with the Guardian Audience.
However, by not providing full, solid, unedited footage, it is impossible to draw guilty and innocent verdicts on the scenes shown. It is impossible to test the validity or credibility of the footage given, even the boy accusing police of brutatlity when he is "a legal observer" and "was doing nothing".
We only see a "kettle" at the end of the video, in the last 12 seconds. The missing links may show unfair treatment, but they may as equally show criminal behaviour by protestors.
Prior to this, we see Protestors marching, shouting, clinging to each other and their face masks, while Police stand back and let them walk through. This is not, in any interprestation, a "Kettle".
Finally, we see evidence of kettling, with opportunistic protestors carrying thousands of pounds worth of camera equipment (sorry, more cuts did you say?!) to photograoh apparent brutality, as enthusiastic voices yell over the footage.
However, what we do not see is the footage between the little march and the kettle.
The ranting could have escalated to antagonistic proportions, but we will never know as the footage was edited.
I am not in the habit of jumping on The Guardian Bandwagons when presented with such flimsy evidence. But I question the presentation of a story where the facts are so conviniently arranged in black and white for all to leap on the defensive to protect those who protest (even when they break the law).
By doing so, of course, The Guardian is stirring up the potential for more money to be wasted on several years worth of inquries from which there will be no conclusion.
I would remind readers not to be so quick to judge, unless the full facts are presented. Without editing.
Some (More) Thoughts on Libya
Libya: Some thoughts
Where did we get to in our analogy?
We have two boys fighting in the school yard. Let's call them G and R for ease.
G appears to be armed with weapons.
Along comes Teacher, and punches G to protect R.
However, the teacher believes that they are behaving in the name of liberty, when in fact, what they are actually doing is feeling guilty for giving G the weapon in the first place.
So now, Teacher decides to go in, and give R some weapons too, while punching G.
And then, it gets even more complicated.
The teacher has decided, that not only will they punch G, they will also punch R if R uses those weapons against G.
To make matters even more confusing, they've called a parent-teacher conference, but the parents and teachers cant quite work out what to do, or how to deal with G and R and all their bickering.
So, the teacher-parent conference decides to do is reform the entire play ground on which G and R are bickering.
So what exactly are the benefits of this?
Recent discussions on Question Time and Any Answers have raised the issue of whether Libya will be another Iraq. To be fair, Iraq was almost a success, when you compare it to Afghanistan.
It is a far worse fate would Libya be rendered as entrenched in civil war as Afghanisatn is.
At least Iraq, in theory, has been resolved.
Where did we get to in our analogy?
We have two boys fighting in the school yard. Let's call them G and R for ease.
G appears to be armed with weapons.
Along comes Teacher, and punches G to protect R.
However, the teacher believes that they are behaving in the name of liberty, when in fact, what they are actually doing is feeling guilty for giving G the weapon in the first place.
So now, Teacher decides to go in, and give R some weapons too, while punching G.
And then, it gets even more complicated.
The teacher has decided, that not only will they punch G, they will also punch R if R uses those weapons against G.
To make matters even more confusing, they've called a parent-teacher conference, but the parents and teachers cant quite work out what to do, or how to deal with G and R and all their bickering.
So, the teacher-parent conference decides to do is reform the entire play ground on which G and R are bickering.
So what exactly are the benefits of this?
Recent discussions on Question Time and Any Answers have raised the issue of whether Libya will be another Iraq. To be fair, Iraq was almost a success, when you compare it to Afghanistan.
It is a far worse fate would Libya be rendered as entrenched in civil war as Afghanisatn is.
At least Iraq, in theory, has been resolved.
20 Mar 2011
Considering Renewable Energy in Political Science Terms: An Analogy
For fun, I've been reading up on A Level political science (no, really). This firstly means I learn new words, and secondly, means I can apply obscure and esoteric concepts to the mundane.
Today's dichotomous consideration is energy interpreted in political science terms.
Current Regimes
Energy in western civilisation can be seen as a profit market margin, which means, in capitalist political terms, it is a plutocracy and depotism. Plutocracy because wealth and power control the market forces, driving prices up and service levels down. Depotic because we are, in essence, discussing one main group of providers, who have refined the market to such a degree, they can squash any competitors to retain that power.
Looking Ahead to Renewable Energy
In the current energy crisis, we are seeing all sorts of alternative energy forms being discussed. Do we shift to Wind, as Germany's pledge to commit 50% of energy supplies to renewable sources indicate?
