Cassilis

I sometimes wonder if Tony Blair’s alleged interest in the Presidency of Europe is really just an attempt to tweak the nose of his many critics – judging by the reaction it’s certainly working. Pro-Europeans are appalled at the prospect because in their eyes Blair isn’t sufficiently enthusiastic and the anti’s are equally appalled for the simple reason that they loathe both the man and the institution. I’m slightly puzzled why the anti lot don’t see the two as fit for each other but I guess it’s the prospect of Tony holding any kind of power over them that drives them into the ‘God no!’ camp. He is, I suspect, loving it.

As a cautious pro-European it’s the reasoning from some on this side of the fence I find slightly troubling and it lends weight to some of the common criticisms levelled at the EU. Writing in the Times last week Édouard Balladur, former Prime Minister of France, suggested two important conditions for the role:

“the EU's president must fulfil two conditions in order to carry out the role properly and to be accepted by everyone: first, to come from a country that is completely in step with the EU's forward march and that participates in all its different forms of co-operation; and, secondly, to be determined to build the independence of Europe, notably in the diplomatic and military fields”

Look at that first condition (bold) again – ‘come from a country that is completely in step with the EU's forward march’. I’m no swivel-eyed Eurosceptic but doesn’t that kind of get things the wrong way round? Shouldn’t it be the case that whoever holds that post plays a large part in setting the direction (and speed) of the institution’s progress rather than just falling in behind some pre-determined path? The charge often levelled at the EU is that it’s a bureaucrat’s dream – a massive conspiracy perpetrated by the EU’s political elite on the peoples of Europe, something with the air of inevitability about it and that can’t be stopped by anything as crude as democratic opposition. That charge is usually overblown but Balladur’s comments hint at precisely that mindset.

Labels: Politics

This'll provoke some interesting responses! Iain Dale, currently in the US ahead of 'Super Tuesday' on... er, Tuesday I guess, had this to say on watching Hillary and Obama debating:

"Both Clinton and Obama would actually be classified as Conservatives if they were active in British politics. I found very little in what either of them said which the majority of Conservatives would not agree with."

There is something to what Iain's saying. There's a quote from a post-war Labour leader addressing conference following a visit to the USA (Attlee?) and I can't quite source it but he said something along the following lines - "Like us, America has a two-party system. One party is like our Conservatives and the other is the Republican Party". Even casual observers of US politics know the Democrats & the Republicans are far less ideologically defined that Labour and the Tories over here. The stringency of the current Republican administration probably obscures this a little but it's not unusual in the US for public figures to emerge as likely presidential candidates while still deciding on which of the major parties best afford them the opportunity to realise that ambition. Even a lengthy career in the service of one particular party doesn't disbar someone from switching sides if they believe the prevailing mood has changed such that they'd feel more at home on the other side of the fence - Democrats are trying to make political capital at the moment over John McCain's previous doubts about the GOP.

It's not just the party structures that are more flexible - US voters are far more tolerant of this that the UK electorate would be (one or two high profile examples like Churchill aside it usually only happens on the fringes of UK politics). The caucus \ primary system of course allows independents to pass judgement on the candidacy for parties they don't belong to. I suppose it's a feature of the personality-driven nature of presidential politics that this should be the case and given that many people bemoan the tribal nature of UK politics perhaps it's not altogether a bad thing..?

Labels: Politics

The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has published a good background briefing note on the foreign policy positions of the leading Presidential candidates. It's conclusions differ slightly from a piece Martin Kettle wrote a few months back in which he suggested the foreign policy implications wouldn't be as stark as many Europeans hoped:
The IPPR note disagrees and reaches a slightly more heartening conclusion for those of us keen to see a real shift in US-global relations. Neither of the two likely Republican candidates have anything like the hawkish attitudes of the current incumbent, particularly the likely winner McCain. And just because Hillary & Obama trade insults so often over Iraq we shouldn't forget that whatever their personal differences they're still some distance off the traditional neocon approach. According to the IPPR note the election will have tremendous consequences for US foreign policy:

"The United States has come to a fork in the road. In November 2008, the American people will choose from two divergent visions of foreign policy. No other election dating back into the last century has presented such a clear choice. This year, the Republican candidates, with the notable exception of John McCain, would lead the US down a similar path to that of the current administration. A new Republican president would, by instinct, emphasise the military as the primary engine of American security, would work with allies on an ad hoc basis while devaluing formal alliances and institutions, and would focus on terrorism and military threats while sidelining some of the rapidly developing challenges likely to dominate the security landscape in the coming decades. Only John McCain would broaden the scope of Republican foreign policy priorities to include major emerging issues like climate change and a power shift towards Asia. But even McCain believes in the central role of the US military in American foreign and security policy and his approach to international affairs would not deviate from the other Republican candidates in that critical area.

