Letter To The Editor
A recent letter
elsewhere:
Dear Sir,
While immigration will always be a political issue with regards to which debate, discussion and consideration are reasonable, it is a subject that must always be approached with care. The Conservatives' current election campaign has fundamentally failed to do this and seems to delight in rhetoric that easily encourages racism and xenophobia. If the Conservative Party were serious about producing a system in which there was public confidence, rather than merely pandering to the worst attitudes, there would be no association with fear-mongering, but, on the contrary, attempts to diffuse tensions and misperceptions of immigrants and asylum seekers.
Yours sincerely,
Chris Hanretty (St. Anne's)
Richard Huzzey (St. Anne's)
Ken Owen (Queen's)
Charles Smith (St. Anne's)
Martin White (Queen's)
10 Reasons Not To Vote Tory
I am indebted to
Blimpish, my dear comrade in the
General Election blog project. On his own website, he has provided the best 10 reasons not to be a Tory in the form of satirical posters of the LibDems and Labour. (Ignore the Respect ones, he's probably right about them!)
Just look at the values he is mocking in those fake posters... As I say, the principles he thinks are worthy of mockery and derision are exactly those that would push me to any of the big parties *except* the Tories.
What A Difference A Death Makes
When I was in Borders a couple of weeks ago, there wasn't a single Saul Bellow book to be found. Now, there's a whole shelf of his works!
Election Campaign a Bore
So says the
BBC entertainment website, anyway.
But do the media
admit their culpability? Have a wild guess...
Mr Dignam said: "The figures show that despite all the efforts of broadcasters to connect with real people during this campaign - the process is turning off viewers and failing to connect.
"For all their efforts to 'connect' with viewers, broadcasters are experiencing the same problem as the politicians - TV audiences are simply finding the campaign a bore."
Well, maybe it's the media companies themselves that are to blame?
As I said at the start of the campaign, the media are far more interested in trying to fit their own agendas rather than tackling issues in depth. Rather than, say, doing a really good piece about what has gone well and what has gone wrong in Iraq, the papers prefer to find the "human interest" angle. The TV coverage is often even worse - how does a few garbled words from passers-by on the Conservative manifesto (to take an example from Sky News in this campaign) really help us understand the issues behind it?
The media love to have their cake and eat it - report apathy and low turnout and criticise the political parties for not doing enough to engage with the public. The problem is far more that whenever attempts are made to make politics "relevant" (whatever that means), all the companies change is their presentation. It's the lack of content that's the problem!
Cowards!
The BBC is currently broadcasting a
"special edition" of Question Time in which all three party leaders appear. Not at the same time, though - no, that would be too much like a debate. Instead they'll troop into the studio one after the other to face "nearly thirty minutes of questioning". Forgive me if I fail to share the Beeb's excitement.
Why? Because the claim that:
It's a step forward from the last general election when each of the leaders
appeared in their own separate edition of Question Time.
is just completely wrong. Last time, when the leaders went face to face with a live audience on their own, they did it for far longer. Nearly twice as long in fact. There's no way that they will be able to carry the argument from one to another effectively, because otherwise the order in which the party leaders appear becomes a major issue, as some won't get the chance to hit back at accusations made against them. My guess is that it will be tremendously anodyne stuff with the leaders trying their best to waffle away to waste the 30 minutes as much as possible. It angers me intensely the BBC are trying to pull this off as a triumph. They're letting our leaders get off scot-free.
If this is true...
... then I think my faith in the EU will have been massively rocked. I can't find any other evidence that corroborates this, but apparently Liege was
once considered as a location for the capital of Europe. If that's true, God help us all.
ToryWatch
An update courtesy of Private Eye (p.9 of the latest issue): Tory candidate for Hammersmith and Fulham Greg Hands has tastefully distributed leaflets showing a black-coloured picture of Africa underneath the title "Action on Immigration". Nice to see a nuanced and sensitive discussion of immigration issues there, reflecting the intellectual respectability, necessary consideration, and socratic wonder of the Tories' national immigration campaign.
The Kenometer
I've just realised what we can use to replace the woefully useless Swingometer: Ken.
While the Swingometer is fatally flawed for predictions as we enter into an era with demographic differences which will create, I suspect, a particularly non-uniform swing. instead, I think the best barometer of political success is Ken, who manages to straggle a territory we would broadly call "the centre" and has no attachment to a particular party. While I suspect he still retains an instinctive dislike for "the left", I genuinely think he would vote LibDem and will vote Labour, if they hit the policies he wanted.
While Ken is completely unrepresentative of the population in many ways- not least his interest in politics -I think he commands such dead central ground that nobody could capture Number Ten without convincing him. (Of course, given the oddities of certain constituencies that does not mean he'd vote for the party that impressed him, but that's not the point).
Some Thoughts On How To Improve Political Debate
Any reader of this, or the
General Election blog, will know that I have been profoundly depressed at the level of political debate that has been shown in the current campaign. Part of the culpability undoubtedly rests with
the media, but when political parties treat the public
with contempt, or resort to
petty slurs, then something is wrong with the system.
The following is a brief and tentative outline of some ways in which the political balance could be redressed. It does not address the key point of the whole matter, which is the electoral system that we have which means the election will be decided by
800,000 people.
What I do think is that the American system of primaries has a lot to recommend it. It is by no means a perfect system, and to a certain extent presupposes the right of political parties to exist. But the election of party leaders by party members is surely becoming increasingly anachronistic in a Britain where party membership is falling?
If the election of party leaders or candidates was extended to a broader section of the population, then there would be a much greater engagement with the ideas of the party, the candidates, and a greater sense of direction could be applied than currently exists. For example, the Conservative party may be able to get a clearer sense of whether it wants to be a small government party, or a big-government party run on different lines to Labour. It should also serve to get more people involved with the political process. Yes, it runs the danger of political overkill - too many votes spoiling the enthusiasm. Yet most people are agreed something has to be done to arrest the decline in turnout. I will develop these ideas further, but actually engaging people in the decision of their candidates may be a very strong way of encouraging greater participation in the political process.
French Irishmen, Tigers, and the Forward Pass
Regular readers of this blog will know that my incandescent fury with rugby referees can be
something to behold (although you need to see my rage in person for the full experience). One of the strange things I find about watching sport is that I can switch a match on as a neutral, and end up passionately supporting one side or the other. So when I have a slight preference for one team, I tend to find myself getting into a match far more than could reasonably be expected.
The was the case this weekend with the Leicester Tigers - Toulouse European Cup semi-final. I'm not the greatest French rugby fan (although Toulouse have played some awesome rugby this season). Now, as the fair-minded guy that I am, I will say up front that Toulouse were the better team on Sunday and deserved to win. Yet their cause was greatly assisted by some pretty dodgy refereeing.
It seems to be a case of the modern game that referees are unable to spot fairly blatant forward passes. Alain Rolland (an Irishman!) was no exception on Sunday. What really gets me is that some of these forward passes actually take place close to the white horizontal lines that lay out the rugby field. Leicester did not deserve to win the match - but the game is ruined as a concept when teams are allowed to get away with infringements of the law with huge rewards.
New Zealand are the biggest culprits - they have turned the forward pass into an art form (I saw one in the World Cup which actually went behind the back of a defending player). Now, many would say that the occasional missed forward pass doesn't really harm the game, and allows it to be played at a much more exhilarating pace. Well, I'm sorry, but that just doesn't hold up. The game of rugby requires a specific amount of skill, and making sure you pass the ball backwards is an integral part of it. Running rugby is beautiful to behold. But it is the control of other faculties whilst running at pace that makes it superior to other games of a similar nature. The number of forward passes missed by top-class referees today is appalling - and the game will suffer if this continues.
Labour Lies and Mr Angry
The more I think about the Labour campaign this election, the angrier I become. I have been very disappointed by the lacklustre opposition that both the Tories and Lib Dems have put up against it, but the one thing I do agree with Michael Howard about is my desire to see the smirk wiped off Mr Blair’s face. Especially when so far, the Labour campaign has been full of lies from top to bottom. It is no wonder the public have no faith in a political process where “cuts” means “slower growth”, and where facts are twisted to the point of unrecognisability. The Sunday Telegraph ran a superb article yesterday attacking
10 Labour lies - although it didn’t have the nerve to put lies outside of inverted commas.
The one Labour response which angered me more than any other was this:
• Lie 8: “Interest rates halved with Labour” (Labour poster).
The truth: The bank base rate in May 1997 when the Conservatives were last in office was 6.25 per cent. The current figure is 4.75 per cent, a fall of around a quarter, not a half.
Labour’s response: Under Labour, interest rates have averaged 5.2 per cent; they averaged 10.4 per cent between 1979 and 1997.
What a load of disingenuous rubbish. Under that interpretation of “falling interest rates”, interest rates could have increased every year since 1997 and Labour could still have claimed that interest rates had fallen under Labour. Would anyone accept their logic in that case? No. So why should we now? Why are Labour being able to get away with lie after lie after lie, and have no serious opposition?
• Lie 9: The Scottish Labour website stated on April 3 that “Scottish Labour has ensured that no full-time undergraduate student has to pay up-front tuition fees in Scotland”.
The truth: Full-time undergraduate students have to pay up-front tuition fees in Scotland unless they are Scottish domiciled.
Labour’s response: No full time Scottish undergraduate has to pay up-front tuition fees in Scotland.
Oh, so missing out a key part of a sentence is OK then. Well, I suppose that was their justification behind releasing a dodgy dossier removing all caveats. A further example of Labour’s crusade against truth and transparency.
What really irks me is that Labour continue to treat the electorate with absolute contempt. Let’s look at the following words Tony Blair’s constituency agent had for
the Independent today:
“Iraq is not an issue,” he said. “And if people do talk about Iraq it is to say how good it is that we got rid of Saddam, and now there are democratic elections.
“I also don’t understand all this thing about the Prime Minister misleading the country. I have spoken to Tony directly about this, and he told me that he wasn’t just depending on MI5 or American intelligence, but the intelligence of other countries as well.
“He said he wasn’t misleading anyone, and if he says that, I believe him 100 per cent. Reg Keys has no chance of winning here, or even getting many votes.”
I happen to agree that it is wonderful that we got rid of Saddam and that democracy has a chance of taking hold in Iraq. I have said before I find it telling that the anti-war campaign squirm whenever they have to face the uncomfortable truth that the
progress now being made in Iraq was only possible because of “pre-emptive action”.
But to say that we used the intelligence of other countries to say that there were WMDs in Iraq only holds up to a certain point - the point at which caveats are included within the public reports. As Lord Butler found in his report, these were all too often omitted. Blair overstated his case, and should have to face up to it.
I love the fact that John Burton believes what Tony Blair says 100%. That suggests to me that his knowledge of what is and isn’t an issue is somewhat flawed. The fact is there are millions of people up and down the country who now no longer believe anything Mr Blair says. And yet his party is heading towards another
heavy electoral victory. The effective sidelining of Iraq - and the continued, repeated failure of the Tories to make any sort of coherent opposition to Blair on that issue - will allow Labour to continue ahead with their incredible arrogance. Whilst the New Labour project continues, we will continue to see the standards of political debate collapse and flounder.
Via the BritBlog Roundup
The results of Arthur's Seat's
mini saga contest. My favourite is the best saga on a sporting theme, replicated here:
AMERICA'S PASTIME
First in war, first in peace and last in the American League, they said. A quest for glory; the same old baseball story. But Washington’s Senators leave for Minnesota then, after a brief second coming, for Texas. 34 years in limbo. Widowed city. Then salvation; the happy return. Play ball.
Spotted in Jericho
The world's first "Bring Your Own" takeaway service. What the hell is that supposed to be?
Pope In Appoints Alastair Campbell Shock
How's this for a bit of spin?
In the sermon at his inauguration Mass in a packed St Peter's Square, the Pope said: "Let us do all we can to pursue the path toward the unity".
According to
the editor of the Catholic Herald:
The accession of Benedict XVI has tremendous implications for the English Catholic Church: for its bossy, politically correct bureaucracy; for the ceremonial at Sunday Mass; for relations with the Church of England (as of Tuesday, dead as a doornail); for how long the 72-year-old Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor lasts as Archbishop of Westminster - and who succeeds him in the post.
Tories' Weekend Rout On Race Issue
I get the feeling that I may not have been the only person who, in the past 7 days, shifted from grudging admiration of the Tories' slick launch to disgust and virulent opposition of the new levels to which they took their race-card campaigning. I've decided to treck through the Sunday papers on this issue.
Michael Portillo has a superb article in today's Sunday Times. here's a snippet:
The Conservatives' relentless emphasis upon immigration and asylum, [Portillo] said, has compromised their campaign to present themselves as a party that has changed and renewed itself. And this - whatever the reasons for that emphasis - is undoubtedly true. Michael Howard's aides grumble that the media has exaggerated his fixation with immigration and asylum, but their complaint is groundless. The Conservative website declares proudly that the Tory leader has "thrust immigration into the forefront of the election campaign".
Last week Detective Constable Glen Williams accused Michael Howard of pandering to public fears abhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.quote.gif
insert blockquoteout immigration and told him to stop using emotive language and complaining about political correctness. The issue of migrants loomed large during a week that brought discouraging opinion polls for the Conservatives, even if many Tory candidates believed that the issue was going down well on the doorstep, and Howard showed no signs of growing shy about the topic.
However, I think it was the
Saturday Times' cover story that was the greatest blow to the Tories. Their own Shadow Immigration Minister, Humphrey Malins, was caught distributing leaflets in Urdu to his ethnic minority constituents, boasting of how he helped their relatives get visas, while offering white constituents literature claiming he would be working to decrease immigration. We can now chalk him up as another man the Tories should have the decency to deselect as a candidate, alongside Bob "Send Them Home" Spink and Nick "strain put on local schools by bogus asylum seekers" De Bois.
Coming after Tony Blair's brilliant and bold
speech in Dover on Friday, I think the Tories are being crucified on a cross of their own making. They have defined immigration as their only theme for the election, but the fundamental liberal-minded fairness of the British people will react far better to the Prime Minister's balance of practical measures with compassion. The Tories have mobilised the nastiest parts of the Nasty Party at the sake of much of the rest of Britain. This election should have been theirs: Blair's own-goal on Iraq left him vulnerable in a way nobody would have expected after his 1997 victory, which looked set to give Labour power for a generation.
Matthew D'Ancona, in the Telegraph, agrees with Portillo (although he does take the ex-hopeful to task for misrepresenting Conservative economic policy):
On another matter, however, Mr Portillo was quite right last week. The Conservatives' relentless emphasis upon immigration and asylum, he said, has compromised their campaign to present themselves as a party that has changed and renewed itself. And this - whatever the reasons for that emphasis - is undoubtedly true.Michael Howard's aides grumble that the media has exaggerated his fixation with immigration and asylum, but their complaint is groundless. The Conservative website declares proudly that the Tory leader has "thrust immigration into the forefront of the election campaign".
The Sunday Mirror reports a senior Tory informer being desperate for William Hague to return and arguing: "The decision for Michael Howard to focus on immigration was an unmitigated disaster. It meant millions of people thought the party had not changed. It may appease core Tory voters, but it has failed to sway new voters to the party."
There are some staunch defenders of Howard, however.
Matthew Parris makes some frankly bizarre comments in his own Sunday Times column. Quite how he sees the follwoing anecdote to justify xenophobia, and why he equates race and colour (for colour is only once racial feature), is a mystery to me:
Among Londoners I hear Albanian asylum-seekers, Bosnian beggars and Eastern European economic migrants spoken of in precisely the same resentful or angry terms as might be used of immigrants whose skins were a different colour. Among ordinary white Londoners I hear Asian and black Britons spoken of with affection, respect and humour — indeed, not really spoken of as though they were “other ” at all... As an issue, colour is fading.
While it is no surprise that they have muddled up immigration and asylum, even the Sun reports
on Howard's pledge to reject the hypothetical white Zimbabwe farmer, fleeing Robert Mugabe, who is the 20,001st asylum applicant in a year.
His only problem here is that, like many of the clean-minded Tories I talk to, he doesn't seem to appreciate that the Tory immigration policy isn't so much a problem (although the asylum policy is), as the language in which it is being sold. There seems to be a perception that as long as the message is sound, you can get away with having outriders andf mavericks shouting anything they like, and not have it tar your platform with their brush. As
the Jewish man who confronted Michael Howard last Saturday said, this is about what irresponsible idiots take from his rheteric. A kindly and liberal Conservative yesterday rubbished the concept that the Tories would ever actually be Nazi-like xenophobes in office, and dismissed my complaints as hyperbole. But I've never thought the Tories would implement such a nasty system of government- indeed, I doubt there'd be any practical change in immigration at all -it's the insidious effects of their irresponsible campaigning that is objectionable. This is a sensitive issue which deserves to be discussed, but needs to be treated with the upmost care and tact. it isn't good enough to say that race isn't an issue for Michael Howard or yourself; all Tories are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the Conservatives.