Or solar? Imposing reflective surfaces on every new home?
How about water, using waves to power the generators?
The biggest problem I see initiates with the current plutocracy in oil supplies. The industry is controlling development of alternative energy strands with a vice-like grip. They are unwilling to consider an oligarchy of energy provision, where by their only resolution of the problem of expiring energy resources is a singular, powerful and dominant, forming a Kyriarchy that can cripple competitors with ease.
Combatting the Dictators
The market is prime for kratocracy, for an oppertune company to invest in multiple, egalitarianist provisiong of energy, whereby the larger suppliers cannot cripple their business through Kakistocracy.
By introducing market providers that formulate a more participatory democracy, an egalitarianist interpretation of market access, we may run the risk of a mediocracy, the lowest common denominator of services.
How do we challenge this?
Well, perhaps people need to approach the sources of their energy with a different mindset?
But ultimately, with energy provisions being convinience, which, of course, our plutocratic energy companies cash in on, we are unlikely to be driven to rebel.
Perhaps Virgin should embark upon a multifaceted energy provision, assaulting the market in much the same way they have with Satilite and Cable TV?
Or perhaps we need a strong government commitment to chnaging energy supplies to counter being held captive to oil.
Lateral Discursive on Oil
It would be interesting to analyse what this would free us from.
If we were not dependant on Oil as a provider of energy, would our transport activities change?
How about our food consumption?
Our attitude to work and travel?
The obvious one, how about our attitude to resolving civil conflict in other countries under an opaque cloak of "United Nations Resolution"?
I could go on all day!
Today's dichotomous consideration is energy interpreted in political science terms.
Current Regimes
Energy in western civilisation can be seen as a profit market margin, which means, in capitalist political terms, it is a plutocracy and depotism. Plutocracy because wealth and power control the market forces, driving prices up and service levels down. Depotic because we are, in essence, discussing one main group of providers, who have refined the market to such a degree, they can squash any competitors to retain that power.
Looking Ahead to Renewable Energy
In the current energy crisis, we are seeing all sorts of alternative energy forms being discussed. Do we shift to Wind, as Germany's pledge to commit 50% of energy supplies to renewable sources indicate?
Or solar? Imposing reflective surfaces on every new home?
How about water, using waves to power the generators?
The biggest problem I see initiates with the current plutocracy in oil supplies. The industry is controlling development of alternative energy strands with a vice-like grip. They are unwilling to consider an oligarchy of energy provision, where by their only resolution of the problem of expiring energy resources is a singular, powerful and dominant, forming a Kyriarchy that can cripple competitors with ease.
Combatting the Dictators
The market is prime for kratocracy, for an oppertune company to invest in multiple, egalitarianist provisiong of energy, whereby the larger suppliers cannot cripple their business through Kakistocracy.
By introducing market providers that formulate a more participatory democracy, an egalitarianist interpretation of market access, we may run the risk of a mediocracy, the lowest common denominator of services.
How do we challenge this?
Well, perhaps people need to approach the sources of their energy with a different mindset?
But ultimately, with energy provisions being convinience, which, of course, our plutocratic energy companies cash in on, we are unlikely to be driven to rebel.
Perhaps Virgin should embark upon a multifaceted energy provision, assaulting the market in much the same way they have with Satilite and Cable TV?
Or perhaps we need a strong government commitment to chnaging energy supplies to counter being held captive to oil.
Lateral Discursive on Oil
It would be interesting to analyse what this would free us from.
If we were not dependant on Oil as a provider of energy, would our transport activities change?
How about our food consumption?
Our attitude to work and travel?
The obvious one, how about our attitude to resolving civil conflict in other countries under an opaque cloak of "United Nations Resolution"?
I could go on all day!
19 Mar 2011
Considering Consequences of No Fly Zone in Libya
If one more person mentions Nostradamus to me...
Today we see the initiation of air strikes on Libya.
And my exploration of pacifism continues.
My reluctance to approve of the action taken against Gaddafi is not driven by approval of his actions, but by my own lateral interpretation of the Middle East Uprisings.
As Cameron says, "now is the time for action". But such action has consequences, and if there is something we are very bad at in the 21st century, it is realisation of those consequences.
If we set a precedent, by bombing Libya, do we then justify the invasion and desecration of Syrria, Palestine and Isreal, Yemen, Nubia, etc etc?