On the other path, the Democratic candidates would steer a very different course. A new Democratic president would seek to restore the US’s position at the heart of a thriving system of international alliances, would invest effort and political capital across a broader set of existing and emerging threats and would emphasise all the instruments of national power, not just the military, to achieve common objectives. Given the stark nature of the choice, it is likely that America’s role in the world, and European perceptions of it, may be shaped for a generation by the outcome of this year’s campaign."

p.s. Being a bit of a political junkie I'm considering a weekly round-up post on the most interesting things coming out of the leading UK/US think tanks - the sort of thing you find above. I should spot most things via my FeedReader but if you spot anything interesting please let me know and if you think the round up thing would be a good idea..."

Labels: Politics

In light of the intemperate exchanges between Bob Piper and me on my post comparing Labour & Tory scandals I should add a few words on how the Derek Conway story impacts that discussion. One of the issues Bob & I locked horns on was whether or not we should only discuss convictions or cases where the parliamentary authorities have passed judgement against someone. I felt, and still do, that that’s too restrictive when you have allegations that go to the very top (as they did over ‘cash for honours’) since it’s not unreasonable to assume that the law or authorities might not get their man in such cases – these are powerful forces they’re up against.

Nonetheless Bob does have a point in stressing how few ‘Labour scandals’ have resulted in the kind of parliamentary censure we’ve seen in the Conway case. As I explained in my post I think most of the Tory outrage at Labour’s behaviour in office is justified but if it’s to be accepted as something more than partisan stone-throwing then the Conservatives need to be equally if not more combative when it comes to dealing with similar issues in their own party. Putting up spokesman to have a pop at Alan Johnson or Peter Hain when the jury’s still out is perhaps understandable in modern politics but when one of your own lot has actually been found guilty of breaking the rules then you’d better make damn sure your reaction is equally high profile and judgemental. I haven’t seen that.

While on the subject I see there’s also some debate around how Iain Dale’s reacted to the Conway story. In essence Iain takes the view that since he’s a friend of Conway’s he’ll say anything he has to say to him to his face and there’s no reason why he should engage on the story on the blog. At various times in the past Iain’s also staunchly defended the fact that his is a partisan blog and makes no apologies for moderating his reaction depending on the story. For reasons that will become apparent shortly I have good blogging relationship with Iain but on this I think he’s getting it wrong. I don’t doubt the sincerity of his friendship with Conway but in these situations context is all and Peter Hain, Alan Johnson etc. all have friends too. Iain and others (myself included) have been happy to have a pop at Labour figures, even before they’ve been found guilty so neglecting to say anything about arguably more important stories because ‘they’re a mate’ wont wash for me. It’s not beyond the gift of a writer of Iain’s calibre to find a way to comment on the Conway story and share his opinions while still protecting his friendship with Derek.

The importance of blogging to the political process is growing by the day, not least because of sites like Iain’s – moderating output like this dents that progress and risks reducing it to little more than overblown social networking.

Labels: Politics

For someone who makes a living with words Martin Amis is peculiarly reckless with them. In his interview with Johan Hari in today’s Independent there’s plenty of ammunition for those inclined to lazily tag Amis as a racist. I have to say though, despite Hari’s obvious affection for the younger, more left-wing Amis his intention here appears to have been simply continuing the Eagleton row rather than getting to any explanation or deeper understanding of Amis’s position.

Hari takes Amis to task for what he describes as his ‘cognitive dissonance’:

“With the right lobe of his brain, Amis tells me he loves our multiracial society, and he says it with vigour and rigour. I don’t for a second think he’s lying. But then, with his left lobe he passionately praises a write who seems to me to be an outright racist, one who damns virtually all Muslims as secret Sharia-carriers and brags that the “white” birth-rate is still higher in the US. It is as though Amis has been fractured by the kerosene blast of September 11 into two people – and they aren’t talking”

If there is any ‘dissonance’ here it’s between Amis’s fairly straightforward attitude to race (which he shares with Hari) and Hari’s rather simplistic and over-the-top characterisation of Mark Steyn (which he doesn’t). The sentiments Hari attributes to Steyn represent his take on the Canadian polemicist and clearly not one that Amis shares - it’s hardly fair then to call this out as an inconsistency on Amis’s part.

As far as I can see there’s nothing dishonourable or particularly complicated about Amis’s position – certainly nothing ‘dissonant’. He has a fairly straightforward liberal attitude to race and culture as aspects of his background touched on by Hari illustrate. But as a thinking man he’s simply trying to acknowledge that there are serious problems that these attitudes don’t address and we should say so. Arguably Hari has a dissonance all his own in that he acknowledges he doesn’t believe Amis to be racist but then seems remarkably hostile to Amis’s attempts to broaden the conversation a little, introduce alternatives and hypotheticals - at this point Hari retreats to his ‘Amis is a racist’ position and seems curiously reluctant to engage him on any of the issues he raises.