Liberal Democrats & The Minimum Wage
[Removed due to factual inaccuracies.]
Things You Don't Hear Very Often (Part 94)
"...Benedict XVI, eh? That came from left field."I don't think Ratty has come into contact with any left fields since the 1950s when he went reactionary.
1952 Committee: First Update, Introducing The 1938 Club
My e-mails to the
1952 Committee's members have started to get replies, so I thought an initial report was in order.
To remind you, this is the assertion of the
1952 committee's website:
The 1952 Committee was created when the Conservative party, under Michael Howard, backed the introduction of ID cards. For some conservative bloggers this was the final straw and many of them started to declare on their blogs that they would not be voting Tory at the next election. I began collecting and listing these declarations under the 1952 Committee heading chosen because it was the year in which Winston Churchill abandoned ID cards in post war Britain.
So far, my replies fall into three camps: 1952 steady, 1952 wobbly and 1952 retreat.
1952 SteadiesThere's a core of 1952 pledgers who have stuck to their guns and still intend to boycott Mr. Howard, and use their blogs to encourage others to consider to do the same.
Starting at home, my co-blogger Ken is in this situation. He's offered
his own post on the matter, essentially saying this:
In many ways, I suppose I have a confession to make. ID cards are not the only issue that have made me drift away from the Tories. Perhaps it would have been better for me to have joined the committee as an honourable member. Why didn't I? Because by and large, that group comprised Eurosceptics, and I did not want my views on Europe to be conflated with theirs.
That said, my lack of support for Michael Howard and the Tory party remains. I have said it before, and I will say it again - the Tories are not interested in small government or civil liberties. If they were, then they would consider the freedom not to carry an ID Card far more important than the freedom to smoke or the freedom to fox-hunt. My vote for the general election is still undecided. Yet if Richard feels better with such an assurance, it will not be in the box marked "Conservative".
Dave at
Cabarfeidh is standing as firm as a guardman:
I'm not voting Tory because of the ID Cards but also because I think that Blair needs to have a third term to confirm how utterly useless Labour et al are. With luck in 4 years they will be thrown out into the wilderness for 50 years. We need fresh 'untainted' blood in the Tory party. Howard does NOT impress me at all. I met IDS once for a tour round a local factory and he was not the weak chinned Guards twit that some people portrayed him as. Once we get rid of the grandees that infect the party we will be unstoppable!
Andy Wood, assures us
'Don't Hold Your Breath' on him changing his stand on ID cards and the Tories:
My current intention is not to vote at all at this election, as I stated in my most recent blog posting. My views on the ID card issue have not changed, and, since you raised the issue on your blog, I'm in favour of free immigration, so I don't approve of their immigration policy either. I don't plan to write any more posts on the election at present.
To clarify things, I'm a libertarian, not a conservative. I just find the Tories marginally more liberal than the other parties on things like tax and trade.
While I'd have thought he might have encouraged Tories to remember Howard's weakness on ID cards, I think he safely makes the "steady" brigade. Andrew, over at
Non-Trivial Solutions, sounds as if he's fairly solid, and I'd encourage him to rouse Labour voters to give Michael Howard his kicking:
Tough call, as it's a toss-up between abstaining and voting Tory as the lesser of two evils. Having said that, I'm not that happy with the timidity of the Tory campaign. I think they could and should go further - opening up clear blue water between the two parties. They're also pretty opportunist, and on the wrong side of the argument, on some issues - notably top-up fees, which any sensible conservative should approve of in principle. On balance, I'll likely abstain. It's partly academic, as I'm in one of the safer Labour seats anyway.
I am mulling over writing a post urging readers to vote Labour back in actually, to give the Tories the kicking they rightly deserve. Trouble is, I'm not sure they'd get the right message.
1952 WobblersIan Grey sounds as if he may relent in voting Tory if his local candidate is opposed to the ID cards. I'd encourage him to check that any promise he gets includes the promise to break a whip on the matter!
I'm definitely of the same opinion, although I haven't ramped it up very fiercely yet.
I've tended to Vote Tory in the past based on the least worst choice, although we have a good Independent standing that will prove interesting.
Surprisingly, our Tory candidate has done the most appealing leaflet so far. I've met him & he is impressive (or would be in Hampstead!). I'm going to question him on ID Cards & also get them all to take the world's smallest political quiz.
1952 RetreatersDespite inclusion on the 1952 Committee,
An Englishman in Philly is a massive supporter of Michael Howard's election campaign; hardly mirroring the 1952 COmmittee's promise to "declare on their blogs that they would not be voting Tory at the next election". He says:
You know my position on this Richard, and you know I'm sticking to my guns against ID cards. My website features amongst the list and Howard did lose my support over the ID cards confusion. The Conservative Party should have been opposed to them outright from the off.
Incidentally, I think this has now been clarified much more and I do not believe a Conservative Government would introduce them. The problem is that it shows/showed a great lack of spine in not standing up to Tony Blair. I would rather see a Tory Government than any other, though (that is not saying much, however!). As such I shall not be campaigning *against* Michael Howard in the way Richard, I suspect, wants me to. Let's not forget, Labour would introduce them and the Liberals are hardly above the fray; Mark Oaten, their Home Affairs spokesman, voted *for* ID cards in a Parliamentary debate on them last year!
I won't back Howard when he does things clearly wrong, but I will unashamedly back Howard when I think he's doing things right. Richard implies he has some criticism for this, but never actually enunciates what it is. My shock at (even tentative) Tory support for this ID card scheme does not preclude me from congratulating other aspects of the party. Likewise, I hope I will salute good policies and approaches of other parties and candidates.
Tim Worstall writes:
As the bill failed, and as they did manage to get their act together (slightly) no, I won't be boycotting them. I'm assured by an old friend (who is a Tory MP) that if and when the issue is reopened the opposition from the Tories will be a lot stronger.
Also, I failed to register in time for my overseas vote.
I shall be recommending a vote of the Tories on the basis that I want Polly Toynbee's head to explode as Howard enters Number 10.
Snafu, who is
Not Proud of Britain, provided a reply on his blog, the essence of which was:
I don't believe that ID cards is THE issue that will swing the electorate come the election. I hope I'm not discouraging people from voting Conservative too much. However, yesterday's Sun seemed to encapsulate my views on the present Conservative party. "When the Tories start acting like Conservatives, they might deserve our support. The Tories talk about “small government” then offer a manifesto that would spend just about as much as Labour. They boast about tax cuts, then promise a pathetic £4billion out of a £630billion total tax haul. On health and education, they offer nothing much more than misty promises."
For our first 1952 Retreaters, I shall offer membership of a new committee, the 1938 Club, dedicated to the spirit of equivocation, in contrast to the bullish defiance of the 1952 committee. While they may still oppose ID cards, the pledge of the 1952 committee was quite clearly expressed in refusing not to vote Tory and withdrawing all support from the Conservative Party. The retreaters will be welcome to use this graphic on their blogs (or a smaller version) to proudly display their membership of the 1938 Club:
More to come...I'm still waiting to hear back from the rest of the 1952 committee blogs. If I get any more responses, I'll report back.
An Encouraging Scheme
Doug Merrill at
A Fistful of Euros today writes some reviews of novels he has recently read. What is most interesting about his selection is that they were all recommended to him through the Süddeutsche Zeitung and a scheme they ran last year, listing
50 great novels of the 20th Century (if you don't understand the site, go and learn some German). Advocating one novel a week, they also arranged some kind of cheap publishing deal where they sold copies for €4,90.
Most encouragingly, Merrill wrote last year about how simply carrying a copy of the book with you was a
great conversation starter. This seems to be testament to the popularity of the scheme, and furthermore underlines the enjoyment that one can gain from reading great books.
The scheme seems to be even greater than just sparking off a whole new social scene, though. As Merrill himself states, the list did not attempt to be categorical. A welcome move away from cheap publicity-seeking. Furthermore, the attempt to encourage people to read a book a week meant that they sought out shorter novels - firstly, taking away the daunting size of many books, and secondly, encouraging people to read the lesser-known novels of great authors.
When I consider the Harry Potter craze in this country alongside the Süddeutsche Zeitung's effort, I am left in awe at our continental counterparts. To many young people, it must seem like Harry Potter is the only thing worth reading. I don't want to discourage youngsters from reading, but I do get depressed when books seem to be equated with one series only. Even now, my local Borders is advertising the launch date of the next book, which isn't until July.
The list is full of books like these, not the heavyweights you would expect from the 50 greatest novels of the 20th century, but the delights you can find when you’re just looking for 50 great novels.
I could scarcely have put it better myself. A popular scheme which shows off all the delights of reading. I can't wait to get finals out of the way and embark on many of them myself.
Doctor Who Goes To War On Labour
Spoilers follow for anyone who hasn't yet watched tonight's Doctor Who and wants to stay "pure" for when they do so.
Who'd have thought it, but tonight's Doctor Who was a really ballsy display by the BBC to broadcast in the middle of an election campaign, post-Hutton and all. For those who missed it, it featured a conspiracy by some capitalist aliens to create a false war that would ruin the earth and leave them free to move in and mine it for fuel to export.
While they avoided portraying the Prime Minister himself as one of the aliens who have a hidden personality within them, the alien plot did involve conning Britain into a war with a fictional enemy over a claim that they were threatened by a superweapon that could be deployed within 45-minutes. And I don't think from that rhetoric it was a leap to consider the fuel-orientated plot of the alien conspirators, in 10 Downing Street, an allegory for the Iraq war.
Whether the media picks up on it or not, I do not know, but it is certainly, I hope, a sign of a renewed self-confidence by the BBC in the face of Labour's bullying. Does this signal a new post-Hutton era? Probably not, but even I am amazed they aired an allegory about Iraq during the campaign.
Not Looking for a New England
The Guardian today carried this article about
general election blogging - whilst, of course, failing to mention the most useful
GE site of them all. It was a pretty lazily researched article that served far more use in filling up space than actually telling the reader anything. So rather like a typical Guardian article, really.
In any case, I particularly wanted to take issue with this comment:
As that bias suggests, the majority of British blogging is leftwing. And almost all the bloggers seem to be male, which suggests at least one institutional problem of the old media has not yet been corrected by the newcomer.
From my experience of blogging and blog-reading, that assertion is not at all the case. Whilst there are some very good left-wing blogs, I tend to find that the average blogger is fairly right-wing, and somewhat reactionary in tendency. This may, of course, be the tendency of bloggers to get stuck into particular circles (ironic, then, that we are in more of a right-wing network given my centrism and Richard's "self-hating white liberal" status).
Why are bloggers generally right-wing, then? Well, my theory is that left wingers want to go out and save the world. Whereas right-wingers prefer moaning about it.
So why do Richard and I pontificate here? Because we're just too lazy to get out of our chairs and change things.
Indirect Elections
I have promised
Frans Groenendijk that I would make some comments about his "hobby horse" of
indirect elections for some time, but never actually got round to it. Here I hope to outline why I consider it to be a bad idea.
The most classic historical example of failed indirect elections is the electoral college used in US presidential elections. The experiences of the 1780s led the Founding Fathers to be highly sceptical about the power of the "mob" in legislatures. The electoral college was devised as a way of picking men of 'wisdom' to choose a Presidential candidate on behalf of the people. From the very start, however, it was the men who announced in advance which candidates they would support who achieved success. In short, the indirect election quickly became direct election by proxy.
Frans would no doubt argue that this is not the sort of model that he envisages for
indirect elections. His fear is much more that of the
pervasive populism which he feels leads to bad policy. The solution, for him at least, is to create a hierarchical model of politics at which elections take place for the lowest level, and then each progressive level votes for the representatives on the one above.
As far as I am concerned, the intention of lessening populism is admirable, but these means of achieving that end would have questionable results. Indeed, I think it would inevitably lead to the polarising of politics into distinct party groupings pervading all levels, and this might have the effect in turn of removing admirable councillors from their positions for decisions which have little to do with them.
The reason for this is accountability. If you did not like George Bush's foreign policy in his first term, for example, you could vote him out directly. A proper constitutional division of powers should see a system instituted in which the responsibility at each layer of government is clearly defined. If, however, a president is dependent upon a lower level not only for support, but for his position, then the desire of the people to choose their leader will result in decisions for the lower level of government being made upon who they promise to vote for at a higher level. In short, the electoral college malaise will pervade more important democratic institutions which have other useful functions.
Powers are delegated to a local level because they are carried out best at that level. For each stage of government there is a different nature to responsibility - and for all of this responsibility elected representatives have to be accountable. Delegating, in effect, this responsibility to a body with a different purpose will see people elected for the wrong reasons. If there are problems with populism, it is the constitution and the people in power who need to be sorted out - not the principle of direct election.
How Europe Killed the Tory Party
In the early 1900s, Joseph Chamberlain courted controversy by launching an attack on the shibboleth of Free Trade, and advocating a system of "Imperial Preference" or "Tariff Reform". Despite the protectionist agenda acquiring a lot of support in the press, the 1906 election saw a Liberal landslide (with Conservative leader, Balfour, losing his seat). This was in many ways unsurprising - not only was Asquith's denunciation of protectionism brilliant, but the issue itself split the party. By the 1910 election, the internal party issue had been largely resolved, yet it was not until much later that the Tories were able to get into power.
It is my belief that Europe has caused much the same sort of problem in the modern day Tories. It has been suggested that, in fact, it was victory in the 1992 election which is responsible for the predicament they are in now. Had Labour won, they would have been saddled with Black Wednesday and the stain on their economic competence; the government would most likely have been shortlived and the Tories returned to power. Such a view has some merit to it - but ultimately it is far too complacent.
Tariff reform, too, was a policy formed in response to economic struggles - in the early 20th century Britain had been usurped as the dominant trading power. I do not want to push these parallels too far. Yet it is undeniable the response of the Major government to the events of Black Wednesday was to sit back and allow the party to self-destruct over the issue of Europe. Backbench rebels threatened to derail the ratification of the Maastricht treaty; meanwhile the divisions in the party were opened up for all to see. It is no surprise that one characteristic of the Blair government in its early years was to taunt the Tories over Europe - leading figures such as Heseltine and Clarke were in favour of joining the single currency (anathema to Eurosceptics), yet the majority of the party was not. It was the simple chance for a government to discredit the opposition by portraying it as riven with splits - even if the government papered over its own cracks with the promise of a referendum.
The promise of a referendum of joining the euro was a political masterstroke by Blair - one made even more potent by the ineptness of Hague in continuing to make a general election issue out of "Keep the Pound". That the Tories chose in 2001 to focus on the issue of Europe was a mistake similar (if less racist) than the one they are making now, for it made them seem like a single issue party. Worse still, the party could not agree on the single issue. And, in any case, the voting public didn't see a huge problem with Labour policy anyway, for they would retain the ability to decide on the euro themselves.
The 2001 election was, of course, a "core vote" campaign. The Tories were faltering badly in the polls and the fear was that if the core vote didn't turn out, the results could have been yet more embarrassing for the party than they were. Insofar as appealing to the core goes, it was a sensible strategy, for the overwhelming majority of party membership is virulenty Eurosceptic (and I use that word deliberately, for their usual brand of Euroscepticism is highly dangerous).
The successive Shadow Cabinets of IDS and Michael Howard have confirmed the party purge. When figures like John Bercow and Damian Green were consigned to the back benches in September, it was a clear signal that the Tories were going to become nothing other than a totally Eurosceptic party. The party is now less divided on Europe than it has been at any other time in the last 20 years, and possibly for longer still.
Yet the party is still dead. Why? The reason is simple. The purge of the Europhiles has cleaved away the left-wing of the party - the side of the party with the moderate, electable, popular faces like Ken Clarke and Chris Patten. Why this divide occurs so clearly on a left-right basis within the party, I have no idea. But it is nonetheless true, and the fact that rabid Euroscepticism plays so well to the party faithful has led to the election of a disastrous leader (IDS) and means that right-wing rhetoric is in the mainstream in the party. Hence why Howard has been able to get away with such a racist campaign in this election.