Where do we draw a line between dictators, civil uprising and massacre and where the UK and the UN should and should not be involved?
I have yet to hear a jet fly over the UK. But I have a sense of forboding Nostradamus would appreciate, as more and more dominos fall in this sequence of plutorcracy and demolition.
Resolutions
Someone responded to my anaogy of a child in a playground by suggesting the teacher should restrain the larger child.
However, bombing the shit out of Libya is simply smacking one child over another, as I understand it.
Better to spray a hose on them all, destract from the violence. Because tackling violence with violence can never lead to resolution.
I would be inclined to suggest the UN should first be attempting to talk with Gaddafi, to discuss with the rebels, to seek peaceful resolution. Instead, we are ganging up and attacking.
Does anyone in government seriously consider that this behaviour will end in a peaceful and democratic resolution? That if we drop enough bombs, Gaddafi will simply hold up his metaphorical white flag and surrender, then suggest tea and cakes while we all discuss how to move forward for the good of the country?
If this happens, I will quite happily applaud the extreme force being used by the UN.
However, i would suggest that the actions of the UN will result in more deaths, more slaughter, loss of civilisation and peace will only be restored once Gaddafi is under arrest or dead. Alongside the charnel house Libya is likely to become in the process.
And then?
What then?
Do we pop along and drop a few bombs on the Hamas, or on Yemen?
Today we see the initiation of air strikes on Libya.
And my exploration of pacifism continues.
My reluctance to approve of the action taken against Gaddafi is not driven by approval of his actions, but by my own lateral interpretation of the Middle East Uprisings.
As Cameron says, "now is the time for action". But such action has consequences, and if there is something we are very bad at in the 21st century, it is realisation of those consequences.
If we set a precedent, by bombing Libya, do we then justify the invasion and desecration of Syrria, Palestine and Isreal, Yemen, Nubia, etc etc?
Where do we draw a line between dictators, civil uprising and massacre and where the UK and the UN should and should not be involved?
I have yet to hear a jet fly over the UK. But I have a sense of forboding Nostradamus would appreciate, as more and more dominos fall in this sequence of plutorcracy and demolition.
Resolutions
Someone responded to my anaogy of a child in a playground by suggesting the teacher should restrain the larger child.
However, bombing the shit out of Libya is simply smacking one child over another, as I understand it.
Better to spray a hose on them all, destract from the violence. Because tackling violence with violence can never lead to resolution.
I would be inclined to suggest the UN should first be attempting to talk with Gaddafi, to discuss with the rebels, to seek peaceful resolution. Instead, we are ganging up and attacking.
Does anyone in government seriously consider that this behaviour will end in a peaceful and democratic resolution? That if we drop enough bombs, Gaddafi will simply hold up his metaphorical white flag and surrender, then suggest tea and cakes while we all discuss how to move forward for the good of the country?
If this happens, I will quite happily applaud the extreme force being used by the UN.
However, i would suggest that the actions of the UN will result in more deaths, more slaughter, loss of civilisation and peace will only be restored once Gaddafi is under arrest or dead. Alongside the charnel house Libya is likely to become in the process.
And then?
What then?
Do we pop along and drop a few bombs on the Hamas, or on Yemen?
7 Mar 2011
Some Thoughts on Cameron's Spring Conference Speech and the Coalition
I'm trying to understand David Cameron's speech. I'm sorry but I'm failing completely.
I cannot get the mindset that sale of arms is in any way justified no matter how much of an "entrepreneur" you are.
Lateral Application of Ideas
I think that the Conservatives are very good at cost-benefit analysis, but completely useless are applying this to any of the system outside of economic. One has to measure up the social responsibility and the social economics of selling arms.
As recently demonstrated in Libya, sale of arms without any thought to the consequences of doing so in a country that is dominated by a dictator is likely to come back to bite you.
The familiar joke during the great Iraq war was that Blair knew that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction because he'd sold them to him.
There is something very unsavoury about a political party that seems to function purely on economic is and with very little reflection on society, community or lateral applications as a whole.
I do hope of the coalition that the Liberal Democrats provide some elements of social responsibility to the financial cut and thrust of the Conservative party. One could argue that the insistence of a pupil premium within Michael Gove's great academy scheme demonstrates this.
One could also argue that the Liberal Democrat refusal to allow funding of more nuclear power stations utilising government and public funds is another strong example.