Referring back to the quote that Eagleton uncovered and that caused last years row Hari suggests that Amis might be prepared to advocate racial profiling:

“If you make a list of all the people who have committed terrorist acts and see what their provenance is, and if they turn out to be white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, search them. It's not a moral question - its expediency, and something you hate to do, but if this increases, if this goes up a magnitude, these are questions we will face."

The key phrase is ‘questions we will face’ – Amis is highlighting the tensions between a standard liberal outlook on things like profiling and a potential set of circumstances that might cause us to question them at some point. It seems to me that he’s trying to engage Hari in discussion about these things but he (Hari) just stages this as some sort of irreconcilable position and moves on.

Amis himself has a good quote on the dangers of marking some areas off-limits for discussion:

"[Discussing Islamic fundamentalism is] so saturated in revulsions that people can't go near it. But we should go near it... Just because there have been horrible abuses based on this way of thinking doesn't mean that it's not worth considering, or that it's so radioactive that you don't dare go near it. That is the defeat of reason."

Arguably, of course, this was a more general interview rather than a specific attempt to go over the original row but I just wish Hari had been a little braver and more willing to engage with Amis – we might have learned a little more about both men.

Labels: Politics

In the wake of Peter Hain's resignation a Labour-inclined friend and I were discussing how the funding scandals and problems that Labour have faced over the last few years compare with the mid-90's 'sleaze' forever associated with the dog days of John Major's government. I was shocked when he said, quite seriously, that Labour's scandals still weren't anywhere near as serious as those the Tories faced back then. These things can always be a bit partisan but let me explain why I think Labour's record on 'sleaze' over the last decade is far, far worse than John Major's.

Sleaze, corruption and scandal exist on a continuum - there's no back & white and there'll always be subjective views on how serious each story is. Nonetheless you can still illustrate two extremes on that line. On the one hand there are the distinctly personal scandals - usually involving sex or relatively small sums of money. These stories tend to be about individual gratification - backbenchers or junior ministers simply on the make. Shagging someone they shouldn't, not declaring some hospitality they've received, pocketing a few grand here and there to ask a question in the house. The defining characteristic for me though is that however unappealing these things may be there usually exists a sort of firewall between them and the exercise of political power. Sexual misdemeanours obviously have little bearing on that and even backbenchers pocketing a few grand to raise an issue or ask a question hardly amounts to a significant corruption of the political process because of their relative lack of influence. That's not to excuse any of this behaviour; just to point out there is a distance there that speaks to how seriously we should take the story.

At the other end of this scale is something far more troubling. It might still be shrouded in the same half-truths, evasions or downright lies but the crucial difference at this extreme is that those lies aren't just put in the service of individual self-interest; they're actually serious attempts to influence government policy or get into a position to do so. The politician who gets away with this sort of thing is seriously undermining the democratic process - the guy shagging his secretary is, at worse, undermining his marriage. By any measure this is the more serious sort of scandal and the one that should really trouble us.

So whereabouts on this continuum do Labour's recent troubles fall in comparison to Tory troubles in the 1990's? I don't think there's any argument that they fall towards the more serious end - a Prime Minister interviewed by the police over allegations that his office 'sold' seats in the legislature, individuals trying to donate hundreds of thousands of pounds anonymously to candidates effectively running for Deputy PM (and more police interviews as a result), allegations that intelligence assessments used to justify war were doctored. This isn't to say that both didn't parties have examples of both of course - Aitken was more serious for the Tories and Prescott's dalliances were tabloid fodder - but the names forever associated with 90's Tories sleaze (Hamilton, Mellor, Asby, Yeo etc.) weren't guilty of anything as serious as the charges that Labour have had to deal with in recent years. Regular readers will know that I'm loathed to indulge in straightforward partisan point-scoring and if anything that probably predisposes me to be harsher to politicians on the right than the left. But in this instance it seems beyond doubt to me that Labour's record in terms of serious sleaze and corruption is far more shameful than the Tories record in the 90's - shagging around in a Chelsea strip isn't comparable to selling influence.

p.s. I've just read the remarks from Hain's replacement on this the Today programme this morning - he denies that these scandals have 'tainted' Labour! In his honour and in light of the above I've changed the title of this post....

Labels: Politics

The row over Hillary's remarks about Martin Luther King seems to be obscuring a perfectly reasonable and decent observation she made - of course social changes require movements with visionary leaders that create hope and force the issue at the political level but elected officials, and perhaps presidents above all, are needed too in order to turn those hopes into real social changes. From where I'm sitting Hillary wasn't disparaging MLK's contribution to the civil rights movement at all, far less employing any sort of crude calculus to weigh his contribution against that of Lyndon Johnson. She was just pointing out that both individuals were needed to make stuff happen. Surely that was just a valid rebuttal to Obama's simplistic assertions about "hope" and "change" and his implied dismissal that experience has any part to play in the campaign?