The Tories' obsession with Europe over the last ten years has been nothing short of a national embarrassment. Howard's "countries have constitutions" campaign for the European elections last year typifies the low level to which political debate in this country has sunk. Worse still for the party, it has ruined their electability. Not only has Europe consistently failed to provide a distinctively appealing voice to the party, it has taken the party down a road that has made it more and more extreme - to the point of pandering not only to prejudice, but to outright racism. Europe typifies why the Tories are so out of touch with the mainstream of politics at the moment, for when you mention the words they become shrill and hysterical. Until they can soften on Europe, I find it hard to believe they will soften elsewhere.
St. George's day? How un-English.
Yesterday, Ken drew attention to an excellent Times editorial which mirrors my long-held views on this matter perfectly. Nationalism and those cringe-worthy public shows of patriotism are for young and insecure nations, such as United States. A pleasure in English culture is traditionally and, in my mind, best expressed in quiet and simple contentment, free from any over-excited and flashy celebrations.
This is best summed up for me in the introduction of George Mikes' How To Be An Alien (a truly hilarious guide by Mikes, a Central European immigrant, on Englishness). Bear in mind that his 1940s use of "race" simply means "people":
On the Continent almost every nation whether little or great has openly declared at one time or another that it is superior to all other nations; the English fight heroic wars to combat these dangerous ideas without ever mentioning which is really the most superior race in the world.
It would be thoroughly un-English to be so rude as to assert there was anything superior about England, or to be so crass and flashy as to salute flags or loudly sing songs. Let's leave that to people who need to create muscial extravaganzas in place of heritage and genuine contentment. Any discourse on liberty will be sufficient to remind us, without being so crass as to state it, that England is, in the broad view, top nation. ;-)
The Tory Strikes Back
I've already had one response to my attack on Tory immigration policy, which helps to confirm my views on this matter, and censure of those who are disgusted by Howard's tactics, but cheerily support his party and these values.
An Englishman In Philly wrote:
Finally, turning to Richard's point about immigration, I have to state that immigration and asylum are not issues which get my blood pumping. Nevertheless, I will still take issue with this statement, which I reject in its entirety:
"On immigration, there is now a moral divide separating the Tories and the BNP from the political mainstream, which economic conservatives and other natural Tories should be careful to note. No matter whether you think the rhetoric on immigration is slightly misplaced-- you have pinned your stripes to the standard of these people."
To lump the Conservative Party, worse, to lump people like me, in moral equivalence with the BNP is categorically wrong, and mildly offensive. This is one unfortunate example, amongst many, of people who disagree with the Tory stance on immigration trying to scandalise it rather than to substantively criticise it.
I think its factually right to lump you together, even if your party's spinning skills are superior, and please make no mistake that I am aware it is fairly offensive to brand you in such manner. However, as I have suggested: you stand shoulder-to-shoulder with these views. Nobody expects all members of a party to endorse everything its other members ever say, but when we are talking about the single issue on which Michael Howard has been pushing, and the fact that he refuses to castigate Bob Spink and his friends- indeed, he approved the ad, it seems -you can hardly claim this is just a wing you can dismiss without ignoring the entire party.
I am aware that some people do not like immigration/accepting refugees due to the fact they are racist. Nevertheless, this does not permit the logical leap that anybody who has concerns about the immigration system, or who attacks its shortcomings, or who attacks those who abuse its rules, is necessarily a racist.
The fact is the Conservative Party should be doing more to make sure these accusations are as easily rebuttable as possible. This is because you should never allow your position to be misrepresented and because, from an electoral point of view, it suits Labour and the Liberals if they can avoid real arguments over the issue by smearing the Conservatives.
And here you ignore my point, Ed. Because I am not objecting to immigration being an issue, but the way in which Howard has deliberately played it from the start.
Richard has unwittingly done the same here and misrepresented what Michael Howard and the Tory candidate in question said in order to help his argument. All this does is push me closer to a campaign which I, if I were running it, would pitch very differently.
I can accept that the statements they actually made could be misinterpreted, but when Howard is simultaneously paying tribute to what economic immigrants and many legitimate refugees have brought to the country I really do not feel you can call it, justifiably, a racist campaign.
Calling an opinion you don't like "outside the political mainstream" rather than tackling it head on does nothing to debunk that opinion and, if anything, strengthens it. I, and I believe many in the country, do not care what is "mainstream". We care about what's right.
By ostracising the language and tone Howard is using, I am not refusing to debate it, so much as saying that he is moving beyond the pale of sensible debate. When people tell you 'all property is theft' you know your poilitical discussions with them are going to be a bit bizarre, because they're so detached from any rational form of discourse. The same is true in the way the Tories are pursuing this issue, and anyone tainted by association with the Tory campaign should be ashamed.
A Letter To Enfield District Council
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to Enfield Council to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act for statistics relating to the percentages of pupils at primary or secondary schools in Enfield who are the children of asylum seekers, with cases which are still pending, or whether such figures can be provided regarding the situation in the recent past.
I would also be interested to know if you can provide me with information regarding problems of over-crowding in Enfield's schools; for example, the average pupil : teacher ratio across all schools compared to a decade ago, and the number of children who are unable to attend their first choice of school in the district.
I would be interested in all records, whether in electronic, paper or other forms.
I am interested as to whether Conservative candidate for Enfield North, Nick De Bois, can possibly be correct in asserting "bogus asylum seekers" are to blame for "the strain on local schools". (We have no way of knowing if the asylum seekers with children at Enfield schools are "bogus", of course, but it will be revealing to see what percentage is made up by the children of applicants whose cases have not been decided).
Naturally, I will be interested to hear of any photocopying charges you advise me will be necessary to provide the information, as required by the Act.
Yours sincerely,
Richard.
The Golden Age of Crime?
The nicest of all raving right-wingers,
Laban Tall, has recently tried to dismiss suggestions that crime is genuinely at an all-time high, despite the scepticism of (doubtlessly self-hating and white) "liberals".
The problem for him is, of course, that crime is historically under-reported, so that comparisons with modern times are very difficult, and that the government has recently (and commendably) recategorized offenses so that all individual offenses, not merely the number of offenders sentenced, count.
So, it is actually likely that this is, at best, a silver age for criminals, at best.
Nazis, Board Games & Kicking Benedict
There's been a lot of press coverage of Benedict XVI, of course, in recent days, but one thing that disgusts me is the fixation on his membership of the Hitler Youth. The fact that it is spoken about in the Indie, Times and the Guardian as a secret shame is slightly immature.
Germany's biggest obstacle to overcoming its Nazi past is the continuation of Nazification in a legal industry of guilt and repression, where Fascism is treated as a powerful secret that must be suppressed in order to prevent Germans being reinfected with it again. The presumptions behind those laws banning swastikas and copies of Mein Kampf are truly ridiculous.
A recent example in my own hobby reinforces this point: one board games company, the
Australian Design Group, took its latest product,
7 Ages, to the Essen fair in Germany last October. It featured a small swastika logo alongside the epoch-defining images of human history in small images around the box's cover. (Since removed from later printings). On seeing it, German customs officers siezed the entire consignment and the individuals involved now suffer stiff penalties for their accidental infringement of the law.
Germany has quite evidently outgrown its past, and could well do with the final and most important stage of de-Nazification: trusting Germans with their own history, by removing these fundamentally illiberal and patronising laws. The British media's obssession with a young boy's involevemnt in the Hitler Youth, and the implicit presentation of it as a scandal, is quite pathetic. Let's grow up, and hope Germany's anti-Nazi laws grow up too.
Disenfranchised
I am gutted.
I know it is silly, but... I actually feel heart-broken.
My landlady has forgotten to comply with my request to be listed on the electoral roll, and I am hence ineligible to vote. Now, Oxford West is a safe LibDem seat, but even so, I feel like I'm spiritually diminished by being denied the chance to go and put a cross in the box. I'm... gutted.
But then I remembered an episode of the West Wing, where Donna Moss accidentally voted Republican, and then found a Republican to vote Democrat in order to redress the balance.
I'm therefore going to ask anybody reading this, who lives in Oxford West, and who was intending not to vote at all, if they'd e-mail me, and agree to a similar honourable vote-swap? You vote Lib Dem, and I don't vote; each on the other's behalf.
I'd love to see this happen, so I do implore you to make me feel a little bit better about myself by contacting me if you, or anyone you know, was intending to abstain.
Some of my best friends are Conservatives, but...
Today is the 37th anniversary of Enoch Powell's rivers of blood speech, nobody else seems to have noticed.
This week, I have become angry. Very angry.
The newspaper each day seems to have carried new escalations of the Tories' campaign to use race as an issue in this election. There is, obviously, a place for a discussion of immigration and the practical ways to enforce it. If we lived in a situation where there was any political difference between the parties on controlled vs. uncontrolled immigration, then there may be some justification. But the Tory campaign is clearly manufactured to whip up fear, hatred and play on people's prejudices or concerns.
Last weekend, one caller ina talkshow Howard was doing argued that racially-motivated abuse increased, for him, whenever politicains starting discussing immigration in the way the Tories have being doing. Today's Independent features five quotes from Tory candidates, all of which Michael Howard has refused to censure. Earliest in the week, Bob Spink, candidate for Castle Point asked 'Which part of "send them back" don't you understand, Mr. Blair?' Since then, Nick De Bois (in Enfield North) has promised to campaign against the problems in local schools, all caused by 'bogus asylum seekers' in the constituency, apparently. Anne Main in St. Albans referred to 'five illegal immigrants' arrested but not charged by police in her constituency. The comments, 'Nodbody knows if these people were criminals, carrying diseases, or even where they went.'
Taken in isolation, some of these could be unfortunate statements of immigration issues. But together, they present an irrefutable pattern of deliberate racist fear-mongering, desperate to scare voters and create resentment of immigrants in Britain. This seems to be the second wave of the attack begun with the
"It's not racist to impose limits on immigration. Are you thinking what we're thinking?" posters. The first half is bland- although misleading, as economic migration is already limited, when the Tories presumably refer to quotas on asylum, which is a completely different issue -but the second part solicits the reader to pick up a nod and a wink that the Tories are thinking something, secretly, that they can't publicly express on the issue. A dog whistle, indeed, to latent racism or prejudices.
The great irony is of course Michael Howard's own background. He seems to take pride in his "kick-the-ladder-down-behind-me" situation. He should be even more ashamed of himself, and stop hiding behind his grandmother's fate in the Nazi death camps to as a means by which to avoid standing up to his own responsibility for his gutless course of action.
I think there is an amazing rose-tint to the glasses of many Tory supporters who enthuse about this election campaign, as if it were any other. I can understand and admire Conservatives who argue for low taxation, public service retrenchment and other key Conservative values, even if I do not agree with them. Such discussions do not have any bearing on my perception of them as friends, and I respect their honestly-held opinions.
But there are lines that cannot be crossed. In a recent post on
the AUT's misguided attempts to ban Israeli acadmeics from intellectual communion, I commented that I could count many pro-Sharon Jews amongst my friends, because I could see that the complex web of rivalries and bitterness that has produced a bi-polar Middle East conflict. In contrast, I could never feel the same way about, picking an idle example, a racist.
The point is fast approaching when natural Conservatives, who do not themselves back the use of racial hatred as an electoral weapon, need to decide exactly where they stand: whether they will array themselves with the forces of cheap bigotry or stand for something bigger than mere tribalist loyalty, and shun Michael Howard.
Robert Kilroy-Silk wanted to "kill" the Tories. I wanty this election to, in psephological terms, "kill" the Tories, UKIP and the BNP. Forget Tony Blair-- he's a busted flush and whilst my personal preference is to turf out Labour candidates in favour of LibDems where you can safely do so (for example, Oxford East!), I'd encourage anyone in a Lab-Tory or Lib-Tory marginal to vote for the party with a realistic chance of defeating the candidate standing on the Conservative platform. tactical voting worked in 1997 to unseat some tired and uninspiring Tories; in 2005, it is far more important to punish the Conservative party for this course of action. Anybody who stands as a candidate for the party, holds membership of it or votes for it, stands, with Michael Howard, shoulder-to-shoulder with Bob "Send Them Home" Spink. The guilt of such appalling racism, deliberately recalling the 1960s dialogue on forced repatriation, stains anybody who supports the Tory party, even if they would like to pretend they're supporting it for other reasons and would just like to ignore that part of the Conservative platform.
I am shamed to live in a country where an election campaign has ended up descending to this level of gutter terrorisation. If there is one immigrant to send back where he came from, it's Lynton Crosby. I have no doubt he will find that his cheap Australian fear-mongering will not work in Britain, but I sinscerely hope the failure will be compounded, to destroy Crosby's reputation along with Howard's.
Already, I have been told that this stance is "mildly offensive" by one Tory. Tough. Your candidates are more than "mildly offensive" and there are some issues where I'm not going to nod and say "well, you're entitled to your opinion," without going on to object. These tactics are outside the spectrum of reasonable political debate, and have utterly shattered the bounds of decency I can accept.
I intended to sit out this campaign as a partial and interested commentator. Thanks to Michael Howard, I intend to spend the rest of it as an anti-Tory crusader. I know he, nor anyone else, will care that I'm so cross, but if I can convince one Tory voter to withold their ballot, it'll be worth it.
The 1952 Committee
I believe Richard has some interesting results from his survey of the
1952 Committee. But I won't steal his thunder on that. What I do want to do is respond to the email that he sent out to all members of the committee, including myself.
Asks Richard:
I was wondering if you are still intending to boycott the Tories over this issue at the next election, and if you'll be posting on your blog to encourage others not to vote for Michael Howard, based on this issue?
I think my position on
ID cards is fairly unequivocal. There are no circumstances that I can think of - and certainly none which I can see being applicable in the near future in Britain - which can remotely justify this full frontal assault on our fundamental civil liberties. That was my position when I joined the 1952 Committee, and it is my position now. I was pleased to see that the Tories prevented the Bill passing Parliament before its dissolution; however, in the absence of any statement from the Tories attaching their opposition to such a measure, they have no chance of winning back my support.
I would like to say here, however, that I think the vehemence of Richard's attack on conservative bloggers comes from his recent anger at the Howard campaign of the last week. I share this anger, and think that allusions to the Bradford race riots are exactly the sort of comments which stoke up racial tension, and racial hatred, and to which Trevor Philips referred to in a recent interview with the Times. This should not direct itself towards anger at the 1952 Committee over ID cards.
In many ways, I suppose I have a confession to make. ID cards are not the only issue that have made me drift away from the Tories. Perhaps it would have been better for me to have joined the committee as an honourable member. Why didn't I? Because by and large, that group comprised Eurosceptics, and I did not want
my views on Europe to be conflated with theirs.
That said, my lack of support for Michael Howard and the Tory party remains. I have said it before, and I will say it again - the Tories are not interested in small government or civil liberties. If they were, then they would consider the freedom not to carry an ID Card far more important than the freedom to smoke or the freedom to fox-hunt. My vote for the general election is still undecided. Yet if Richard feels better with such an assurance, it will not be in the box marked "Conservative".
St George's Day
Patrick West in today's Times doesn't like the idea of
celebrating it:
There have been cries once again this year for the English to celebrate our patron saint, and for the English to take pride in our ethnicity. William Hague and Simon Heffer have done so recently, and the likes of Garry Bushell and Billy Bragg have been campaigning tiresomely on this subject for some years now. If these are the kind of people you want to hold street parties with, then you are most welcome to them.
I don't know about you, but I'd quite like to see a street party with Billy Bragg and Simon Heffer. Could be good for a few laughs...
The 1952 Committee: A Follow-Up
When the Conservative Party lost its nerve and backed the ID cards bill introduced by the Government, a group of Tories admirably signed themselves up to the
1952 committee-- pledging that they had quit their party over ID cards and would not support the Tories at the next election.
The 1952 Committee was created when the Conservative party, under Michael Howard, backed the introduction of ID cards. For some conservative bloggers this was the final straw and many of them started to declare on their blogs that they would not be voting Tory at the next election. I began collecting and listing these declarations under the 1952 Committee heading chosen because it was the year in which Winston Churchill abandoned ID cards in post war Britain.
This website features on the 1952 committee website, as Ken signed up to the same pledge. My question to those bloggers is: are you going to stick to that promise? I'll send an e-mail to every standard member of the 1952 committee and see if they are still willing to publicly repudiate the Conservative Party and stick to their guns. I will report back on my results.
The 1952 committee made a stand on an issue where they felt fundamental civil liberties were at sake, and I hope that people who proudly boasted of their principles on that issue then will stick to them now. Even if they don't, I hope the immigration issue will make many of the more moderate Conservatives I know rethink their vote before polling day.
Michael Howard, Tories & The 1952 Committee
EDIT: Criticism of the original version of this post, for its conflation of two separate issues, was warranted, and the initial draft could have benefitted from longer gestation. I am therefore republishing it as two separate posts.