However, it seems that with arms sales and negotiations, the Liberal Democrats have influenced not a jot
Flawed Argument
Of course, there is great merit in enterprise, however, as the New statesman points out, David Cameron started his speech detailing the enemies of enterprise and declaring war on enterprise before actively promoting it in a "budget growth".
It is one thing to be narrowminded and blinkered when attempting to resolve the economic deficit without looking at the subsequent effects, but it is another thing entirely to be completely contradictory when you're running the country. Perhaps Cameron, in all his Thatcherite glory, misunderstood her quoting St Francis of Assisi and thought she stated "where there is harmony, let us bring discord"
The Mythical Beast
what amazes me is the presentation of ideas the provide great scope to social responsibility and socio-economic factors when applying policy. The Big Society and the Localism Bill could be understood to be empowering people, engaging the public in politics and providing a collective social responsibility for the development of society, community and culture within Britain.
However, it does seem that The Big Society is down to personal interpretation, and David Cameron must be completely sick of talking about it!
I cannot get the mindset that sale of arms is in any way justified no matter how much of an "entrepreneur" you are.
Lateral Application of Ideas
I think that the Conservatives are very good at cost-benefit analysis, but completely useless are applying this to any of the system outside of economic. One has to measure up the social responsibility and the social economics of selling arms.
As recently demonstrated in Libya, sale of arms without any thought to the consequences of doing so in a country that is dominated by a dictator is likely to come back to bite you.
The familiar joke during the great Iraq war was that Blair knew that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction because he'd sold them to him.
There is something very unsavoury about a political party that seems to function purely on economic is and with very little reflection on society, community or lateral applications as a whole.
I do hope of the coalition that the Liberal Democrats provide some elements of social responsibility to the financial cut and thrust of the Conservative party. One could argue that the insistence of a pupil premium within Michael Gove's great academy scheme demonstrates this.
One could also argue that the Liberal Democrat refusal to allow funding of more nuclear power stations utilising government and public funds is another strong example.
However, it seems that with arms sales and negotiations, the Liberal Democrats have influenced not a jot
Flawed Argument
Of course, there is great merit in enterprise, however, as the New statesman points out, David Cameron started his speech detailing the enemies of enterprise and declaring war on enterprise before actively promoting it in a "budget growth".
It is one thing to be narrowminded and blinkered when attempting to resolve the economic deficit without looking at the subsequent effects, but it is another thing entirely to be completely contradictory when you're running the country. Perhaps Cameron, in all his Thatcherite glory, misunderstood her quoting St Francis of Assisi and thought she stated "where there is harmony, let us bring discord"
The Mythical Beast
what amazes me is the presentation of ideas the provide great scope to social responsibility and socio-economic factors when applying policy. The Big Society and the Localism Bill could be understood to be empowering people, engaging the public in politics and providing a collective social responsibility for the development of society, community and culture within Britain.
However, it does seem that The Big Society is down to personal interpretation, and David Cameron must be completely sick of talking about it!
6 Mar 2011
11 Feb 2011
Apparent Victories Are Simply Short Changing the Public
I am fascinated by the Coercive techniques we are seeing used by the Tory-led coalition government.
Initially, I have been aggravated by kneejerk political reactions by David Cameron. His "Knife crime" policy reversal in light of tabloid pressure is a typical example.
Pre election predications on Knife Crime had the Tories arguing for custodial sentences. Yet these were abandoned under the coalition agreement (and, as one tweeter acknowledged, there were no demonstrations in London over this pledge breaking).
However, in a week of reactive responses to political situations, it is interesting to see coercian tactics subtly implemented accross the UK.
Bankers Bonuses
The Mirror headline "Cameron Caves in Over Bankers Bonuses" is epitome of a u turn in political terms.
While the Murdoch press were keenly promoting this positive spin, there is a clear message being presented to the people. They have been awarded a victory. A win, a success.
But what exactly have they won? As the more eloquent and articulate members of journalism and blogosphere are identifying, the system on Bankers Bonuses proposed this week is
Lord Oakshott presented a coherent argument, identifying the flaws in the plan. Yet he was quietly removed from the front lines by the Coalition, and while Vince Cable continues to admonish a war on bankers, faith in grass roots is very low and his comments have gone unmentioned in most mainstream press.
You see, if you threaten to do nothing, and then offer a little something, most people will take the little something as a win, not realising they had the power to negotiate the full deal.
