A New Year's Resolution

Thank you for your support the last few months, we'll be back with more observations and scrutiny from us in January.

In 2011 there will be more weekly articles, featuring:

+ A three-part series on leadership,
+ A look at the issues around the world such as identity and its implications in Europe,
+ ... and much more besides!

Have a great holiday season and we'll see you in the new year!

The Choice Between Two Lefts

In the forthcoming Oldham East & Saddleworth by-election, the decision for voters of the left is still between two parties. For those of you who feel the Liberal Democrats have sold out their place on the left, let me explain how I reach this conclusion.

Whoever stands in place of Woolas as Labour's candidate, and whoever stands as a Liberal Democrat; will have to face the fact that between them they still represent the anti-Tory vote in the UK. However, in a mid-term election such as this, especially during a fixed five-year term; they represent different kinds of anti-Tory votes.

A seat for the Liberal Democrats in Oldham represents a practical opposition to Tory plans. Regardless of the line that Lib Dem Ministers feel they have to toe (or want to?), the backbenchers are the ones who will suffer most from their decisions at the next general election. So it is they who are most feeling the protesters and unhappy voters breathing down their neck.

However they also have a small ace up their sleeve, in the form of a number of former party leaders. Sir Menzies Campbell & Mr Charles Kennedy represent a more 'Left' element to the party. This backbench element, with sufficient numbers, can represent a very big stumbling block to the balance of power between the coalition partners.

Both Mr Campbell and Mr Kennedy have both been making nuisances of themselves so far during this term (Kennedy, 2010; Campbell, 2010) and both were amongst the 21 Liberal Democrats to vote against a tuition fee rise, who along with the 8 abstainers, outnumber the Lib Dems who voted for the rise (Duffett, 2010).

A seat for Labour is useful to the opposition for different reasons. The seats in parliament currently sit at Coalition 363 to Labour 255. Practically speaking, one more Labour seat will make no difference to the voting in the commons at this juncture. However a vote for Labour has the potential to be a bit of a publicity coup for anti-Tory voters.

While in purely practical terms, that seat would not be able to make much parliamentary difference for Labour, it can certainly send a very clear and public message to the coalition government. At this stage a strong media campaign, capitalising on recent events, could be a very effective tool for opposing Tory policy wishes.

Both options, of course, do present concerns for left (or anti-right) voters.

The major concern for voters considering the Liberal Democrats is their stance towards tuition fees. While those who make up a part of the Coalition, the Cleggs, Alexanders & Cables, feel compelled to do what they see as the responsible thing, the 'Principled' thing, that is what is best for the treasury when the country is flat broke; the party as a whole seems intent upon a different path.

Their path is defiance. More in line with pre-election pledges, they set themselves to go against even the Coalition Agreement's get out clause for unhappy Liberal Democrats (abstaining from the vote), to go the whole way and vote against their own party leaders who sit in government. A Lib Dem seat in Oldham means another backbencher, another seat and a stronger position from which to wrangle their own leaders away from potentially destructive policies.

For a Labour voter the concerns are traditional ones. Will my vote count for anything? For those voters that fear can be assuaged. For once it is a choice between which party will best effect left ideas. The choice will be between voting for Labour's potential ally (the Lib Dem backbench) or to vote for a Labour Candidate and sending a less practical but a very public message to the Conservative Ministers.

In the end this seat should be decided by votes cast, I think, pragmatically. It is a choice between which party would most weaken, and there-in rein in, the Conservative Government and its potential excesses.

==========
References:
==========
+ The Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election will be held on 13 January;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12003985

+ Charles Kennedy opposing Tuition Fees in Parliament, 14th October 2010:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVJ-_T6C_zU
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/oct/14/kennedy-against-tuition-fee-rise

+ Sir Menzies Campbell tells BBC he opposes Tuition Fees, 13th October 2010:
 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11531247
 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1320338/Ming-Campbell-challenges-coalition-joins-Lib-Dem-tuition-fee-rebels.html
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/oct/13/menzies-cambell-joins-lib-dem-revolt-tuition-fees

+ Helen Duffett's 'Tuition fees: How Liberal Democrat MPs voted'; 9th December 2010;

+ Laura Kuenssberg's 'How Lib Dems are manoeuvring ahead of tuition fees vote';
 [Features a list of expected pledge-keeping Lib Dems]

Liberty & Choice, Individuality & Privacy

It has come to my notice that the new direction of business practices seems to be exposing a deeper transition within society. As marketing leans towards the individualising of products, it becomes increasingly necessary for these companies to collect a greater depth of information about its customers.

There has been divided opinion as to the merits of targeted internet marketing and the subversive methods of attaining the information necessary to carry out such campaigns.