My opinion hardly matters of course and I remain undecided between the two but it feels as though Obama's campaign can only really benefit from what I consider a worrying trend in politics - the elevation of wooly platitudes and idealism over clear and practical policy solutions. Being a political nerd I was as thrilled by Obama's Iowa speech as everyone - it was stirring and emotional, I could almost see Josh and Toby standing just off camera. But reading it again now it's remarkably devoid of anything of substance. There's a danger that Obama's candidature will have resonance only with those people who are motivated by single issue pressure politics, who enjoy the 'narrative' about the first black US president and are dripping in wristbands and t-shirts proclaiming their loyalty to this consumer boycott or that campaign group. We need these movement of course but by themselves they are not enough.Most of last century's social advances had their roots in that sort of individual activism but real change only came about when the mantle was picked up by elected representatives and placed at the heart of political discussion. That up-front passion and commitment to a cause had to make way for solutions and these had to emerge from the messy swamp of political compromise. All the evidence suggests that it's this messy process of actually making things happen that then turns people off but it will never go away.

Politics is difficult and that needs to be more widely understood than it is at the moment - we need to challenge the idea that solutions to these problems are there to be simply picked from the shelf by the willing politician (the casual implication being that our elected representatives are simply not bothered). Basically being Bono or Geldof is easy, being Brown (or Bush etc.) is difficult. The growing interest in single issue campaign groups is actually eroding respect for the political process and our senior politician's readiness to embrace 'wristband' politics may hasten rather than halt the process. Hillary's reminder of the balance that must exist here was simply that and a plea that people not be swept along with the Obama story at the expense of what can realistically be achieved from next November.

Labels: Politics

First, a disclaimer - sometimes I get really interested in the big political stories of the day and sometimes I happily let them pass me by. I’ve never really understood why this happens with some stories but it does and the funding scandals over the last few months have been the perfect example. I haven’t followed every statement or analysis, every nuance or comment from the pundits – whether this distance makes for a more enlightened take on the subject you can decide…

I really, really struggle to see why this should be such a big political issue. It reeks of the sort of problem that 100% of the non-political classes could agree on in 5 minutes but politicians are determined to offer a multitude of ifs and buts and pretend it’s more complicated than it is. Everything is seen through the prism of how it’ll affect their own party’s finances rather than how well it sits with any fair and noble approach to politics. Put simply this isn’t anywhere near as difficult or as complicated as we are constantly told. How does this sound:

• Only declared individual donations should be permissible - no organisational donations at all. That means no think-tanks, no businesses, no unions and no research groups.
• Eligibility to donate based on reasonably strict residence criteria – e.g. residence in UK >75% of last three years.
• Route all individual donations via the Electoral Commission (or similar) and every single donation (above a certain level) should be viewable on a website for all to see.
• Cap those individual donations sensibly – no need to register <£100 so tin-rattling can still go on but no reason why we can’t have an upper limit of £40-£50k per-annum.

Now, that may be me displaying the sort of naiveté that comes of not following the story but if you take out naked party advantage (which shouldn’t be a factor anyway) then what possible objections could there be to this system? I know Labour would object to the exclusion of union funds but there’s absolutely no defence for that – every individual who currently contributes via a union levy would be completely free to continue doing so, netting the party an identical income but they’d just have to arrange it themselves. If Labour fears that this would actually mean lower income then that’s tantamount to an admission that the current system exploits those people. The Conservatives would probably cry foul about any stricter eligibility on who can donate but again that’s tough – this is too important an issue to let that sort of self-interest come into play.

The only objection which might carry any weight here is what this might do to the way parties campaign and the nature of politics as a whole – there’s a real prospect that this would dramatically reduce the monies parties have available to them at general election times. This might mean they’d have to have less flashy adverts and billboards, less glossy mail shots and internet campaigns. That in turn might continue the disturbing trend of fewer and fewer people getting engaged in party politics. If that danger is demonstrated to be real then we will have to consider state funding, not something I’m particularly keen on. If the danger isn’t real then the parties will just have to adjust the way they campaign.

See – easy isn’t it? Cassilis for PM……

Update: Tom Freeman endorses much of this in the comments but is too gallant to point out that the idea of routing all donations via the electoral commission was first suggested by him back in November last year and I neglected to credit him - sorry Tom.

Labels: Politics

I'm not entirely sure what to make of this.