Habemus Papam
"You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find, you get what you need."
So, I wanted a
liberal Pope. From what I know of the Cardinals, Benedict XVI wouldn't have been my
first choice. Nor my
second, nor my
third, nor even a
favoured compromise (yes, I like liberal cardinals). Yet I have read the liberal press's denunciation of Joseph Ratzinger with dismay. In particular, the focus of some of the English guttter press on his history as having been a member of the Hitler Youth and the German Army during WW2 I have found ridiculous. Firstly, it wasn't as if he exactly had a choice in the matter, and secondly, there are far more things that they could attack him for if they really wanted to. To focus on what he was made to do by an evil regime when he was very young is lazy journalism of the worst kind.
Additionally, the press keep propounding the story that "the biggest problem facing the Church is how to tackle poverty in the Third World." Well, the election of Cardinal Ratzinger suggests otherwise. In fact, it is tackling the lack of spirituality the world over, with particular focus on the First World, that his election would suggest is the major issue the Catholic Church wants to address. Far from it being a papacy that will bend over backwards to reach out to other faiths, my guess would be that Ratzinger will instead try and embark on a period of theological orthodoxy and focus on what he considers to be the essential teachings of the church. He won't have the common touch and the public persona John Paul II had, but then again I doubt he would want it that way either.
The immediate detractors of Pope Benedict XVI should remember that God moves in mysterious ways, however. Who would really have thought that the Son of God would be born to the family of a carpenter in a stable in Nazareth? Who would have suggested that a frail old man with a very public suffering would do so much to restore an image of dignity to the Church? I have my own opinions of how the Catholic Church could try and restore the declining spirituality of the West - in short, to focus on good works, good thoughts, and concentrating less on regulating the actions of an individual's life. Not that my opinion counts for much. What cannot be denied, however, is that Cardinal Ratzinger has his own thoughts on this. And for all that liberals may be disappointed by the election of "God's Rottweiler", they might be inclined to remember that the best is often the enemy of the good.
What is Michael Howard Thinking?
The
latest polls are all showing that the Tories campaign is
faltering quite badly. Indeed, it is beginning to resemble the ill-fated Hague campaign of 2001. It never really got going, and then derailed when Bill tried to turn it into a referendum on the euro. Only this time there are increasingly
sinister undertones to the Howard rhetoric.
I think Anthony Howard was spot on in today’s Times when he said that “dog whistle” tactics ran the risk of shoring up the Labour vote
far more effectively than Blair ever could.
Lynton Crosby may have won several elections in Australia by a major focus on immigration. But the hyperbole of the Tory campaign was never going to be sustainable for a month. What was a very effective means of making the Tories seem to be major players in the campaign is now making them sound shrill, reactionary, and dangerous. Getting Alan Milburn to apologise for Home Office handling of an individual case has failed to be turned into an advantage.
Surely this must put into doubt Crosby’s status as a know-all guru? A focus on immigration could have shifted subtlely on to an issue like crime, and then from there to a debate on public services. Now any change in tactics will look like reacting to the polls rather than the Tories setting the agenda themselves. If it wasn’t for the severe unpopularity of Blair, another landslide would surely be almost inevitable.
Blogging Lessons
It occurs to me that blogging could be something teachers should consider as a powerful tool to enthuse children, while covering important basic skills across a wide range of subjects. As well as some (negligible) IT skills, PSE subjects and current affairs are a straight match with the typical content of blogs, and hopefully an interest in sophisticated and correct English can be encouraged.
Election Agenda
There is an excellent article here by
Mike Baker about the usual patterns political press conferences follow, and how unrelated the media questions are to the issue at hand:
In each of their manifesto launches, the three main parties in England have given prominence to education.
Last weekend Tony Blair repeated his mantra of “education, education, education”. During the week, all three parties held national news conferences dedicated to education issues.
So, for once, the politicians have a point when they accuse the media of setting the election agenda.
I’m very interested to read this, because
I wrote something very similar myself at about the time of the Howard Flight affair. Journalists are far more interested in what they think the big story is rather than actually concentrating on the “issues” that really affect people. And yet when they talk about voter apathy, they say politicians never want to talk about their policies!
What will come of this?
Maybe I'm just a hopeless cynic. I've just signed the Labour NHS petition - yes, I want a free NHS, but to be quite honest the petition is meaningless guff and I suspect they just want the email address to spam me for the rest of the campaign. I signed largely because there was a comments section, where I added the comment: "After eight years in government can you only hope for re-election by peddling such lies?"
That is because the Tory policy is not to introduce charges for NHS operations in the slightest. In fact, if the policy works (and I don't suggest it will, nor am I necessarily a fan of it), then it should have the effect of costing the NHS less per operation and reducing NHS waiting lists. That seems a good idea to me. Of course, it may lead to private health firms increasing their charges massively to incorporate the state subsidy they would get. But the policy has some merit, and it certainly isn't introducing charges like Labour mendaciously contend.
So, what do you think? Will Labour actually bother responding to my comment, or will I have to go and track down my local Labour candidate? And how many emails will I get before the campaign ends?
Spotted in Borders today...
... a man reading the book "Mormonism for Dummies". How appropriate.
More from Stockton South
I have already mentioned earlier the
Tory campaign to win Stockton South - the reason I consider this interesting is more down to the celebrity candidate than down to serious belief a Tory victory there will place them in line to get an overall majority.
The Tories are cultivating the constituency quite strongly. On the first day of campaigning, Theresa May visited, and yesterday Michael Howard made
his comments condemning
Labour immigration policy in the wake of the
ricin plot trial whilst on a visit there.
As far as I can tell, there has been no similar attention paid by leading Labour figures. Now, in the last election, too, many leading Tories went to the constituency. We know how
successful that was. But the genuine problems facing the Labour Party -
most notably apathy - may actually see a minor shock sprung here.
Why Kennedy's cock up is really priceless
While I hope I am not sounding like a hopeless optimist, I wonder if the papers' widespread mockery of Charles Kennedy's blear-eyed cock-up yesterday, as he launched his party's manifesto and jumbled his party's council tax plans, aren't as disastrous as they make out. There are probably few people out there who care about politicians being grave and authoritative figures who still consider Charles Kennedy to be one. Amongst committed enemies of his party, this is of course a gift-- living proof of their belief that LibDem tax promises are pie-in-the-sky idealist shallowness.
The thing is, for the genuinely floating voter, the fact that a man is looking rough in the morning, a few days after the birth of his first child, may not be such a grave crime. Kennedy's reputation as an intellectual juggernaught hasn't been destroyed, because it never existed-- on the contrary, his image as a sincere and fallible everyman is enhanced.
So, while the columnists may jeer and partisan enemies will mock, I think such a genuine cock up may be the sort of political capital that is, because you can't stage it, truly priceless.
Old Labour, New Labour, and Federalist #10
The last few weeks have seen "liberal hawks" such as Johann Hari, David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen all writing election articles imploring the anti-war left not to abandon the Labour Party. It's all a return to the lovey-dovey Labour values, and asking the question - will the Tories really be a better alternative? In so doing, they are signifying the threat New Labour really feels scared of - the apathy of the core vote.
It's amazing, but this is explainable by looking back at James Madison's superb essay in the Federalist. The real contribution of the Founding Fathers to political philosophy didn't come so much through the document of the constitution itself. It was far too much of a "compromise document" to contribute to constitutional thought, but in the ratification debate afterwards, Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay wrote a series of essays that in many ways redefined republicanism.
Opponents of the constitution argued that the new government was doomed to fail because republican government could only work if there was a broad unity of interest among the political community. In Federalist number 10, Madison turned this on its head. A broad community with a vast number of interests was actually preferable, because no single interest could then act as a controlling influence, pernicious to wider liberty. Instead, a whole host of interests would have to compromise, and this process would make sure government served the wider community as far as was possible under any frame of government.
The Old Labour - New Labour marriage always seemed to be pretty tenuous. But after 18 years of Tory (Thatcherite Tory!) rule, the left were sufficiently hungry for power that Blair and pals were able to convince them that without appealing to the centre ground, the dream of power was to remain just that. The unremittingly Blairite tone of government is now seeing this collapse. Previously, it was considered worth supporting Blair to keep the Tories out. Now, with PFI in hospitals, war in Iraq, the introduction of ID cards, massive increases to tuition fees, the old left are getting restless and increasingly vocal in their rebellion.
None of this is new, of course. But the coalition of interests needed to give Labour its huge majorities is looking increasingly fragile - indeed, it will survive largely because the opposition parties have been unable to form similar coalitions of their own (if I get prodded to do so, I will blog about why the Tories seem so unelectable in the near future). The arguments of Hari, Aaronovitch and co, therefore, are a last ditch attempt to try and prove that if they compromise to work on their common ground, they can keep power and achieve something.
So never mind the trust, or the private money ploughing into public services, or the development of the internal market - let's look at the achievements made for the poor. The minimum wage, the minimum income guarantee, SureStart programmes etc, etc. Surely the Tories would reverse these?
My guess is that a marriage based on keeping another party out will not last long. If Blair is voted in with a reduced majority, the spectre of backbench rebellion becomes genuinely potent. If rebellion is consistent enough to paralyse the government, Brown may well have many more problems when he comes in to take power than he may envisage now. And this could allow modernising Tories to reclaim the centre ground and finally return to power. All hypothesising, of course. But it is amazing to see just how prescient Madison's arguments remain when one turns to analyse the bedrock of political support.
Darlington Double-Talk
I wouldn’t have thought this was the most sensible thing for
Anthony Frieze, Conservative candidate in Darlington, to have been saying:
In Anthony’s view the vote reinforced the region’s, and Darlington’s, reputation for plainspeaking and straight talking; qualities that were conspicuously lacking in the Darlington area’s two MPs: “Tony Blair and Alan Milburn may be the MPs for this region but they are not of this region!”, Anthony declared.
Let’s look back at that biography again:
Anthony is currently a director at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein in the City of London where he works with pension funds and institutional fund managers to improve investment returns by lending out their portfolios. He has been working in finance since leaving university…
Before standing for Parliament Anthony was determined to build a career outside politics, to experience the wider world and to start a family. Having done so, he is now enjoying getting to know the people of Darlington, not as a political “animal” but as someone who has had life experiences to which they can relate.
I love it when young candidates in no-hope seats try to make it sound as if they are genuinely committed to their constituency rather than waiting to be parachuted into a safe seat a couple of elections down the line.
Let’s try another one:
The family knows the North-East of England well from frequent holidays.
Well, that’s me convinced.
Are you spoofing what we're spoofing?
It had to happen...
Someone has had the genius to create a website on which you can
generate your own Tory election posters.
My efforts so far:
'That's all, Folkestone' for Howard?
In the discussion of the Tories' maybe-future-leader David Davies,
on this blog, Nosemonkey mentioned the interesting
Private Eye suggestion that Michael Howard himself was in for a genuinely difficult ride. While I had assumed LibDem threats on Folkestone were mere sabre-rattling,
the Eye reckons that the situation is ripe for a shock. Howard's Labour rival in the seat, where the LibDems are placed second, is a convert to Blairism since 2001 and was a fairly prominent Tory before that. While the dear comrades in Folkestone have carried on voting Labour all these years despite their appalling chances, there is talk that a significant number may vote LibDem tactically... and if that happens, Howard's in trouble.
Then again, the fact it's tipped in Private Eye probably means it won't happen.
Eavesdropping On The 8.56 to Paddington
Who should I find sitting opposite me this morning on the train but a Labour MP from a fairly marginal constituency?
While I couldn't make up anything of the NEC papers he was reading, it was amusing to hear his discussion with an aide regarding the fight squaring up in Bethnal Green. When George Galloway's verbal fisticuffs with Oona King were raised, and the fact that Galloway was threatening to unseat one of the few black women MPs (to which he has argued that she had voted for a war that killed people with darker skin than hers) , he remarked "yes, but it is Oona King, which does go a long way to justifying it". With friends like those, Oona may be in trouble...
As for the dismal attendence of MPs on the Friday of the Labour Party conference each year? Look to some new three-line-whip methods from Labour to increase the audience.
Libertarians, Radicals, and the British Perception of the State
Despite their relative lack of strength in the British MSM, the BritBlog scene is full of libertarian voices - most notably at
Samizdata and
Tim Worstall. Their basic position is that any state intervention is bad, and that people achieve far more when left to their own endeavours than when controlled in whatever form by an intervening authority. This leads to an intriguing mix of positions, being very socially liberal on matters such as ID cards, prostitution and drugs, and yet in many ways far more right-wing on crime. I, for one, have been engaged in many running debates with them as regards the right to shoot criminals who illegally enter their home.
Their running refrain (especially on Samizdata) is that "the state is not your friend". It is this mantra, I feel, which precludes them from becoming a strong force in British politics. Despite some of the best efforts of Margaret Thatcher, the state has always been viewed as a power for good in the British system. This will hopefully be the first in a series of posts where I try and analyse various aspects of the British political system with respect to the view of the competence of the state.
This is because Britain is almost unique in never having a form of government totally and utterly discredited. Even though Cromwell prevailed in the Civil War, he himself could not repudiate the hereditary principle, passing power to his son Richard, who was eventually forced into acceding to the Restoration. Despite another monarchical crisis occurring just 30 years afterwards, the ultimate settlement was to rewrite the constitution to assert the rights of Parliament in the Bill of Rights so as to limit the independent exercising of monarchical power.
In short, the royal prerogative has never been successfully overthrown in Britain. Paradoxically, it now resides (almost) entirely with the people, through the principle of the "Crown-in-Parliament". What this means in practical terms is that there are no real constitutional limits on the operation of power. Yes, the Lords may act as a restraining factor, but it can only slow things down, rather than definitively stop them. The limits of political power rest solely with what is pragmatically expedient.
Other countries, on the other hand, have experienced violent revolutions which have tempered their attitude towards political power. In America, it was the "arbitrary rule" of George III and the British Parliament which made them place written limits on the actions of government. The theory of the Bill of Rights (in a US context) is one which recognises all power as resting with the people, except where expressly delegated. Although more statist, the German hierarchical model of power finds restraints on uncontrolled power by playing local forces (expressed in local government and the Bundesrat) against national and supranational ones. Even the French centralising view of the state is by no means universal - experiences before the Revolution, of the Terror and of Napoleonic rule are engrained on the national mindset. A totally statist government would not allow liberty and equality to be viewed as non-contradictary principles.
Britain, by contrast, has maintained a benign view of Parliament. Whilst the rest of the continent convulsed in revolutions of different kinds in 1848, British radicalism focused on extending the franchise. Power was not to be seized in a violent overthrow, but through reasoned arguments, demonstrations, and the extension of the franchise so that all could have their say in Parliament. Similarly, whilst continental movements in the decades before the First World War concentrated on the espousal of radical socialist doctrine, the trades union movement in Britain moderated the Labour Party, and kept it focusing on incremental change through measures such as working reform. Certainly radical overthrow of the political structures was out of the question.
These views have been further entrenched by the extension of the welfare state following the end of the Second World War. In short, the state has always adapted to the political pressures it has found itself under; in this way, it has been able to buy off its opponents in times of danger, and maintained a constitutional right to unlimited legislative power. For all that we may complain about the extension of state power, without a proper movement for constitutional change, we are actually powerless to stop it, short of a viable alternative being presented at the ballot box.
The thing is, no party has ever truly presented itself to the country offering a genuine small government programme. The Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher came close in their attempts at privatisation, but her instincts were always to bring things under personal control than to allow significant local latitude. This is not surprising, for it continues in a long line of British tradition. At the start of the 20th century, for example, when the social policy of Britain became more “interventionist”, there were still significant powers concentrated in local government. The policy of funding new programmes through the “block grant”, which allowed government control over local expenditure, was an effective means of making sure the will of the government was upheld.
The libertarian argument has some basic merit to it – force the individual to take responsibility for his or her actions, and with that, society will improve. In a British context, however, many of the specific arguments are redundant because people see the state as a benign behemoth. Michael Howard’s rhetoric about “rewarding those who play by the rules” is a case in point – the state decides what the rules are, yet we are happy to reward those who adhere to them. We could not support such language if, as the Samizdatans would have us believe, the state was not our friend.
Belief in the state is a remarkably secure way of living. In a fantastic essay written for The Cricketer, and later reproduced in his classic book Beyond a Boundary, CLR James (an unapologetic Marxist) bemoaned the defensive style of cricket becoming more and more prevalent, blaming it on the “welfare state of mind” (admittedly, I like this essay so much because it attempts to link styles of sporting play to cultural phenomena). And yet, has a statist world view really cost Britain so much in the past? After all, even our original support of free trade was in the knowledge that Britain’s productive and naval capacities were so much stronger than any other country – and thus Britain was the almost guaranteed winner in the absence of trade barriers.