Duped over Forrests
Bankers Bonuses, which caused vitriolic rows on BBC Question TIme last night is not the only apparent U Turn that has used this method. We see today an apparent change of heart over forrests.
Cameron proposed selling forrests off to private companies to raise funds. The greener populus exploded in venom, hashtags and questions at Prime Minister's Question Time.
As many politicians commented, the procedure was open to "consultation". A word which is more about fait accompli than anything else.
Consultation, which may have shown 100% of people against the sales, is now quietly being run after announcements today Some Forrest Sales will be Halted.
The key word there is "some". The public will quietly roll over and stop their moaning, and 85% of forrests will still be sold. Without the public outcry, the consultation will be barely responded to and there will be no legal basis for challenging the sale on these grounds.
So the public get a little bit of cake, when they could have had the whole thing.
What will we see in the next four years? A half hearted reform of the schools system? How about a quiet overturn on petrol prices?
Distraction
Not only do these coercive techniques quieten public noise, but they allow large scale reform to go ahead practically unchallenged.
While people were celebrating Osbourne's apparent change of mind on Bankers Bonuses, they missed the small announcement petrol prices would go up by 5p per litre in April.
While we celebrate over saving minimal forrests, we may be missing out on shocking proposals to leave the COnvention of Human Rights, or on Gove's disasterous court defeat over Building for Schools cancellations.
Of course, Mubarak's resignation is a significant event most people will be watching. But be aware that you may also be missing out on democratic opportunity to overturn unfair policy and legislation, and, ultimately, you should never settle for half servings in the name of victory.
Initially, I have been aggravated by kneejerk political reactions by David Cameron. His "Knife crime" policy reversal in light of tabloid pressure is a typical example.
Pre election predications on Knife Crime had the Tories arguing for custodial sentences. Yet these were abandoned under the coalition agreement (and, as one tweeter acknowledged, there were no demonstrations in London over this pledge breaking).
However, in a week of reactive responses to political situations, it is interesting to see coercian tactics subtly implemented accross the UK.
Bankers Bonuses
The Mirror headline "Cameron Caves in Over Bankers Bonuses" is epitome of a u turn in political terms.
While the Murdoch press were keenly promoting this positive spin, there is a clear message being presented to the people. They have been awarded a victory. A win, a success.
But what exactly have they won? As the more eloquent and articulate members of journalism and blogosphere are identifying, the system on Bankers Bonuses proposed this week is
Lord Oakshott presented a coherent argument, identifying the flaws in the plan. Yet he was quietly removed from the front lines by the Coalition, and while Vince Cable continues to admonish a war on bankers, faith in grass roots is very low and his comments have gone unmentioned in most mainstream press.
You see, if you threaten to do nothing, and then offer a little something, most people will take the little something as a win, not realising they had the power to negotiate the full deal.
Duped over Forrests
Bankers Bonuses, which caused vitriolic rows on BBC Question TIme last night is not the only apparent U Turn that has used this method. We see today an apparent change of heart over forrests.
Cameron proposed selling forrests off to private companies to raise funds. The greener populus exploded in venom, hashtags and questions at Prime Minister's Question Time.
As many politicians commented, the procedure was open to "consultation". A word which is more about fait accompli than anything else.
Consultation, which may have shown 100% of people against the sales, is now quietly being run after announcements today Some Forrest Sales will be Halted.
The key word there is "some". The public will quietly roll over and stop their moaning, and 85% of forrests will still be sold. Without the public outcry, the consultation will be barely responded to and there will be no legal basis for challenging the sale on these grounds.
So the public get a little bit of cake, when they could have had the whole thing.
What will we see in the next four years? A half hearted reform of the schools system? How about a quiet overturn on petrol prices?
Distraction
Not only do these coercive techniques quieten public noise, but they allow large scale reform to go ahead practically unchallenged.
While people were celebrating Osbourne's apparent change of mind on Bankers Bonuses, they missed the small announcement petrol prices would go up by 5p per litre in April.
While we celebrate over saving minimal forrests, we may be missing out on shocking proposals to leave the COnvention of Human Rights, or on Gove's disasterous court defeat over Building for Schools cancellations.
Of course, Mubarak's resignation is a significant event most people will be watching. But be aware that you may also be missing out on democratic opportunity to overturn unfair policy and legislation, and, ultimately, you should never settle for half servings in the name of victory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