Newsweek's European Economics editor Sefan Theil writes in Foreign Policy on the strong anti-capitalist bias in the French & German education system. If you have the time I'd urge you to read the whole thing because there certainly are some alarming examples of the sort of things you find in French & German text books. In a paragraph though, this sums it up particularly well:

"One might expect Europeans to view the world through a slightly left-of-center, social-democratic lens. The surprise is the intensity and depth of the anti-market bias being taught in Europe’s schools. Students learn that private companies destroy jobs while government policy creates them. Employers exploit while the state protects. Free markets offer chaos while government regulation brings order. Globalization is destructive, if not catastrophic. Business is a zero-sum game, the source of a litany of modern social problems. Some enterprising teachers and parents may try to teach an alternative view, and some books are less ideological than others. But given the biases inherent in the curricula, this background is unavoidable. It is the context within which most students develop intellectually. And it’s a belief system that must eventually appear to be the truth"

The thing I find slightly troubling is the automatic assumption that the free-market capitalist system is in fact superior. Don't get me wrong, politically I'm far closer to Theil than the authors he quotes and I agree that some of this indoctrination seems wildly inappropriate in an educational context - I'm just struggling to understand what he's actually advocating in its place if it's not just the promotion of the contrary view? He seems to be adopting the position that classic free-market economics is pure science and devoid of any political judgement - ignoring the fact that it supports the centre-right political outlook.

You author isn't anywhere near as knowledgeable about these things as he sometimes pretends but from the little I have read an increasing number of politicians and economists traditionally happy to associate themselves with the right have started to question if we've reached some sort of zenith in terms of the benefits we can derive from free-market economics. Their superiority may have been self-evident by any fair reading of the last century but that doesn’t necessarily mean ‘t’will always be thus’. Climate Change is the perfect example of the sort if issue that free-markets don’t necessarily offer an immediate solution to.

Now, I don’t believe for a minute that the textbooks Theil has a pop at are sophisticated enough to be adopting this stance – it reads just like the lazy anti-market, anti-American prejudice he alleges. But his refusal to recognise that his alternatives could be seen as equally loaded is strange.

Labels: Politics

The response to David Cameron's 'Work For Welfare' reforms has been interesting. Labour's line of attack has been the proposals are out-of-date or just nicked from plans the government already has in place and, obvious partisans aside, the pundits have given them a cautious welcome. The absence of hysterical claims about the Tories forcing people into servitude is welcome - perhaps we're seeing a more nuanced and accurate understanding of what 'compassion' really means in politics.

Anecdotal evidence is a dangerous thing and under any proposals there'll be people the system fails and there will be those who know how to exploit it. There will always be deserving people falling foul of the rules and work-shy morons pocketing cash with no intention of seeking work so beware the politician who pulls these anecdotal examples from thin air to try and discredit their opponents - they'll always exist and can be used to attack either side. Compassion in a welfare system demands balance - a balance between recognising that most people out of work would rather not be there and will take all reasonable steps to become self-sufficient but recognition that some people don't fit that bill and any monies spent on them is money lost to genuine cases (or health or education etc.) So a system that might ultimately see a very small number of people being denied any support at all is still a compassionate system - arguably more so than those that don't make any such distinction. There's a similar subtlety at play when discussing asylum - offering support to those genuinely fleeing persecution is our moral duty and I'd personally have no truck with any politician who didn't accept this. But support for those genuine cases is contingent upon a reasonably firm approach to those who exploit the system and aren't genuine - bogus asylum seekers for want of a less inflammatory phrase. But that phrase is now so loaded that any politician that utters it immediately casts themselves beyond the pale.

Too often in politics the fair use of language comes second to the desire for narrow (and usually temporary) party advantage. Accusing your opponents of a lack of compassion is a little low because not everyone has the same view of what compassion means in political terms. The reaction to Tory welfare reforms suggests people are beginning to understand this....

Labels: Politics

It takes some going to get me to ride to Gordon Brown's defence but I will this morning. There's a classic non-story brewing on some right wing blogs alleging that Brown misled reporters at his press conference yesterday when questioned about a meeting with David Beckham. Here's the question and his response:

Question:
I think you are meeting David Beckham in the near future. Can you tell us why? Do you want him to have some sort of role in encouraging youngsters to get into sport?

Prime Minister:
David Beckham did a brilliant job helping us win the Olympics. He was one of the team that helped us win the Olympic decision for London for 2012 and I think the whole country was grateful for the work he and others did to make that possible. And if David Beckham could help us in the future on some of the other big national projects, that would be to the benefit of the country as well. But I have got no specific plans to talk to him about them.

The non-story (here, here & here and probably on a million other blogs by tea time) is that Brown denied he was meeting Beckham when he did just that only a few hours later. But he didn't - read that extract above again. I was going to use bold and italics to flag the key points and explain what was being said until I realised how pathetic that would be - it's a 120-odd words that my son isn't a million miles away from being able to understand and he's 18 months old. The questioner suggested a meeting was planned and Brown didn't deny that - the questioner also suggested the likely topic of discussion and Brown corrected him on it. End. Of . Story.

That Brown didn't explicitly acknowledge the meeting is, granted, a little strange. But I'm quite comfortable with the fact a meeting with a footballer isn't to the fore of the Prime Minister's mind, even if it is in the next few hours. There are many, many things to take Gordon Brown to task over and when I think it's justified I'll join the throng doing just that. But trying to whip up a story on this flimsy a premise should be beneath these reasonably august blogs...