As yet, the answer to the question posited in the previous paragraph is no. There haven’t been serious problems. The difficulty facing a constitutional reformer like myself is that all my arguments are based upon theory and hypothetical situations – and little has happened in Britain to suggest that the potential pitfalls of the system are likely occurrences. Tories and Labour differ in which areas they would like the state to rule, and who they want the state to benefit. They most certainly do not differ fundamentally over issues of big and small government. In short, just about all mainstream political instincts in Britain reside in the state.
When Tony Blair was accosted by a member of the audience on a chat show earlier this year, her revulsion was not at benefits. It was where they were directed that caused the problem. "The people who have to pay the taxes that keep the country going; we want our share for our families and our children." When the liberal left insist on directing funds at education programmes to keep children off the street, the right do not respond by holding the right to defend property personally inviolable – instead, they argue for more police and tougher prison sentencing. It’s a reallocation of the state they want, not a fundamental reassessment of its competence. And until that is changed, the fundamentalist libertarian windbags will be fighting in vain.
Nasty Tories
I can't help but feel that if
this candidate had been standing anywhere other than Dorset South (the most marginal Labour constituency in the country), then this wouldn't have received anywhere near
the attention it did.
What surprises me is that the Tories seem to be missing a trick with the original photo. Their focus on immigration being "out of control" gives them the image of the "nasty party", which, as Richard pointed out yesterday, is deeply ingrained in Britain's culture. Having a candidate in such a marginal seat campaigning for an asylum seeker to
stay in the country shows that there is a human, pragmatic side to the policy.
Surely Ed Matts really doesn't believe that Michael Howard's pronouncements on immigration are ambiguous or vague? Yet by doctoring a photo he has allowed Labour to create a sideshow in his constituency that distracts from the broader Tory message - far worse than if the case in question was highlighted to demonstrate that Tories were offering a reasoned solution rather than a knee-jerk xenophobic policy. I have my doubts as to how far the former is the case. If the Tories do not take opportunities to show they are not demonising Johnny Foreigner, however, then it makes it more likely that the continued "Dibley Disease" will not be reversed.
Warning: Appalling Lib Dem Joke to Follow
What's the difference between Paul Marsden and Sarah Kennedy?
Nothing - they've both gone into Labour during the election campaign!
Pope Saves Beeb From Gaffe
Poor old BBC 7 should be grateful the Pope went to meet his maker when he did. The delay to Charles and Camilla's wedding helped avoid a clash that would otherwise have occurred with the final part of their drama serialisation 'Marrying The Mistress'.
VoterVault, Debating Societies, and the Decline of Intelligent Debate
I was at a family party last weekend, and in conversation with a relative I hadn't seen in a long time, he said to me, "you people in
debating societies are ruining the country." I wanted to put up a spirited defence of the Union - I've enjoyed the debating I did both there and at school greatly. Yet the fact is he is right.
The style of debating in both the Chamber debates at the Union, and in the inter-varsity debates, is heavily adversarial. That in itself is not a bad thing. Politics should be discussing serious issues and if something is important enough, it is likely to be divisive. Yet the way these things tend to be judged, both by official judges and by the media, supports people who make shallow debating points, who distort the truth, who present arguments in ways that make it harder for someone to counter, rather than actually providing the best solution to a problem.
This creeps in insidiously into our political system. A parliamentary system - especially one which has three big players (if some are bigger than others) - should provide for reasoned discussion of issues, with really good ideas and watertight legislation the end result. Instead, we are creeping further and further towards presidential politics in a parliamentary system. Both Blair and Howard are trying to turn the election campaign into a referendum on the other. Rather than trying to present policies intelligently, it is more a case of identifying the weakness of the others and exploiting it. When the Tories were last in government, Robin Cook was famously caught out by a BBC report which spoke to a former policy advisor of his. Cook reputedly said "I've got an opinion poll in here which says that most of the country think our health policy is better than the Tories. You and I know that we don't have a health policy. But why do we need one?"
VoterVault, the system used to great effect by Karl Rove in the 2004 US election, is now finding its way to Britain. In particular, the Tories are using it to identify the key voters in the swing seats that they need to win the election. Not only does this greatly limit the active participation in the election for most voters (Howard is apparently concentrating on appealing to just 800,000 voters), but it also makes policy-making an appeal to stereotypes rather than constructive policies.
I am white, middle-class, in the 18-30 age range - indeed, I can be classified in any number of ways statistical agencies want. What trying to group people together in such a way does, however, is completely depersonalises politics. It ignores the fact that I have a brain and am able to assess the merit of policies independently. Policy wonks may try and find a bone to throw to the Catholic voter, or the suburbian voter, or the rugby-supporting, wine-drinking voter. But it doesn't make politics any more intelligent. It compartmentalises debates into often unhelpful channels.
The issues facing the country don't have easy solutions. If they did, any political party worth its salt would be able to solve them quite easily. By pretending that niche issues can be dealt with easily, the political establishment is selling the country short. This blog has been used recently to debate the merits of increased funding in public services. It is sad that although we are expanding on issues raised by political parties, the leaders do no seek to make such detailed arguments. Instead, its a slanging match about who will cut more, or who is more wasteful, or what-have-you. It's no wonder people aren't interested in that. If politicians started treating the electorate with a little more respect, we might go a long way towards tackling apathy.
Shy Tory Syndrome & Dibley Disease
There’s already a lot of comment on the slimline Tory manifesto, and until I manage to get a copy, I’ll save any comments I may have. However, I thought I’d post today on a favourite topic of mine– Dibley Disease.
The fact that Tory voters seem statistically less likely to admit their voting intentions to pollsters is a fact that has launched considerable confusion amongst them. This so-called “Shy Tory” phenomenon may even be the reason that the internet-based polling company YouGov achieved- contrary to expectations -the closest results in 2001 (see their form, here). The key error of the others was to over-estimate the scale of the Tories’ defeat, with only YouGov getting close to accurately predicting the Tory vote in the General Election, Scottish Parliamentary elections and numerous others. Is it because Tories are shy of admitting their blue affections to a human voice on the telephone (or, in the sole case of MORI, doorstep callers too), but not the seemingly anonymous internet? Some think so. (For such polling excitement and more, this blog is your nirvana).
It really does strike me- excepting for a moment the undoubted bias with which my experiences are tainted -that the Tories’ biggest problem, amongst many, is the image they have as a party. In the same way that Labour was seen as doctrinaire and incompetent in the Thatcher years, blighting them under Blair rebranded the entire package, the Tories now find themselves stereotyped as cold, ruthless and greedy reactionaries. This has to be a big problem, if people actively feel that voting Comservative is socially unacceptable. While some will become the pollsters’ “Shy Tories”, there must be an effect, subconcious or concious, in how some voters cast their ballots. It seems to me that this is the biggest challenge the Tories have to face, and whilst their “gypsies, tramps and thieves” message is exactly the wrong thing to dismiss this, the tax cuts and professionalism they’re showing does seem to be working. Most of all, I still think Michael Howard’s rhetoric about ‘hard-working people’ who ‘play by the rules’ is the cleverest part of his campaign. It isn’t substance but the way he pitches himself, and it may work.
To return to my initial point, however, he needs this centrist way to redeem this party in the eyes of the public. For me, I realised how massive this perception was when watching an episode of the Vicar of Dibley, years ago. In it, the mean and grouchy character, David, reforms, and part of the montage of his redemption is him binning his Conservative party membership card. My day job is researching nineteenth century anti-slavery, and one of the interesting developments there is the use of pro-slavers in literature. Anybody who was pro-slavery, after about 1840, was being used as an easy literary stereotype, as a whole host of morally backward and irreligious connotations came with it. The fact that a TV comedy- even one so dire as the Vicar of Dibley -could use Tory party membership as a reduction of a character’s (negative) personality is quite telling. There was a certain expectation, evidently, that the public would understand exactly what Tory membership represented, in terms of social irrespectability and .
So, I’m looking for how much Howard can shift the social shame in being a Tory. If he is to lead his party back to success, it’ll only be through curing the “Dibley disease”.
Not quite, Ken
Ken's contribution to the ongoing taxation debate between the Englishman In Philly and me has been long-expected, and as I had always suspected, didn't differ from what I thought I thought as much Ken thought it differed from what he thought I thought. Whether this is due to poverty of clarity and experession on my part, or a difference in language and tone (for I come from an unashamedly social democratic direction, while Ken was rooted in conservative ideas), I'm not sure. If we are different in our view, then perhaps I can at least clarify my position on this issue, which is the crux of the debate.
To address his key criticism of my argument:
I still believe it, but Richard has gone away from this argument in this debate that suggests more spending is always desirable to achieve better services. Simply put, too much investment eventually leads to the law of diminshing returns.
In the first sentence Ken performs a sleight-of-hand; I do think that more spending always delivers better public services, but not that the service-for-spending realisation is such to make the increase desirable. I want each pound to be worth more and to squeeze every penny of value out of it. At the same time, I want the NHS to be as good as it can-- and we could pay however much we want towards it, ultimately, with there being no limit how high taxation reaches. The bar on this is, of course, a toleration limit-- what our social consensus agrees is a tolerable level, and what allows the workhorse of economic progress to continue with no significant diminuation. Now, in the second sentence, Ken argues that too much investment leads to the law of diminishing returns, and on this I can agree, but would it be adiminishing return to reduce prescription costs?
Ultimately, I am hesitant to agree with Ken that we should use an assessment of what we want the NHS to do to be the only basis of its funding. I can imagine wanting the NHS to reach a gold standard, but that must be tempered by the economic concerns I have always conceded. Surely the real moderate position here is to keep an eye on both our set standards and the economic realities? And to my mind, that leads to the inexoriable conclusion that the current level of spending is about right but that we should stretch its delivery-power out further, in reaching the unreachable gold standard.
A Penny in the Pocket
Recently Richard and
An Englishman in Philly have been having a spirited debate regarding the levels of taxation that are current in Britain, and how they may be adapted, especially with regards to funding the public services. Richard believes that any reform of the public services must be coupled with continued investment, so that the provision of front-line services can actually be improved. Ed believes that once reforms are achieved, then the savings made from efficiency should as far as possible be diverted into tax cuts.
Both of these positions work from assumptions on the level of provision as things stand - Ed's, that the current provision is more or less acceptable, and just needs to be more efficent. Richard's works on the basis that the current level of investment is about right for the provision of the NHS (which is where the argument has largely focused), and it is the structures that need to be made greater. Interestingly, the lines of argument largely mirror the political debate, in that those arguing for continued high investment concentrate on the human side of provision, in doctors and nurses, and that those arguing for reform concentrate largely on economics.
The debate started thus:
he intelligently argues that Tories need to ensure their reform agenda gets equal limelight with the tax cuts, or else they can be too easily painted as hacking services. His problem is that they will, or at least provide poorer services than they otherwise could.
That is developing to be slightly disingenuous on Richard's part - although he draws back from the wrong assertion that efficiency reform will "hack" services, the centre-left all too easily fall into the trap that more spending of itself brings about better services. Now, the chances are that they will, provided that it brings in properly trained staff, for example. But it doesn't necessarily imply that benefits are proportional to the amount of money spent. Indeed, to take Blair's claim that more investment really does put schools and hospitals first as a case in point - more
investment has not led to improvement.
Yet neither Richard nor Ed would deny that reform is essential in the public services if they are to achieve optimal levels. The fact that the right have to face up to is that such reform will increase expenditure in the short term, for reductions later. The failure of Thatcherite doctrine was that when significant money was made from privatisation, it was ploughed into tax cuts, rather than investing in the long-term reforms which would have made such tax cuts more sustainable, assuming that keeping public services at their current level of service is considered to be a desirable end.
The problem that faces the country is that a four(or five)-year electoral cycle acts as a major disincentive to pushing through proper service reforms, for they have a high level of risk, in that they may well reduce the efficiency of service provision in the short-term. Thus neither major party really wants to address the issue of widespread reform, instead talking of cutting out waste. Without a clear blueprint of how structures, not productivity, can be made more efficient, it is difficult to see exactly how such changes can be made. Yet given the supposed level of bureaucracy in the NHS (I do not know exact figures, but I believe there are huge numbers of managers compared to service providers within the organisation), reform should be able to achieve much.
Thus when Ed says:
Despite his rhetoric about being a liberal I see very little desire from Richard for the state only acting where necessary. Any real liberal must surely ask whether any given level or type of public expenditure is good enough to exhaust the duty of trust owed to the person from whom it was taken, to outweigh the wrong of taking what belongs to someone else.
I am inclined to agree with him to a certain extent. By suggesting it is desirable to plough any savings from reform back into the service works from the assumption that the spending level is right, not the level of provision provided. If the service works at maximal efficiency, then any extra investment is going to lead to some improvements in the volume of service that can be provided. But unless the NHS always has spare capacity - ie there is always some wasteful spending in the service - it can never be perfect.
And although Richard talks of tax rates not being "economically oppressive",
any tax increase affects someone who lies on the margins. So, although it is said that the main brake on increased spending is the limit of economic expansion, there will always be people affected no matter how tiny the tax increase. The slight fallacy of Richard's argument, therefore, is that if more spending is intrinsically desirable, then it implies the state should have an unlimited power to tax. And that is not only politically infeasible, but it is wrong. If all money is to a greater or lesser extent under threat from the Inland Revenue, then it really is a disincentive to productivity no matter what the limits are.
However, I cannot fully agree with Ed, either. Despite protestations to the contrary, an ideological objection to any taxation shines through his piece. He talks about outweighing "the wrong of taking what belongs to someone else", and finishes by saying he wants to "return money to its rightful owners". Whilst I would agree there has to be an incentive to earn, working in any society also requires social responsibility. I intend to blog later in the week about an initiative in Brighton designed to try and stop people using foul language; one of the more appealing aspects of the Conservative manifesto is the idea of cutting down on "yob culture" and so implicitly promoting social responsibility.
Believing that all taxation is theft goes against that idea. It should be a hallmark of a civilised society that we believe in high quality health and education systems, and that requires collective public expenditure. I wrote on the Dustbin of History a while ago a piece that on the face of it seems to hold a lot in common with Richard's position - that we should work out what provisions we want and base the tax take around that. I still believe it, but Richard has gone away from this argument in this debate that suggests more spending is always desirable to achieve better services. Simply put, too much investment eventually leads to the law of diminshing returns. And that is when the anti-tax ideologues start to see greater public support for their arguments. A happy medium needs to be found, and neither believing in unlimited investment nor large reductions in tax is a healthy starting point.
The Quiz Master
Anybody who wishes to see Ken in person can turn up to the Gardener's Arms, Plantation Road, Oxford, at 8.30pm on Sunday 17th, to see him conduct the weekly quiz as guest quizmaster. All welcome-- no elitism; it's not that kind of quiz.
The Past Masters
The US Masters is a great sporting event. Even if you don't like golf, it can be extremely exciting and build tension up over a long time. The reason for this is that the course at Augusta National is perfect for championship golf of high quality - if you play well, you can get birdies on just about every hole, but if you play badly you will drop shots. A good run at a good time can really swing the momentum your way when previously success had seemed unlikely.
The problem, however, is that the invitational system - whilst a unique and traditional feature that lends the Masters some of its aura - keeps inviting back past Masters champions as long as they are still alive. Thus the field gets clogged up with players like Billy Casper and Gary Player, who were great in their prime, but now can do nothing but shoot scores 20 shots higher than the rest of the field. It is actually an insult to the professionals denied invitations, but who could actually compete for the green jacket, to have geriatrics who add nothing to the game playing.
My solution for this is simple - invite, every year, old champions to choose between playing in the full competition and a special 18-hole competition called the "Past Masters". It can be held the Wednesday before the competition proper starts, and the tee distances can be shortened, with easier pin positions on the green. Everyone would think it was wonderful to see the old pros competing against each other, and it would allow more genuine competitors into the main competition. Create a new tradition, and we can strengthen the old one.
BEWARE: Spoilers For Non-Brit Who Fans
If you're a Doctor Who fan and haven't watched the BBC's screening of the new series, stop reading now.