"People want to share and stay connected with their friends and the people around them. If we give people control over what they share, they will want to share more. If people share more, the world will become more open and connected. And a world that's more open and connected is a better world."
(Zuckerberg, 2010)

"Facebook originally earned its core base of users by offering them simple and powerful controls over their personal information. As Facebook grew larger and became more important, it could have chosen to maintain or improve those controls. Instead, it's slowly but surely helped itself — and its advertising and business partners — to more and more of its users' information, while limiting the users' options to control their own information."
(Opsahl, 2010)

There has also been much talk within care industries about the rise of personalised care, and the call for increasingly specialised responses to individual needs (Morton & Morgan, 2009).

So what does this mean for the public at large? Well, it is not the demonstrated practice of big business to hedge its bets in terms of services offered. This means that a trend towards personalised service could mean a drift towards further sanctioned intrusion into the privacy of consumers. This then raises some issues:

+ First, just how important is privacy within modern society? With the rise of social networking, enabling expressions of individuality has become a visible and profitable market. When the minutiae of the lives of users are volunteered to full public view by millions of users, is this shift towards full disclosure of the 'private' in the interests of a public that is becoming very aware of its own diverse and complex nature?

+ Secondly, considering the first point, are the liberty of privacy and the liberty of individuality incompatible? Is it possible for a market trend and growing social movement towards disclosure to live alongside privacy of the individual?

These thoughts present a bit of a conundrum to me as a believer in the liberty of the individual 'agent' in society. I also consider the likelihood that my attachment to personal privacy may well be the cultural hangover from previous generations, which is being superseded in society by the 'public' right to free information.

==========
References:
==========
+ Mark Zuckerberg's 'From Facebook, answering privacy concerns with new settings';

+ Kurt Opsahl's 'Facebook's Eroding Privacy Policy: A Timeline';

+ Tracy Morton & Maureen Morgan's 'Examining how personalised care planning can help patients with long term conditions';

Recognition: The People's Filibuster

I hope that many of you were fortunate enough to witness Independent US Senator, and self-avowed Socialist, Bernie Sanders' filibuster on Friday evening (GMT). While the attempts of Mr Sanders, a staggering 8 hours and 34 minutes on the floor at the age of 69; in the end were unable to derail the bi-partisan tax cut extension plans of the US Government and Republicans in the house, he has most certainly earned himself much respect and probably a fervent following.

Mr Sanders demonstrated great fortitude in embarking on what he knew would be a doomed venture. It is a testament to how much he cares about the wellbeing of his Vermont constituents, and all Americans, that he would make this stand.

I feel that protesters in this country could learn something from this stand. So far each subsequent protest has been mired by violence perpetuated by some minority groups that have infiltrated the larger peaceful protests. It comes to mind that maybe those organising such marches in future need to think very hard before continuing with protesting tactics that are allowing their ranks to be so easily infiltrated by violent troublemakers.

Mr Sanders has set a very good example. Oratory still has the power to move, especially when you speak so passionately for almost 9 hours uninterrupted. If protests are to continue in Westminster, why not set up a small podium and see if you can talk for near 9 hours in support of University fee reform.

Better yet, why not gather together every book, academic paper and speech made in Parliament in favour of truly progressive University reform; every willing speaker you can find; every leader, academic and personality who is able; and see how long you can keep a people's filibuster going.

While people are talking and everyone is listening, it makes it much harder for infiltrators to stir up violence without being more conspicuous than they have so far been brave enough to be. I think it would be a far more civilised and resonant way to make your elected members understand your feelings than smashing up things that the Taxpayer has to pay to repair.

==========
References:
==========
+ The Beginning of Mr Sanders' nine hour filibuster speech;

+ Michael Tomasky's 'The significance of Bernie Sanders' filibuster';

+ James Rainey's 'Why Sen. Bernie Sanders can single-handedly filibuster tax cuts for rich';

+ Craig Howie's 'Bernie Sanders filibuster turns Twitter-buster';

- For more from Mr Sanders:
Bernie Sanders' Wikipedia Profile;
http://twitter.com/senatorsanders
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5OtB298fHY; December 1st 2010;

In Defense of Welfare

Last week I made some mention of Disraeli and his constitutional reforms that enfranchised hundreds of thousands of people. His great rival had been Gladstone, a staunch 'Classic' Liberal. Following the era of Disraeli & Gladstone's rivalry there was a shift away from 'Classic' towards a 'Progressive' Liberalism.

The dichotomy between Disraeli's policies of enfranchisement and Gladstone's freedom through a free market in many ways could be seen to have produced this progressive shift, paving the way for Asquith & Lloyd George's more moderate and proactive government. You see the struggle between the two rivals that led Disraeli's Conservatives to push through constituency reforms, generated a newly powerful working class voting block. This new voice had gotten a taste for reform and the progressives where quick to push their legislative agenda.