Labels: Politics

Danny Finkelstein is in fine form in this morning's Times:

Next, there is the waning appeal of small-government rhetoric. In the 1970s, speeches about government being the problem not the solution resonated. Now this language is much less potent politically. Government remains often inefficient and too large, but winning support to change it is harder. Conservatives need to show that they can run government, providing services, not merely talking about shrinking them...

This is linked to another issue - tax cuts. Always an automatic crowd-pleaser in the past, it isn't working quite as reliably as it used to. John Howard, for instance, lost in Australia despite his promises. In Britain, Conservative pledges have had mixed results. Voters don't believe them.

I'm sure I've heard that line of thinking before somewhere - what I haven't heard suggested but welcome heartily is the idea that the Conservatives should embrace heavier taxes on fossil fuel consumption.

Labels: Politics

I’m starting to wonder if Gordon Brown and his advisers script his speeches and interviews using a special set of those fridge magnet poetry things – lots of apparently random words that can be re-arranged to leave little messages for people. Gordon appears to have a set with the words ‘tough’, ‘long-term’, ‘decisions’, ‘interests’, ‘stability’, ‘difficult’, ‘well-placed’ etc.

Don’t get me wrong – I know few, if any, political speeches or interviews are entirely off-the-cuff and there’s always a deliberate theme or ‘line-to-take’. And yes, you could easily play a similar game with Cameron or any other politician (Obama has apparently lost all but two magnets, ‘hope’ and ‘change’) but the point is gifted politicians are usually able to disguise this a little bit better – at least from all but the most seasoned hacks. There’s a transparency to many of Gordon’s appearances, an almost robotic reliance on these stock phrases. It makes it very clear what his line of attack on Cameron will be - ‘OK bloke but to wimpy for this big job’.

That may be true and perhaps my observation on Gordon is partisan but I never thought this about Blair – he had the knack of making equally (if not more) heavily scripted themes appear conversational and natural. Gordon seems to script his words every morning when he gets the milk for his cornflakes.

Labels: Politics

Worth flagging Anthony Wells assessment of the challenges facing Labour as 2008 dawns. Most worrying part for any Labour readers:

"I think Brown’s character, specifically the lack of charisma or warmth will prevent him being able to bring it back. When problems hit Brown will never be able get away with a winning smile and a “I’m a pretty straight sort of guy” or “well, John is John”, he can’t charm he was out of problems, can’t convince people that, whatever has gone wrong, he is fundamentally a decent chap doing his best. Neither has he yet shown any ability to project a vision or purpose for his government that the public can relate to, perhaps in other circumstances that wouldn’t matter, competence would be enough, but to differentiate himself from Blair he needs to. He also doesn’t seem to have the knack of keeping the press onside - from having Fleet Street at his feet he seems to have alienated them rapidly, without a turnaround in press attitude it will be difficult for Brown to turnaround the government’s position.

So putting my cards on the table, I think Brown is finished."

He goes on to say this doesn't mean Labour is finished and today's assessment of Tory fortunes isn't all plain sailing but there's little doubt that the 'character question' will be a defining one of Brown's premiership...

Labels: Politics

Interesting article on CiF today from Oliver James on the link between what he calls 'selfish capitalism' and rising levels of mental illness. I agree with some of his observations about the harm that comes from the rising inequity (something that took root under Mrs Thatcher but wasn't really checked at all under Blair) but there are some confusions and contradictions in James' piece worth pointing out.

I'm not sure how genuine his use of the term 'selfish capitalism', as distinct from plain old ordinary capitalism, is. He presumably doesn't want his analysis to be dismissed as some sort of pseudo-Marxist proxy piece and the implication is that there is a benign and neutral capitalism at whose door none of these ills can be laid. Being on the soft right I'd agree with that but I don't think the use of that small prefix is enough here. You can legitimately take issue with that nasty strain of capitalism we've over the last 20-odd years (basically Thatcherism) and I'd probably agree with James on the ills that Thatcher is responsible for. But if you're going to risk sullying the name of an entire political philosophy then surely you can't dismiss the advances of the previous 80 years when capitalism of one form or another was also prevalent? As one commenter on CiF illustrates (with apologies to Monty Python):

"I tell you, what has capitalism ever done for the likes of me eh??!??!?

Damn you capitalism. Just over a relatively short century ago I would have enjoyed the fact that most other scumbags my age (30+) would probably be dead by now (on average would have struggled to have reached the nice age of 5). And if they were lucky enough to pass the age of thirty, they would have been all rotten-toothed and illiterate, easy to spot and discriminate from proper people like. And if they weren't controlled with some deadly ailment that neither Dr nor hospital would or could treat - then back breaking toil and low calorie food or a nice bit of warfare would sort them out on a daily basis."