If you have seen them, then take a look at
this article by Nick Barlow. He is intrigued at exactly what it is that killed Gallifrey, and I have to say, the Daleks must be a big bet given how they were always hyped as the perfect killing machines. Let's be honest after the Doctor's antics over the years, he alone provides them with a motive. Anyway, kudos to Nick for making this a legitimate topic for blogging, because it is an excellent artistic choice by Davies and the other writers. The new Doctor is commendably dark and I think this seems to be an excellent twist. Nick's surely onto something in suspecting that it is all a plot arc that will be revealed. Bravo! Now, if only the next Doctor wasn't some wimpering pup and was one of the far, far worthier actors who were considered (such as Richard E. Grant, Alan Davies and, apparently, Stephen Fry).
Melanie Phillips, the AUT & Israeli Academics
My fellow
St. Anne's alumn(us/a) Melanie Phillips is somebody about whom I find it hard to make up my mind. I have an instinctive dislike for almost everything she says, but I think it's often because, being an entertaining polemicist, she makes her arguments in a sufficiently antagonistic way as to rile people from different political positions. However, while the way in which she justifies and expounds her views almost never fails to outrage me, she's certainly an intelligent woman, and is in a completely different league of rightist commentators to the mornonic Richard Littlejohn.
Anyway, she recently produced
a blog post on the attempts of the
AUT to exclude Israeli lecturers. This raises an incident in Oxford a few years ago when the irrepressably likeable Tom Paulin refused to take on an Israeli graduate student, because the man had served in the Israeli Defense Forces.
I completely disagree with many of her assumptions regarding the Israelis' position and, for reasons I'll expand on below, I think she is as bad as the AUT in the way she approaches the Israeli-Palestinian situation. I also have no sympathy with her conspiratorially-minded blanket attack on university teachers, a classic target of conservative commentators. But I do think she's right to question the AUT's action here.
I've regularly had fierce debates with Jewish friends who are enthusiastic supporters of the pre-2004 (for he was a different beast then) Ariel Sharon (often with liberal Jews on my side, I may add). The thing that matters is that they're still my friends at the end of the argument. They have a completely different perception of the situation in Palestine, and they support a course of action I found practically and morally regrettable, but I couldn't take it against them personally-- in contrast with those people who seem overtly racist, sexist or homophobic. I don't buy Melanie's argument that we are asking Israeli's to betray their country-- the fact she characterises dissenters from occupation of Palestine as being anti-Israeli reveals her own prejudices, in confusing Israeli citizenship with particular political beliefs --but I worry that excluding Israeli academics is a bad idea. My friends weren't essentially bigotted people, just blinkered-- and blinkered in no worse way than members of the Arab world who enthusiastically support suicide bombers. If I can understand suicide bombers' mentality (and note the use of 'understand' rather than 'support' there, folks), as I believe I can, then I don't think it is unreasonable to hold intellectual communion with Israeli academics who I disagree with.
I did have a twinge of concern when I wondered if Melanie Phillips would have resisted sanctions against apartheid South African universities, but I feel that was a much more clear-cut situation, where some exclusion tactics could be justified. The reason that the AUT and Melanie Phillips are both wrong in the way they talk about the Israeli-Palestinian situation, is that they seek to take sides in what we can surely admit has been a process of escalation of violence and emotions. Many outside Israel and Palestine have sought to take sides in the debate, rather than act as honest brokers in search of a genuine peace-- the kind of peace that cannot, by its definition, have winners and losers, but a retreat from the precipice of destruction for all involved. In trying to take sides, the AUT are acting with their hearts but not their minds; the plight of the Palestinians is under-valued by much (but not all) media reporting and yet we shouldn't be seeking to address that imbalance by excluding academics associated with the Israeli state. I know I've been guilty of this myself, being caught out by friends using the first person plural to refer to the Palestinians.
A bi-lateral peace process requires understanding and compromise from all sides (and, ideally, the AUT and Melanie Phillips would not be taking sides anyway). In Northern Ireland, this has meant releasing IRA terrorists, and in Israel it will mean many such painful steps for each side. The AUT had better realise that they need to burden themselves with intellectual communion with Israeli academics if they are actually interested in helping oppressed Palestinians, rather than further escalating and strengthening the divisions that will need to be breached in search of peace. If we are really to reach a situation where Israel seems to deserve sanctions, I would also suggest that these are best formed from economic sanctions, command by government, rather than from severing intellectual ties as the first stage. While there are (unashamedly) limits to tolerance of different ideas even in an intellectual comunity, it seems to me that academic communion must be one that can sustain differences of vision longer than any other.
So, let Israeli academics come to British universities. The free commerce of ideas must be the basic principle of academia, and I shall enjoy debating the Palestinian situation with them in the commonroom, rather than seeking to ban them from it.
Mock Liberal-Economic Soup
I have been delighted to see
a defence by An Englishman In Philly of my rebuttal of an article he originally wrote on tax cuts. He was generous enough to promise to "try to refrain from minor snipes at the slips in the piece," a generosity I shall extend back, as I dissect his counter-rebuttal.
Yes, some on the right become obsessed with reducing tax for the sake of it and for any cost. They are wrong. There is a role for taxation. Nevertheless, despite that minority, I know that many of those who Richard seeks to tag as "ideologically blinkered" are not committed to reducing taxation come what may. They are committed, quite rightly, to taking as little as possible for those goals we want to achieve, and for ensuring before it is taken that it is spent wisely. This is the only way the public can get value for money.
Well, I do think that it is ideologically blinkered to work from the principle that we should set taxes at 45% or 40% or 35% and work backwards from there. I did take care- perhaps it was dismissed, though, as a "slip" -to happily concede that there were levels of taxation where you could not go, for purely pragmatic macro-economic reasons; largely because you'd shut down growth and generate less revenue than you'd imagine. I also happily admit that the aim of taxation is to take what we need and not a penny more-- and that government spending is a sacred trust in which there is a moral duty on the part of the state to dispose of this common fund in the most benificent and efficient way possible.
My objection is at the way around you are approaching tax cuts. The key has to be to identify the long-term efficiencies you can make, and to be vigilent for them, whilst always working from a first principle of identifying the service you intend to provide as your first job. Then, having worked out what you need to fund that, you begin a balancing act with the economic reality of taxation and the basic principle of saving taxpayers' money.
At the root of this all lies a key question, however. Do you think that where possible Government should not take peoples' money? Or do you think that the Government has a right to peoples' money so therefore ought to take more while it can? Despite his rhetoric about being a liberal I see very little desire from Richard for the state only acting where necessary. Any real liberal must surely ask whether any given level or type of public expenditure is good enough to exhaust the duty of trust owed to the person from whom it was taken, to outweigh the wrong of taking what belongs to someone else. Useless public expenditure, or public expenditure which returns no gain or has a negative effect cannot ever justify money being taken by threat of coercion. For this reason we must exercise caution and be certain that greater taxation is the only way.
These are all good points, but we are playing the cypher-politicians' trick here in asserting something nobody would disagree with. I take as my first principles all these points, but suspect we disagree on the utility of some areas of public spending, and the ability of the private sector to perform certain functions. But in that debate, we are discussing how to divide the pot at least-- which is what I have been driving at. We must always start from the services' cost and work back to tax cuts, if they really are the best use for efficiencies, not start with the tax cuts and begin chasing reforms.
I sincerely apologise if, as accused, I have created a straw man. But it rather seems that has been exactly my fate. My key contention is merely the way around you approach tax cuts, rather than any assumption of public rights to the private property of individuals.
Disturbing Google Results
I was looking at site traffic tonight, and found that one of the more common random Google hits we get is from people searching for the name Maxine Carr - although usually with something else added. It somewhat worries me and Richard these could be vigilante searches.
Why are people so interested in a witch hunt of this woman? Yes, she has done bad things, but she has more than paid her price for them - far more than other people convicted of similar wrongdoings. The media must look at themselves for this. They picked up on the Soham murder case because it was at a convenient point in the year; it snowballed to a level they then were unable to control because of their disproportionate response. And now they continue to vilify Carr, despite her peripheral role in the events that they are
really critical of. When someone has to change their name and be guaranteed lifelong anonymity because of the actions of the media, then something is badly, badly, wrong.
Why Tony Blair Is Still An Asset For Labour
Over at the
General Election 05 blog, in the feedback to my post on the media's role in the campaign, there was an interesting rebuke for Andy Marr in
a response from a chap named Bernie, who writes:
I’m finding it difficult to share or even understand your liking for Andrew Marr. I agree he must be a powerful figure, but what use does he make of this power: he stands outside 10 Downing Street, where he has apparently just had an opportunity to ask Mr Blair questions about the disaster in Iraq, and he tells us that “nobody could possibly doubt Tony Blair’s sincerity”!
Now, I think Andrew Marr is absolutely correct on that point, and it is in no way a sign of dereliction of duty or toadiness on his part. Indeed, I was intending to blog today on why the latest batch of Labour posters, asking which of Howard and Blair you want as Prime Minister, is an excellent idea.
The key is that Blair still looks the part and acts the part of respected statesman and likeable guy. No matter how annoyed we are with some of his policies, I have always believed he is sincere, even if my disagreement with many of my policies give me the perspective that he is decieving himself in their righteounsess. The thing is that, at the end of the day, I think intellectual laziness is his greatest crime and an ability to believe his own spin. In contrast, I am not convinced Michael Howard shares the same basic values I hold, and isn't just a rabid gypsy-hating immigrant-bashing bigot who is moderating his language in the name of expediency. The polls also seem to show that Blair is still ahead of Howard, even if not by much.
So, while I respect Bernie's opinion, I must disagree. Blair is sincere, he's just wrong at the same time. I don't believe the Prime Minister tells lies; he may misdirect us, but only within a personal mindset that is doing the right thing. On Iraq, Blair thought what he was doing was right. He was wrong, and I hope he suffers at the polls, but as much as I hate his actions, I cannot hate the man himself. He is, after all, our denim-wearing tea-swilling Tony.
Behold The Might of Andrew Marr and Ben Macintyre
My fellow Militant Moderate, Ken, wrote an article a while ago pondering that the most powerful man in British politics was Andrew Marr, such was the influence of media commentators in shaping public perceptions of competence and seriousness. Hence, the most important person for the Tories to convince them were no longer an IDS-era joke was the Marr himself.
As the election campaign unfolds, I think Ken is right.
This morning, I ate my Muller red cherry bio-yoghurt over a piece by Ben Macintyre, in today’s Times. (Unfortunately, the yoghurt also went over the report, but that’s probably a tangental anecdote). The jist of the piece was that Labour’s spin doctors and ominously nicknamed “handlers” are being particularly nasty to the media in this campaign, and that that is synonymous with an American-style exclusion of real people from a campaign, so there can be no unscripted interventions. It’s intriguing that the exclusion of ‘real people’ and media access is conflated in this way. The incident which sparked this piece appears to have been the unveiling of two Labour election posters at Billingsgate Market, and our intrepid Macintyre’s suspisions that hacks were purposefully mislead as to which of the two markets it was going to be at; he and one other journalist were the only newspaper representatives to make it there. The Labour party’s cruelty was completed by the refusal of Messrs. Blair and Brown to answer questions, and:
"As I left, Mr Marr was still arguing furiously with Dave Hill, Mr Blair’s communications director."
After a morning’s work, I sat down in front of today’s (tragically short) half-hour edition of the Daily Politics with a chicken tikka baguette. (A tikka-Guardian incident ensued on similar lines to the yoghurt-Times incident four hours earlier, but I’ll spare you the details). The programme’s feature on who has had a good week and who has had a bad one, included footage from the Billingsgate Market photocall yesterday. It formed part of the lovely Daisy Samson’s evidence for Tony having had an awful week, complete with a frustrated Andrew Marr trying to get a question to the Prime Minister and his Chancellor.
I can’t help but get the feeling that the Billingsgate Market poster launch hasn’t had the coverage Labour would have liked simply because the press are annoyed. It was often joked that the Millennium Dome’s poor reaction partly rested on the fact that the newspaper editors were one group suffering hold-ups on the tube when they headed to its opening night. One often wonders if the quality of drinks and nibbles laid on at candidates’ launch parties for their party’s leadership has any correlation with hacks’ responses.
In a similar vein, I can’t help but wonder if the much-reported upturn in Tory confidence and competence is not just a change in the media’s attitude, that they have finally been convinced to take Michael Howard seriously, and hence now we are all told that we are, and so we do.
So far, then, I have probably produced the typical blog post on the bias and corruption of he traditional media. The problem is, I don’t think I’m a very genuine blogger, because I don’t feel particularly morally outraged at this state of affairs. It seems an abstract and objective fact, rather than an outrage to democracy. I wonder if that’s because, deep down, I actually have a great deal more affection for Andrew Marr, the Today team and Daisy Samson (particularly Daisy Samson) than for many politicians? This isn’t so much true of print commentators, but TV and radio pundits inspire warmth and friendship, in me at least. This must even be true of sharp-fanged torturers such as Paxman (we all affectionately know him as ‘Paxo’) and John Humphrys. Our media commentators come over as particularly kindly and inspirational teachers, who understand that we need to be educated but reassure us that we shouldn’t worry, as they’ll set us straight.
On May 5th? I’ll be voting for whomever Andrew Marr hints is the most impressive.
I Feel Violated
Political correctness and nannying have gone mad. Imagine how I felt when I came home last night to find the headline "Cookie Monster Advocates Eating Healthily":
My beloved blue, furry monster — who sang "C is for cookie, that's good enough for me" — is now advocating eating healthy. There's even a new song — "A Cookie Is a Sometimes Food," where Cookie Monster learns there are "anytime" foods and "sometimes" foods.
Sacrilege! Cookies are anytime foods! In any case, Cookie Monster was always a reassuring presence on the TV. No matter how gluttonous he still retained his figure and remained the friendly chap we know and love. How can they do this to him?
Will the election actually happen?
This is an interesting story, about a Birmingham councillor and LibDem candidate's attempts to stop polling day on May 5th. The answer to the above question is certainly "yes," but the attempt to get a court injunction against the election will certainly raise the very serious issue of voter fraud and the idiocy of Labour's postal voting plans.
E-mails From Parents
The first in an occasional series to show the level of interest in my e-mails with my parents:
"We tried to get you on MSN but you were offline. We looked at a carpet warehouse in Kidderminster which offered lots of bargains and an auction with rock-bottom prices. It's certainly the place to go when looking for economical carpet."I am so pleased to know where I can get economical carpet.
Poll Dancing Turns Me On
I am really getting fascinated by opinion polls. There's an excellent blog dedicated to it, the
UK Polling Report, and also an
E-Politix blog from my hero, Bob Worcester.
There seem to be some fascinating intricacies that are worth noting, but the biggest point is a simple one: only compare polls from the same companies. One thing that really annoys me, though, and I believe I am right to query, is the use of national vote percentages. Under first-past-the-post, or any constituency-based system, the national swing is a rather useless forecast for the country's feelings. Constituencies are so often affected by local issues, on-the-ground campaigning and a whole host of intricacies, that the idea of such percentages, and the swingometer theory on which they are based, is fairly flawed. A party's decision to target a seat effectively, or the existance of a particular type of swing voter will be crucial. For example, moslem and student populations are going to be particularly volatile in 2005 given Iraq (in both cases) and tuition fees (for the students).
I suspect our pollsters will get the percentages correct, but when they make seat predictions, I think this year may require a particular liberality in applying a uniform national swing.
Me? As a result of my involvement in the educational simulation game
PoliticsUk, I'm getting the pollsters' software from
UK Elect in the next few days, and should be able to play with that to my little heart's content.
The Mandelsonian Legacy
The election campaign where I am at the moment is very boring. This is because it is in the North-East, and the political geography of the region is such that there are few, if any, marginals. The fact that
Stockton South, a seat that has had since 1997 a very solid Labour majority, is one of the top Tory target seats in the region, is perhaps the best example of this. To regain the seat, the Tories would need a swing of 10% which, if replicated nationally, would see them gain an overall majority.
Incidentally, the Tories possibly have a hope at this seat due to a reasonably high-profile candidacy of
James Gaddas, an actor who has appeared in
Coronation Street and Bad Girls.
Why, though, have seats like Darlington (until 1992, one of five constituencies to have elected the governing party every time since the war) and Stockton South suddenly become solidly red? The short answer is that Mandelson managed to shaft the Tories.
Following the Boundary Commission review of seats after the 1991 census, Mandelson organised it so that Labour had regional plans. Cutting into the majority of hugely safe seats wasn’t a problem, so safe seats such as Sedgefield were prepared to concede areas that traditionally voted Tory, to take them away from the marginal constituencies. Meanwhile, the Conservatives had no regional plan, and lost out majorly.