The gem in the progressive crown was the Liberal Welfare Reforms. Through the combination of a policy program and budget, the Liberal government brought about a complete shift in the British approach to poverty and responsible government.

My concern is that 'Workfare' is missing the point of a century's worth of scientific research. It seems be attempting to reverse the progressive shift, favouring instead the idealistic traditionalism that the Tories have been criticised for in other policy areas. (Teacher Talks, 2010).

The crucial point they are missing is that money is not the motivator they think it is. This has been shown time and again by the studies of institutions such as Stanford and MIT. Professor Ariely discusses the merit of money motivation here (Ariely, 2009).

It strikes me then as an ideological attempt to enforce unrestricted competition that favours those that start with means, the strongest and the most imposing. It also risks a return to the 'poor laws' and utterly unethical 'workhouses' of old for those who cannot keep up.

This should not be taken to mean that competition is evil. But rather that unregulated competition leads to destructive, ruinous and counter-productive mentalities that put the market at as much risk as it does society.

Welfare can be a great leveller. It demands that no one gets left behind. It demands that those who are born into privilege are not able to exploit those unfair advantages at the expense of those who were not so fortunate in their economic background. It demands that the privileged and not so alike begin from a level playing field, to all have a fair chance.

But welfare is more than that. As it enfranchises those without, it enriches those with, by creating the fair competition that those so enamoured of the market tell us is the key to getting the best from people.

The Deputy Prime Minister Mr Clegg has been trying to provide a counterpoint to Mr Duncan Smith's presentation of Welfare Reform (Clegg, 2010), trying to convince us that this is what the Coalition policy will achieve. The Tory minister has advertised this reform to voters as a means to curtail abuse of Welfare, through harsher penalties and stricter terms. The Liberal Democrat leader on the other hand has been trying to push it as a 'work positive' approach.

But the more Mr Clegg tries to make us see these reforms as 'making work pay', the more I cannot help but see it as a thinly veiled acceptance of a policy of 'work because you have no other choice'. It is motivation less in the form of 'follow this carrot to freedom' and more 'chase this carrot or we'll beat you with this stick'.

The Liberals are doing all they can to honour the responsibilities of being in government, a coalition government no less; dealing with the compromises of everyday politics. But it is a difficult tightrope walk to balance duty & conscience.

That conscience is well summed up by David Lloyd George, on presenting his budget to fund the Liberal Welfare Reforms:

“This is a war Budget. It is for raising money to wage implacable warfare against poverty and squalidness. I cannot help hoping and believing that before this generation has passed away, we shall have advanced a great step towards that good time, when poverty, and the wretchedness and human degradation which always follows in its camp, will be as remote to the people of this country as the wolves which once infested its forests".

It is well worth watching this video if you want to learn more about the science of motivation.

==========
References:
==========
+ The Coalition Welfare Reforms:
21st Century Welfare, Forward by the Secretary of State
Unemployed told: do four weeks of unpaid work or lose your benefits
Long-term jobless 'could face compulsory manual labour'
The existing New Deal scheme already includes four weeks labour

+ Teacher Talks' 'Gove scraps a rule that doesn’t exist';

+ Dan Ariely's 'The Trouble with Cold Hard Cash'; Technology Review, 2009.

+ Nick Clegg's 'Poverty plus a pound isn't enough';

+  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_welfare_reforms

+ Dan Pink's 'Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us'; RSA Animate, 2010.

The Man Who Would Be Disraeli

Earlier this month I wrote what might be interpreted as a criticism of Mr Cameron. Well today I feel I should adopt a pose more suitable to any self-respecting rational gentleman. So here is a more different stance from which to consider the enigmatic Mr Cameron; and to also consider how well he is to be trusted with the faith put in him by some voters (and the voters who put their trust in someone else and still got Mr Cameron).

Benjamin Disraeli, was born in 1804 and was in office as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom first in 1868 and again between 1874 and 1880. His methods for successful conservatives are described quite succinctly by The Times (2010), in his own words, as 'Tory men and Whig measures'. During his term in office his most memorable act for many in the north - such as Ormskirk, which is graced with a statue of him - was his policy of enfranchisement (Reform Act, 1867).

It seems to be this focus upon the working class that best represents the reformist spirit that Cameron is seeking to emulate as he edges the Conservatives towards the moderate middle. Cameron also seems to fancy the rebel in Disraeli, as he has also drawn criticism from his own side for his 'radical' positions (Kenneth Clarke, 2009).

David Marquand went further with his assessment comparing Mr Cameron to a 19th Century 'Whig Imperialist':

'We can't know if Cameron will become a second Baldwin, Butler or Macmillan, but there is not much doubt that he would like to. Of course, he will not be a clone of his Whig imperialist predecessors. He aspires to govern a different country, with a different class system and economic structure; and he has learned a great deal from that magician of ambiguous populism, Tony Blair.'