Quite. James then undermines his own case a little by apparently discounting the possibility that any of the rise is attributable to rising detection rates for mental illness which have improved dramatically over the last 30-40 years - not to mention less social stigma attached to the issue (all of which incidentally have taken place while all these nasty capitalists have been running the show). Whatsmore he even points out that the link isn't explicit anyway:

"In itself, this economic inequality does not cause mental illness. WHO studies show that some very inequitable developing nations, like Nigeria and China, also have the lowest prevalence of mental illness. Furthermore, inequity may be much greater in the English-speaking world today, but it is far less than it was at the end of the 19th century. While we have no way of knowing for sure, it is very possible that mental illness was nowhere near as widespread in, for instance, the US or Britain of that time."

That last piece of speculation is critical - it's equally possible than when you adjust for the impact of detection and changes in social attitudes that mental illness was just as prevalent, perhaps more so. If that were the case then the premise for his article begins to crumble.

Finally, James goes on to wish for the emergence of a "passionate, charismatic" leader who advocates his preferred brand of more altruistic and compassionate capitalism. This raises an interesting question - 'is such a person more likely to emerge from the political movement traditionally associated with capitalism or the one which explicitly rejected it for most of it's life'? My answer would be yes which suggests that as soon as David Cameron can appropriate the other attribute James is looking for - being female - then he'll have James' vote.

Labels: Politics

OK - I wouldn't stake the mortgage on it and better informed and connected bloggers than I may rubbish the idea but bear with me a little...

When Brown backed off an autumn election in early October the story ran that he'd ruled out a poll until at least 2009. The obsequious Andrew Marr pressed this point a little but Brown insisted that it was "very unlikely" (transcript). Under different circumstances this 'non-denial' would've attracted some attention but the story quickly became Brown's character and the remarkable reversal in fortunes over that couple of weeks - but he didn't rule it out.

Given the way his autumn eventually panned out a snap February poll would clearly be nuts. But its worth pointing out that despite the disasters of the last couple of months most polling still has the Tories short of a sufficient lead to land a workable majority. However embattled Brown is his team will take heart that Cameron has yet to poll in the 45/50% region seen by many as a tipping point in party fortunes (Cameron's team should be troubled by the same observation). Granted, the spring need only see one or two more 'Mr Bean' episodes and I suspect the dye will be cast - Brown will simply hang on until defeat in the poll whenever it comes. But if the New Year brings more Stalin than Bean and the Tories find themselves in choppy waters as they flesh out their platform don't underestimate Gordon Brown's lust for power - if he thought he could snatch another five years in office he wouldn't let a pseudo-promise to Andrew Marr stop him.

Labels: Politics

Stories about the historical or geographical ignorance of US politicians abound and in my experience they often tell you more about anti-US European prejudice than they do about anything else. This story though suggests they’re not always without substance.

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino recalls a reporter referring to the Cuban Missile Crisis during one of her early briefings. "I was panicked a bit because I really don't know about . . . the Cuban Missile Crisis. It had to do with Cuba and missiles, I'm pretty sure."

Labels: Politics

...it may just be me not paying attention but where the hell is Boris Johnson? Granted, the campaign may not have formally started but given that Boris has had an enviable media profile for a few years now (presumably one of the reasons he was selected) he seems to have gone to ground.

I know he's standing in mayoral elections rather than national ones but given the difficulties the government have found themselves in over the last couple of months I can't help but think Boris has missed an opportunity here. None of those problems can be laid at Livingstone's door obviously but a well run campaign should be able to suggest parallels between Labour's national problems and the London issues Boris intends to campaign on. The parallels may not be there of course but since when has that sort of detail mattered to campaigning politicians?

He needn't have been a key player in the Conservative's attack over recent months but I just find it strange that he doesn't even appear to have been on the bench. I guess supporters will be hoping that he's cosseted away with a crack team of advisers getting ready to launch himself on London in the early spring...

Labels: Politics

On CiF today Polly Toynbee takes issue with Tory attempts to wrestle the tag ‘progressive’ from Labour, dismissing both the sincerity of Cameron’s use of the word as well as it’s original relevance to New Labour anyway. Curiously she credits Peter Mandelson with ‘devising’ the word in the early 90’s as a way to avoid saying ‘centre-left’ when in fact the term’s been reasonably common currency in US politics since Teddy Roosevelt formed the ‘Progressive Party’ in 1912. Polly’s objection to Tory use of ‘progressive’ sits in the same vein as Alex Hilton’s diatribe on Saturday about the inherent evils of Toryism – both are desperate to tether the Tories to the Thatcherite hard-right caricature because they know how electorally damaging that would be. What’s more, far too many Tories would be happy to be described as such when in truth a little history shows a different picture.