Tony King explained this very well in yesterday’s Telegraph:
The coming election will also be unusual in two more mechanical but politically significant respects. One relates to the functioning of the electoral system. Partly because Labour nowadays wins more seats with small electorates and partly because the Conservatives “waste” votes by piling up huge majorities in places such as Buckingham and Arundel and South Downs, the electoral system currently disadvantages the Tories on a massive scale. If Labour and the Conservatives were to win identical shares of the vote on May 5, Labour would probably still
win 100 or more seats than the Tories.
Mandelson may be a political hate figure, but he continues to outsmart his opponents.
An Englishman in Wonderland
Across the sea in the land of liberty and PATRIOT acts, An
Englishman in Philly has sent us a missive on Michael Howard's taxation plans. The key hope he expresses is that it can be shown that we can have better public services on less spending, and he intelligently argues that Tories need to ensure their reform agenda gets equal limelight with the tax cuts, or else they can be too easily painted as hacking services.
His problm is that they will, or at least provide poorer services than they otherwise could. Here's the key mistake:
"They [Tories] have to confront and defeat the leftist assertion that more money alone = better public services = higher tax being intrinsically more desirable." Notice the word "alone". Because, Ed has here built a strawman for the 'leftist assertion', by assuming that many people would say the services were institutionally perfect and merely require more money. Reform is good! We will differ on the sort of reform, for sure, but can't we at least agree that a reformed service is still better with more cash than less. For example, the NHS's practices can surely be improved a great deal-- and let us have a great debate on how to do that --but at the end of the day, an increase to the funding of a perfectly reformed NHS
provides more doctors and nurses.
Now, I don't think I'll be criticised for suggesting that the NHS isn't yet at a point where it is over-staffed. By all means, bring in Andrew Lansley and reform the NHS, if you can convince us all that he has a better plan than John Reid. But surely you can accept that there will be some occasions when reform of practices doesn't address underlying need for more staff and better pay for those staff, which will require taxes to remain about where they are, while you make your savings and efficiencies elsewhere.
Here are my two 'leftist' (I would say 'non-rightist') assertions:
More money = better public services = tax cutting intrinsically undesireable
Good reform = better public services = identifying good reform desireable
Finding the balance of taxation so that our free market economy functions handily is the essential brake on the first, but I really don't think the current levels of taxation are economically oppressive. Certainly, the idea that once you improve a service's practices, you can slash its budget, rather than reinvest that budget in more nurses, more police officers, more teachers, seems ridiculous to me.
In waving the flag of reform as a key to tax-cutting, Ed is sugaring the bill of Tory service cuts very intelligently. However, I simply cannot see his base assumption that you can reform as an alternative to spending, rather than as a way of making every pound more efficient. I consider myself a liberal, in the British sense, so I am all in favour of retrenchment of the state in functions it should not be doing. But when the state, rightly, takes up the burden of health care, surely it should do it well- and that requires both efficiency (via reform to find best value) and proper funding for staff. Every pound you save through reform should be plowed into those extra public servants, not my tax bill, when we're doing fine as it is.
A 'leftist' ideological commitment to unlimited increases in taxation and public expenditure is naive doctrinal blinkeredness. Yet I see little different in a 'rightist' ideological commitment to reduce expenditure. Surely the first job is to define what the state should do; work out what it will cost to do it well, and the best practice for delivering it; and then temper it with efficacy of taxation (e.g: that 90% tax rate will actually be economically stupid). To begin from the point of 'find £x billion cuts' is ridiculous, when the money saved from reforms needs to be shifted to more frontline public servants. To abuse Macaulay: reform so that we may improve, not so we may reduce.
Sycophancy is not Eulogy
A great post from
Frans Groendijk here, which emphasises the difficulty that people have in being objective as soon as someone passes away.
abcNews that
"Major news media around the world devoted 10 times as many stories to Pope John Paul II's death as they did to the re-election of President Bush, according to an analysis released
Monday....
Paul J.J. Payack, president of Global Language, said the jump reflected the Roman Catholic pontiff's influence."He was tied in history, probably more than any pope in contemporary time," Payack said. "Because of his extensive travels, he's well known in many more countries."
Rubbish.It is all about infotainment and the decline of journalist standards.
Couldn't agree more. It amazed me that, with wall-to-wall coverage of the events, so much of the reporting was lazy and repetitive. Where was the explanation of the workings of the Vatican? Real reports of how he dealt with Communism? Analysis of the spread of Catholicism and regional differences in belief?
Minding their PMQs
Today was the last Prime Minister's Question Time before Parliament is dissolved, and it was widely seen as free publicity at the start of the election campaign. The consensus after the event seemed to be that both parties were setting out election agendas that almost didn't touch each other - Blair focusing on the economy, Howard concentrating on trust and management. Apart from the fact this is a pretty big indictment on Blair (after all, he is supposed to answer the questions put to him), the analysis is largely true. I think, however, Howard probably came out on top today.
Yes, it was childish at times, and was far more pantomime than debate. It is sad that it is what we have come to expect from the debating chamber of the Commons. Howard's chanting of "Up! Up! Up!" and "Down! Down! Down!" was for the circumstances quite astute. He kept to the time-honoured tactic of using the final PMQs of a session to discuss a range of issues, and the chanting at the end was a damning critique of Labour's record in government whilst also stealing Blair's thunder. It is his favourite tactic to roll off a list of Labour policies - to have done that today would have seemed to be aping Howard and instead he was forced to resort to ridiculous scaremongering that I doubt would be taken seriously.
On the other hand, Blair's ability to answer the question today was appalling, and if the Speaker had any guts then he would have taken action. When Blair responded to a question about top-up fees by waffling on about economic stability, he may as well have been talking about the Manchester United football team for all the relevance it had. The contempt for Parliament was intensified by the sycophantic line of questioning from the Labour Party backbenchers. It amazes me that Helen Jackson, a retiring backbencher, would want her final statement as an MP to have been so dreadful.
Perhaps the most worrying thing is that, Question Time apart, it is the closest thing that we will get to proper debate throughout the whole election. Instead we will get the lies, misinformation and posturing that purport to be manifestos from the major parties. I hope my cynicism is proved wrong. But if the evidence in today's PMQs is anything to go by, we are a long way off from re-engaging the disillusioned with politics.
A non-political interlude
Laban Tall rightly points out that we have been very active yesterday and today talking about the election. As I am also blogging at the
General Election Roundup Blog, I thought I'd provide some light relief here. Many of you will have guessed from previous posts I am an avid rugby fan. One of the highlights of my summer will hopefully be a famous Lions victory in New Zealand - although I'm not that optimistic at present. The British Lions are a relic from a past age, but hopefully one which will continue to have meaning into the future, offering the spectacle of attacking but highly competitive rugby.
With the Six Nations having been so open this year, there is much speculation as to who will make the team - especially as Grand Slam winners Wales, on paper, do not possess many of the best players. Whilst trusting fully the judgement of Sir Clive Woodward, I am going to stick my neck out here and predict which players will take the field come the first Test:
15:Gareth Thomas (Wales) - Solid in defence and strong going forward
14:Josh Lewsey (England) - the top English back by some margin
13:Brian O'Driscoll (Ireland) - would walk into any team in the world. Possibly even the best all-time outside centre
12:Stephen Jones (Wales) - I like the idea of a second fly-half if there is no outstanding inside centre, which there isn't. Perhaps the position most devoid of talent in the Isles. Gavin Henson could make it if he loses his arrogance and learned how to pass.
11:Shane Williams (Wales) - has the ability to cut any side in the world apart. If Jason Robinson finds a return to form, however, he'll fit into this slot
10:Ronan O'Gara (Ireland) - if Jonny isn't fit (and he may well not be), it's a toss-up between O'Gara and Stephen Jones. Not much to choose and it would be decided on tour
9:Chris Cusiter (Scotland) - if only because I can't see where another Scot will make the team
1:Gethin Jenkins (Wales) - For all their running rugby, Wales's success was built on a hard-working and tough front eight
2:Mefin Davies (Wales) - As up for grabs as any position on tour. Thompson and Byrne are serious contenders.
3:Julian White (England) - I'm no front row expert, but the pundits all say he should be a lock for the starting XV.
4:Paul O'Connell (Ireland) - although he should still be banned for thuggery, he's the best lock in the Isles at present
5:Ben Kay (England) - consistent in the line-out and a strong contributor in the loose
6:Michael Owen (Wales) - my personal preference is Moody, but he is gaffe-prone. Owen here would mean a shift from number 8, but you need a stuffer at blind-side. Of course, if Richard Hill is fit, there is no question who starts.
7:Martyn Williams (Wales) - the class back-row act of the Six Nations
8:Martin Corry (England) - one of the few consistently high-quality performers on show
What is Michael Howard thinking?
Via the
Yorkshire Ranter, there is a link to a series of
Freedom Party posters in Austria, bearing the slogan "he says what Vienna thinks". Now, judging by the date of the post, I am guessing that the Freedom Party (
until recently, the party of Haider) followed the Tory party lead in copying the slogan.
As far as I am concerned, the new Conservative slogan is a masterpiece of political campaigning (not that it has won my vote). The major problem that faces the Tories in their fight to become electable is, quite simply, the term "Tory" or "Conservative". Opinion poll data shows that people are generally afraid to openly admit support for right-wing parties, and this is not a phenomenon
solely limited to Britain. For all that the Tories performed terribly at the last election, their vote share was still higher than the pollsters had predicted.
Fringe parties, in particular UKIP, are able to gain more support due to their complete focus on one issue masking their hard-right agenda. For the Tories, however, to concentrate on attacking Europe, whilst a popular policy, would actually give the image of nothing at all having changed. Instead, they needed to find some kind of message which will convince people the Tories are on their side, without making it absolutely explicit they will be voting Tory.
"Are you thinking what we're thinking?" seems to fit the bill pretty well, from my viewpoint. It has amazed me, and
better-known pundits, but the Tories have succeeded in pinning immigration and law and order issues to the heart of the election agenda. By moving debate on to Tory ground, the new slogan works very effectively. It subtly places into the voter's head that the Tories actually share their concerns.
This leads nicely into the next part of the Tory strategy, which is essentially to campaign not as a party of ideas, but as a party of better management. That is why cuts to bureaucracy and waste are being touted. It is not a particularly impressive platform - ideologically it is at best uncertain, and at worst trying to introduce Thatcherite principles into areas which should be left alone. In many areas it is indistinct from Labour. But in the "
cleaner hospitals, school discipline, controlled immigration" model, it is trying to play on the lack of trust in Tony Blair.
IDS used to repeat the mantra "nobody believes a word he says any more". Howard seems to take this for granted, and is basing his campaign strategy on better management of Britain - based on the fact no-one will believe Blair. I doubt this will be as effective as the other ploy. For a start, all politicians are considered liars nowadays. Although Howard speaks of a "timetable for action", it isn't something which will find widespread support in a cynical electorate.
But more importantly, it will not make the major breakthroughs the Tories are hoping for because they still don't appear to be a principled party. Attacks on political correctness seem to be more populist than principled; it is still not possible to entirely pin down what you would be getting from Prime Minister Howard. Even the Tories recognise the need for a coherent platform - that is why "
beliefs" gets a prominent position on their website's sidebar. At the moment, only Labour are successful in getting such a position across, and that is why they are more convincing as a government than any other party.
The Left, Timothy Taylor's and Laban Tall
Laban Tall's blog must be one of the best-advertised in UK circles; you can hardly move these days without seeing him on a blogroll or being praised/rebutted (and it's usually the former given the intriguing bias amongst British bloggers I seem to get directed to).
Aside from the fact he's a good writer who does what all good blogs should do - provoke comment - Laban prides himself on his
lefty credentials. Not his current lefty credentials, of course, but his credentials as an ex-lefty, which apparently give him an especially authoritative insight in harranguing non-conservatives.
What is this "left" from which Laban escaped, and is now able to preach about the dangers of? I am often confused by the delight of people of all sorts of political beliefs to create monolithic blocs out of their enemies. A look at Laban's most recent posts include a snipe at opposition to Iraq ("Another great blow struck for the 'left', as Iraqi insurgents torch the Sadr City HQ of the Communist Party") and his unidentified opponents' sympathy with burglars over terrorised old ladies ("The thing I love about the modern Left is their concern for the truly vulnerable in society"). I just wonder how many people would fit into the strawman left--- of the many posters I read on blogs, they tend to be far more nuanced and complicated than any such reductions, or even the slightly more informative form where social/economic descriptions being split.
If anybody answering this is able to cheer for Iraqi militant bombings and the burglary of elderly people do let us know! But if, as I suspect, we'll have trouble finding many, Laban's "left" and the corresponding "right" of many other commentators will remain fantasy strawmen, imported from the divisive and simplification-friendly climate of American politics.
Now, another day I'll return to the 'self-hating white liberal' tag he also uses.
Update: Since drafting this post (I held it back from the bumper election posts yesterday), Laban was kind enough to link to us. I think he may have just redeemed himself from the above critique, in my eyes, with his implicit statement of affection for
Timothy Taylor's beer. Sadly, I'm a long way from Bingley, but this particular
Oxford pub has the cask and pipes perfectly set-up, such that I really think they offer one of the few superb pints of Landlord in the South.
Hallelujah! Let the Bells Ring!
The odious ID cards Bill is being dropped.
Mr Clarke said the Lib Dems had failed face up to "resolving the tension between individual liberty and community security".For once, I'm wholeheartedly with the Lib Dems. The fact is that the ID cards will not help resolve issues of community security whatsoever. The Bill made a mockery of Parliament, and there has been no evidence to show it will deter terrorists in the slightest. If someone wants to strap some gelignite to themselves and turn themselves into a walking bomb, the police, sadly, can't stop them. ID cards would be bad enough if there was a justification for them. As there isn't, it is just the first step towards a police state.
The home secretary said the Tories had decided "to kill the bill" and said Labour would re-introduce the plans if re-elected on 5 May. Has it not occurred to Charles Clarke that there may be some pretty strong and concerted opposition against such a totalitarian piece of legislation? That despite the electoral system we have, there wasn't a majority which voted for the Labour Party to be in government and that the Labour Party doesn't have a monopoly or a right to popular policy? It's no wonder the country are disillusioned with Labour if that's the attitude they take.
Regular readers of the blog will know that I am no fan of the
Tory stance on ID cards either, and it is only the perseverance of backbenchers which has prevented the Bill becoming enacted at a far earlier stage. I now hope that Labour will get a kicking and this terrible legislation will not make it into law. At the very least, we may see a backbench rebellion finish the Bill off once and for all.
Rejoice! Rejoice!
I shall open a new can of
Old Speckled Hen to celebrate the
failure of Charles Clarke's ID card bill! This is a great victory for civil liberties, and we can only hope that the swelling forces of Blair's successor (whomever that might be) will ensure it is completely consigned to the Dustbin of History. Identity Cards are an expensive distraction that will not provide any genuine protection. Even if they did provide some protection from terrorists, which I do not accept, the debasing of society's civil liberties would be sufficient to make them inadvisible.
Election 2005 - Predictions #1
I'm currently blogging at the General Election Roundup Blog (see sidebar) as well as here. Today I got my ball rolling by announcing my predictions for the results on May 5th - something I will continue to adjust/comment on as the campaign progresses. Here's a copy of what I wrote - and be sure to check the election blog too!
As the media are bound to be full of election experts making their predictions on the outcome of the election, I thought that it might be interesting to put my predictions down in writing two or three times during the campaign, to see how much they change and at which point they are most correct.
At the moment, most pundits are being extraordinarily cagey. The Times’ Tim Hames outlined possibilities from a Labour majority of 20 seats to one of over 100. On Radio 2 this lunchtime, their pollster refused to make a prediction, saying the range of possible results was vast, unlike in 1997 and 2001. The consensus appears to be that turnout will make the big difference. Labour are trying to avoid a slim majority by scaremongering about letting the Tories in by the back door; the LibDems are hoping that rather than staying at home, disillusioned Labour voters will turn out for them. Presumably the Tories are secretly counting on a low turnout, given that a FT Poll today showed that they have a significant lead among those “absolutely certain to vote”.
If I’d been writing this last September, my prediction would have been easy. The Tories were lacklustre in the extreme; they seemed opportunistic and Howard an unprincipled leader (especially with his ‘weasel words’ over the Iraq war). In September, I fully expected the Tories to make minimal gains. Labour’s majority would only have been dented if some seats shifted to the Lib Dems.
Now, however, Michael Howard (and Lynton Crosby) have succeeded in managing to shift the ground away from Labour. They mention travellers and gypsies and yet rarely get accused of playing the race card. The Margaret Dixon affair was a masterpiece in preventing Labour seizing control of debate on health. There is good reason for increased confidence amongst the Tories.