As Prime Minister Disraeli embraced social reform precisely because it relieved poverty and hardship – this was the birth of “One Nation” politics. He passed many major acts of social reform including trade union rights, factory conditions, public health, education and housing. The Tories have always been political magpies, picking and choosing between ideas to suit the moment, appropriating their opponents’ most popular themes and readily discarding hitherto fervent beliefs once their electoral value waned. Critics of course might condemn this as the subjugation of abstract principle to the goal of winning and maintaining power but it’s surely no accident that the Conservative party spent two-thirds of the 20th century in government.

From their 2006 publication Compassionate Conservatism, Jesse Norman and Janan Ganesh summed it up as follows:

A political conservative must determine the requirements of a particular situation, and reflect on which of his or her principles are to be deployed and how. This may require a shift from one principle to another over time, or the simultaneous application of different principles to different situations. Such shifts may be disdained as hypocrisy, and of course sometimes they may actually be hypocritical. But politics is not logic. Absolute consistency in the application of abstract principle to practical politics is rarely possible and never wise. The British electorate, with its preference for common sense over grand theory, usually rewards this insight at elections, even as it abuses it between them.

What ultimately distinguishes conservatism from its rival creeds, therefore, is not so much the views it holds, though some of these are unique to conservatism, as the way it holds them. Socialism and liberalism are, at root, theories and ideologies: fundamental interpretations of the nature of history and of “the good”, from which policy programmes are supposedly inferred. Conservatism is no such thing. It is instinctive, not theoretical; a disposition, not a doctrine; realistic and sceptical, not grandiose or utopian; accepting of the imperfectability of man, not restless to overcome it; and anxious to improve the lot of the many not by referring to some plan, but by working with the grain of what Kant called “the crooked timber of humanity”. It is precisely its reluctance to accord sacred status to any abstract idea that allows conservatism to incorporate so many of them. It is precisely its refusal to regard change as a good in itself thatmakes it uniquely qualified to manage change most prudently.

Quite.

Labels: Politics

I’ve never been comfortable with the term ‘career politician’. It’s usually taken to mean someone who happily suppresses principles in pursuit of hard power and carries an implied criticism about the targets sincerity and/or integrity. It’s also a charge normally levelled by those who consider themselves without compromise when it comes to their own principles and is often laden with smug contempt. What’s more, the accuser often has a label of their own – ‘maverick’ or ‘rebel’ usually, the implication this time being that their principles are not for sale and their own integrity is beyond question.

There are of course politicians who deserve these labels but more often than not I think the media get these labels and criticisms the wrong way round. There’s no surer route to political celebrity than the MP who’s always ready and willing to criticise their own party (Tebbit, Widdecombe, Benn, Skinner etc.). Likewise with the politicians who hold fast to the banalities of adolescent politics, ready to ‘damn them all’ or champion some despot somewhere just because they share an enemy (Benn again, Galloway etc). Invariably these politicians wield no actual power whatsoever which is why their certainty about the world has never been dented. Provided they have a neat turn of phrase and can raise a chuckle or two at the same time these people are assured of a lengthy career.

Those they damn as unprincipled sell-outs however usually have a far harder time of it that anyone gives them credit for. It may be a trite observation but success in politics demands compromise. Principles and values are grand, important things but achieving anything worthwhile inevitably involves reconciling competing values and making very difficult decisions. Values and principles are worthless if they remain nothing but abstracts and while there may be some who reach the top by keeping their head down and saying the right things, many who make it do so while clinging fast to their principles and reconciling them with the need to actually achieve something.

I’d written this before I stumbled across Oliver Kamm’s excellent post today on the follies of Tony Benn – well worth a read.

Labels: Politics

After 6-8 weeks in which the Conservatives have had an understandable spring in their step the Economist sounds a welcome note of caution on how much remains to done before they can take the next election for granted.

"...the Tories have not pulled away decisively: they are polling at around 40%, which is short of both the 45% mark that Mr Cameron has made his party's target and the 60% that Labour scored under Tony Blair in 1995. Labour then was more than 30 points ahead of the governing Tories; today the Tories are less than ten points ahead of Labour. Conservatives note that they face a stronger government than Sir John Major's. None of its recent mistakes has been as ruinous for voters as the recession of the early 1990s. Neither is it as exhausted of ideas: Sir John never produced anything as vaulting as the children's plan unveiled on December 11th."

That's a timely warning. Tribal Tories may struggle to accept this but no matter how many dazzling policy initiatives they can produce they will only win power when public disaffection with Brown & Labour passes that difficult to track tipping point and despite recent debacles we may not be there yet. In the decade before Labour took office we’d had race riots, poll tax riots, unparalleled hostility from the arts establishment & popular cultural figures all against a backdrop of serious in fighting and ill discipline in the governing party. That’s why the returns on Blair & Campbell’s Labour rebranding were far more immediate and substantial than those we’ve seen on Cameron’s project (the 60% polling referred to above). I don’t think an