Labour, on the other hand, is suffering from widespread disillusionment. It would seem the principle beneficiaries would be the Lib Dems, because of their opposition to Iraq. Their platform, however, is unknown to most people, and whilst I feel it may actually have a surprising amount of coherence, they will have to make a strong effort to make sure that their message is heard. That said, their effective targeting of key seats will bring dividends, and if they can force Oliver Letwin and David Davis to focus on their own constituencies, then the national effectiveness of the Tories may be reduced.
So, time to put my cards on the table. The one thing I am certain of is that the best possible result the Tories can hope for is a Labour majority of about 20-30 seats. To be even the largest party in a hung Parliament will require a swing of 8.3%, and I cannot see there being enough belief in Michael Howard as a Prime Minister to achieve that. I don’t see such a reduction in majority happening, however. Much more likely is a majority of somewhere between 60-80 seats, with the Tories gaining about 40 seats and the Lib Dems getting the remainder. Let’s see how that looks on May 6th!
Party Membership, Soap & YouGov
One of the major downsides of being a member of a political party is the illegitimacy the expression of your political opinions acquire. I only got onto Question Time's audience through some fast-talking to the BBC telephone staff, and I suspect YouGov (with whom I am registered) will never invite me to participate in one of their General Election polls. I recieved an e-mail today from them and hoped it may be my chance to pledge my soul to Charles Kennedy in their statistics. I eagerly followed the link...
"We would like to know what you think of bars of bathroom soap."
Bugger.
But I'm going to post on YouGov, because they are an interesting phenomenon. The idea of an internet-based polling company is not surprising, but what is astounding is that they work. "They shouldn't work, but they do," is how
one excellent webpage offering a guide to the UK pollsters. Quite how the bias of the fact that all their samples are from internet users still gives them success is bizarre. Presumably they adjust their information for gender and age (and that probablye explains why a 20-something male like me doesn't get invited to respond very often), but even so, it is an interesting fact of life. Still, whether they get the 2005 race right, and whether I ever get a poll from them will have to be seen.
Oh-- before I sign off: an update on the bar soap survey. "Which of these statements best describes how often you personally use bar soap?"
I can assure any undecided voters reading this that Liberal Democrats would never come into the "Never" or "Once a month categories" and, as I am certain a forthcoming YouGov poll will show, are all 'Three times a day or more often'. (Except in the South-West, where we have a completely different policy of '3 to 4 times a week').
Militant Moderate Profile: Ken
Ken has an "Incredible Hulk" like character about him, possessing the ability to turn from a genial and good-humoured conversationalist to a furious and implacable nemesis whenever you flick the "debate" switch by making a provocative or ill-considered comment. A Historystudent, he most enjoys relaxing with a pint of orange squash at the Gardener's Arms' quiz. Politically, Ken is hard to place; conservative on some issues and liberal on others, he is living proof that politics cannot be distilled into left-right axes. What you can predict, however, is that he will have a well-considered and thoughtfully developed argument on any issue you choose.
Militant Moderate Profile: Richard
Fountains of Wayne aficionado Richard is renowned for his acerbic wit and strong moral stances. When not drinking Timothy Taylor's Landlord in the Gardener's Arms, he will be beavering away at a history Master's degree. Politically speaking, he is a card carrying commie member of the Liberal Democrats. Despite this, he is an intelligent chap, and is rarely anything other than erudite and well-thought out. His political opinions are infused with a 'fire and brimstone' morality, and is a Broad Church Anglican who happened to stop believing in God. Whilst he is from the left wing of the militant moderates, he is a welcome companion and I look forward to his contributions here.
Michael Howard Gets It Right
An unlikely headline for a post, but Michael Howard's
launch of the Conservative campaign was an excellent speech, intelligently crafted to be utterly reasonable and laudable. of course, some of the policies behind his campaign are neither, but I do think he should get a pat on the back for two pigeon holes he kept repeating: "hard-working people" and "people who play by the rules".
While the fact I could find it reasonable is a reflection of the skill with which this speech, of aspirations, banalaties and generalities, was written, it is only fair to acknowledge credit where credit's due. The idea of working for "people who play by the rules" is an excellent sentiment, although, of course nobody would actually disagree with it.
However, Howard has found a clever and interesting niche in politics here. Whilst I would doubtlessly disagree with the ways in which one should help "people who play by the rules", the 'responsibilities' part of 'rights and responsibilities' gets forgotten too often, and those of us who would often get labelled as liberals are prime offenders. There should be no apologies or retrenchment in attempts to argue that crime isn't just a moral fault on the part of individuals but also a social problem, but in emphasising the latter it has perhaps been too easy to forget that we should have no doubts in asserting that playing by the rules is the ideal and what a fair society should be able to accept. In criticisng faults, it has become too easy to lose the moral compass.
Now, given that Michael Howard's "playing by the rules" seems to be an excuse to whip up populist ire against travellers and asylum seekers, his own moral compass is clearly spinning freely in the wind, but he brings up an interesting question here. On this one piece of rhetoric, though, there's a kernel of intelligence. Selling political ideas under banners of 'fairness' and 'a level playingfield' is a powerful tactic no matter your political stripe, because it speaks so universally and passionately. I never thought one of
Lynton Crosby's dog whistles would prick my ears, but this is a valuable line for any politician to take, even if I will never reconcile myself to Michael Howard's answers.
Immoderate Quantities of Moderate Militancy
What began with a
plug on this blog ends here: the blog
From The Dustbin Of History, where Ken and I have been posting in a collaborative effort for the past 3 months, is closing it's doors, as I move acorss to Miliant Moderate. With only two of our group of four friends posting on the Dustbin, in seemed wise to consolidate here, where Ken seems to have picked up a fair bit of traffic. I hope I live up to my own expectations by rapidly decreasing the volume of traffic.
As Ken mentioned in his welcome post below, I have backdated my better posts from the old blog into his archives. Two I particularly liked, which I'll plug here, as they never got much comment first time around:
Let Oxford Burn On A Pyre Of HeathenismProcedure, Tradition & George W. Bush
Some Militantly Moderate Changes
We welcome to the blog today a new contributor, Richard. He's backdated posts from a group blog we used to be on, so if you see the archive swelling up, take a look back through it all.
We also have a new website address. The old link still works (we're remaining at Blogger), but you can now reach us via
www.militantmoderate.co.uk . Enjoy!
If only he wasn't Presbyterian...
Gordon Brown would have to be odds-on for the next Pope. The college of cardinals is his ideal electorate given how much he has been courting the grey vote.
On another issue, is it just me who finds it strange Prince Charles is postponing his wedding to attend the Pope's funeral? After all, not only is Prince Charles the next person to be head of a Church to which the Pope refused to extend Catholic Communion, he is also a divorcee about to marry another. Then again, maybe it is right he attends. If John Paul II is right, it will without doubt be the last time he ever sees him.
A wonderful welcome
It was with dismay I read the following in the Times on Saturday:
"A student on a working holiday in Britain has been forced into hiding after being terrorised by mobs who mistook her for Maxine Carr. "
What a great way of showing the British qualities of restraint and respect for the rule of law. Quite apart from the fact that there was obviously mistaken identity here - that any mob would behave in such a manner towards anyone defies belief. We have a judicial process in this country for one very good reason. That is, it removes emotional excess from our system - it dispassionately reviews the facts of the case and sentences appropriately.
Why do these people show such disregard for the rule of law by their actions? Maxine Carr was put in prison for the crimes she committed. She has served her time, and now is entitled to enjoy the benefits of a free citizen, like any other resident in this country. Whether we feel the punishment is justified or not, that is the system we have.
A society cannot work without recognised and accepted laws. If we are against the laws, we campaign to change them in public. A mob mentality does not achieve anything. And in this case, it is positively counter-productive. The actions of the people of Cheadle suggest that obeying the law is something that you can pick and choose. We like this, so we'll follow it, but we don't like that, so it goes. That's no way to run a society. Indeed, society simply cannot run on this basis. The people of Cheadle should be ashamed of themselves.
The need for a liberal Pope
Much attention has, rightly, been paid as to the likely identity of the new Pope. Opinion seems to believe that as the conclave is almost entirely of the previous Pope's own choosing, they are likely to plump for someone broadly similar to John Paul II. So, far from the church moderating itself on social issues, the bastion of conservatism would remain.
This is a grave mistake. John Paul II was very successful in bringing the Church into the modern age. A church which had often seemed distant, irrelevant and aloof, suddenly found itself with a head who realised the political, as well as religious mission that he had to achieve. By becoming a Pope of the people, the physical presence of religion became something that was widely shared. The televised pictures of the four million present at Mass in the Philippines demonstrates the social significance of the Pope.
Similarly, the dying days of the Pope showed how slick and efficient the Vatican media machine was. The news of his death was completely controlled so that the portrayal of John Paul as a man suffering for the whole of humanity was carried out very successfully. Indeed, they also interspersed news with sufficient details of the continued administration of the Church so as to make sure the question of authority never became raised.
On social issues, however, the Catholic Church has been much less successful. The gap between the rhetoric and the reality of the Church is striking. The Pope calls for greater understanding between religions, but refuses to open the Vatican papers detailing what they knew of the Holocaust. Whilst protesting against sexual immorality the world over, he found a special job in Rome to prevent Cardinal Law being prosecuted for his role in the Boston Church scandal. He even deified a Pope who is strongly suspected of having been a paedophile.
Let him without sin cast the first stone. If the Church is willing to demonise those who act on normal and uncriminal human desires, so simple as using a condom, it should not be prepared to stand by those who have committed crimes of a much more serious nature. This gap between what was said and what was done may well, in the future, undermine significantly the historical reputation of this Pope.
The reasons for a liberal Pope, however, are far more numerous. Firstly, I know many Catholics who consider their church to be disgracefully hypocritical when it controls so much wealth, and yet does not act against poverty, despite pronouncements to the contrary. It is all very well for John Paul to have been sceptical about rampant materialism; yet he had the power to make a much greater difference than he did.
Secondly, as a friend of mine at the
Dustbin of History has pointed out, his statements regarding sexual matters can be considered to be morally corrupt, or even morally evil. To ban the practise of using a condom for church members, thus greatly increasing the spread of HIV, is ill at ease with a church that wishes to defend human life. I may have sympathy with preaching abstinence. But for a leader like John Paul to stubbornly stick to doctrine when a personal pronouncement on the matter could have saved, literally, millions of lives, is unpardonable and should not be forgotten. The church will find itself storing up serious problems for the future if it forgets to preach a message of goodness at the expense of concentrating what people get up to in their bedroom.
Finally, the continued ban on marriage for the priesthood will prevent the Catholic Church from attracting young men into active service for the church. In some countries it is estimated that half the clergy may die within the next ten years. Preventing priests from having a family will be a major factor in this. What does the Church think is more important? Clinging dogmatically, once again, to a point of principle, or preventing the church from a slow but certain death?
These are the choices that face the conclave of the College of Cardinals as they turn their thoughts to John Paul's successor. The Catholic Church made great strides under John Paul's leadership. But there is much distance left to run. The decisions of the next few weeks will be highly important in determining the future direction of the church.
What is a "culture of life"?
Slate are currently running a series of very interesting letters between a liberal and conservative Catholic debating the historical legacy of the Pope. The letter linked to above was of particular interest to me, because it touched on a theme that I have been thinking about recently given the suffering of the Pope and the furore over the Terri Schiavo case.
President Bush earlier in the week gave his support to those who wished to create a "culture of life". This seems to be a meaningless phrase. It suggests that life, in itself, is a desirable end, totally devoid of quality or meaning. Simply put, the main objective on this planet is to survive. The conservative Catholic claimed that the Pope would have supported such a blanket stance. Yet in his dying days, he specifically repudiated such thoughts.
It is believed that the Pope refused to travel to hospital, because there he would have been placed on life support. Church doctrine refuses to allow life support to be switched off. In the words of the Vatican, however, the Pope has been serenely waiting for his meeting with his Father, and was prepared for his death rather than to suffer with indignity.
This, to me, seems to be an integral part of a true celebration of life. If life is nothing more than a struggle for survival, then it does become devoid of all meaning. Where is the joy in caring for friends? Where is the joy in excitement, travel, danger, discovery? Why, indeed, do we not go and find our own individual plots and just fend for ourselves? Life is precious because of the opportunities it opens to us.
The announcement of the Pope's death was very cleverly managed by the Vatican, who proved adept at managing the news cycle. Yet the significance of the announcement of the death was the dignity with which it was portrayed. There is much to question about the Pope's historical legacy. In my opinion, politically he used his influence for good; but in questions of culture, his influence is
far more questionable, and some may even suggest
morally corrupt.
However, the dignity of his death should restore some intellectualism and nuance to the debate regarding pro-life in all its forms. Sitting with friends the other day, we all agreed that were we in Terri Schiavo's situation, we would want the feeding tube removed. Similarly, if I had been the Pope, I would not have wished for life support. Our time on this earth, for whatever reason, is limited. Once we realise this fact we are able to achieve much more than if we simply try to live forever. “I am happy and you should be happy too. Do not weep.”
The Death Of A Pope
As
John-Paul II's condition declines and his death seems imminent, it is important to reflect on some of the complexities of his condition. In doing so, let me say at the outset, that while I approach this topic in a secualr light, I appreciate the spiritual significance the Pope holds for Roman Catholic readers, and hope that my feelings are not assumed to be disrespectful or intolerant, but in the spirit of the same free and open debate one is sure the Pope himself would always wish to encourage.
The Pope's death will surely be met with international trbutes to his undoubted successes in adapting the Papacy to a new and difficult age, but it should also remember the ultra-conservatism he has encouraged on a number of issues. The Pope's decrees on abortion, contraception, homosexuality and AIDS all leave a great deal to be desired, in my humble opinion, but I would like to focus on the latter issue, as a particularly outrageous example of doctrinal opposition to practical ethics.
In Africa, the Catholic church has stringently opposed the teaching of contraceptive prevention of the spread of AIDS, and has gone so far as to endorse the view that condoms cannot prevent the spread of the disease, and may actually assist in its spread. This is a very different aspect of the contraception debate to the one we see in Western Europe, where the issue is essentially a theoretical one about choice and family planning, and the benefits of contraception in aiding the reduction of sexually-transmitted diseases is often considered a peripheral issues.
While we may all pray that the end of the Pope is "serene", as the Vatican describes it, it is important to bear in mind the responsibility John-Paul II holds for his church's teachings and their effects on millions of lives over the world. Whereas his contribution to international peace has been undeniably good, I must argue that he has spread untold misery and evil in the Catholic church's social teachings, and I hope it is not considered disrespectful to challenge these ideas at the end of his Papacy. As he now retreats to the Vatican, having declined medical treatment in hospital, apparently choosing not to prolong his own life as long as possible, it would be a dishonour to his influence and authority if we were to silence debate on the effects of his teachings, in favour of sterile and sacharrine eulogies.
Reflections
A strange feeling has come over me today. In the Vatican, a man is dying who believes that I am going to Hell. Not because of anything I have done, per se. Not even because we worship a different God. Because I refuse to accept fairly important parts of the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the eyes of Pope John Paul II I am liable, upon death, to an eternity of damnation.
And yet, as he lies on his deathbed, I find myself heavily touched by the suffering that he has undergone. Seeing him deliver his Easter message last Sunday was a harrowing experience. There cannot be many things more terrible in this world than being in control of your brain but unable to control your body. For this fading away to be carried out so publicly must compound the turmoil. The Pope is expected, to Catholics, to be the physical presence of God on earth. To see him so frail seems strange - but when you consider who God has appointed as his previous representatives, it is oddly fitting that a frail man can still express such senses of dignity.
There are many of the political stances of the Catholic Church during the pontificate of John Paul II which have possibly caused more problems than they have solved. In particular, the intractable opposition to abortion has contributed to an emotive debate where feelings cloud a genuine discussion of the issue. Yet John Paul has also been able to use his undoubted influence in the world as a power for good. The significance of there being a Polish Pope greatly assisted the thaw in the Cold War, and for that contribution to humanity, he is rightly lauded.
For whatever we may think of his church or his beliefs, the Pope is a very significant political figure, having a strong impact over the lives of a billion people worldwide. For someone with such a weight on his shoulders, he has always carried himself with the dignity that commands respect. When he spoke, he gave the impression that he had carefully considered his words and did not rush into his judgement.
What this shows, of course, is that the Christian message has a far deeper resonance than the doctrinal issues that the Catholic Church uses to judge salvation. Dignity, respect for others, and honour are crucial aspects in creating a good world; what one does in one's bedroom, to take but one example is not. I feel sorry at the passing of the Pope because he was a good, if misguided man.