Critique of Disraeli's approach (and motives) to pass the reform acts seem to be aimed at who he really wished to enfranchise, the people or the party. But whatever Disraeli's motive, his Reform Act is still the basis of the electoral system we use today, 143 years later, though much amended by subsequent Representation of the People Acts.

Cameron has come under similar criticism. This leads me to ask if it matters about ulterior motives when reform is on the cards.

+ First, whether a reformist approach, when ultimately for personal or affiliate interest will have a lasting impact upon the political process.

+ And secondly, if the individualist approaches suggested above are able to effect positive societal changes, does this signal that trickle down approaches really offer society viable & consistent affluence on all levels?

For me, motives matter. However, when results are achieved it is harder to get serious criticisms and anxieties taken seriously. Just look at the Labour years. Not until the sun began to set on 'New Labour' did we see the knives and old grievances coming out. When you're winning, few seem to care how you're winning.

==========
References:
==========
+ Reform Act, 1867; formally titled as: Representation of the People Act 1867

+ Dominic Lawson's 'Cameron, the Whig in Tory clothing';

+ David Marquand's 'Labour has got Cameron wrong: this is no crypto-Thatcherite but a Whig';

+ Laura Miller's 'Ken Clarke calls Cameron's marriage policy "social engineering";

Mr E Miliband

The last issue was, I admit, a little out of date. It was written back when the race for the Labour Leadership began, following Mr Cameron's appointment to Downing Street. I felt, however, that it still offered a few ideas to keep in mind when assessing the new labour leader, now known to us as Mr E Miliband.

In issue six I laid out some of the factors that an opposition leader for this new era will have to keep in mind. In short these were the ability:

+ to generate audience;
+ to represent diversity;
+ to be constructive;
+ to offer balance.

So to number one. An opposition leader needs to generate audience. This is all about a leader's ability to generate public awareness of policy, governance and parliamentary activity. As I have previously said, audience generates scrutiny. A leader of the opposition needs to be seen and heard to ensure proper observation of the political process.

I recall being at Manchester Pride and seeing Mr Miliband walk past and not be noticed or recognised by anyone around. While there are various reports of his being there, it didn't seem to stir anyone at the time. It would appear that Mr Miliband needs to raise his profile somewhat.

Speaking of Pride, number two is the need to represent diversity. At the new leader of the opposition's first PMQs Mr Cameron raised the issue that Mr E Miliband had been elected leader by Trade Unions and yet was racing to the defence of the 'squeezed middle'. While Cameron suggested this to be a weakness, Labour should be quick to push this as a display of Mr Miliband's ability to represent a broad range of interests. Mr Miliband has also offered to work with Liberal Democrats disaffected by the coalition, yet has also shown a less cooperative side by stating in the press an unwillingness to work with particular individuals:

"So you wouldn't work with Nick Clegg?"
“That's right. No."'
(Ed Miliband, in Cowley & Hasan, 2010)

This brings me to number three. To be constructive. This was something that was abundantly clear during the elections and which the speaker of the house stressed heavily during Mr Miliband's first PMQs. The people do not like it when politicians harangue one another. So we can be sure that the above quote does not present a constructive image. That said, Mr Miliband began his first PMQs by immediately promising to work with the Coalition Government over a series of issues. This followed up his commitment to lead a progressive party in his leadership speech at the party conference (Macintyre, 2010).

The fourth and final point is balance. As I finished the last article, an opposition leader is under more pressure than ever to represent a whole range of interests while maintaining a flawless media profile. As far as I can see, Mr E Miliband has launched himself headlong into the task of balancing (or juggling) these competing interests.

It is worth considering one last point. In the transcript (on bbc.co.uk) of Mr E Miliband's leadership victory speech, I found this telling quote which shows his ambitions:

"Every day out of power, ... another day when we cannot change our country for the better."

The downside of this quote is that it presents a fairly pessimistic opinion of life in opposition. It seems from his language that Mr Miliband has only one aim for the next four years. Get back into government. For me I would prefer if he where far less dismissive of parliament's role in British politics. I'm sure the members of the house (and those who elect them) would like the opposition leader not to act like debates can't make a difference.

In all Mr E Miliband certainly offers something different to Messrs Clegg & Cameron. Is it better? I'm not sure. Mr Cameron looks like he's trying to be statesmanlike; Mr Clegg looks like politics is his element, as if he has never known anything else. But Mr E Miliband? He is something very different. A mixture of ambition and underestimation, who so far is trying to be all things at once. He may be a good choice for Labour, for a while, simply because his election has confused all of their opponents and supporters alike.

==========
References:
==========

+ Richard Spencer's 'The 'squeezed middle' are victims of free market housing policies';

+ Left Foot Forward's '‘Squeezed middle’ facing the “age of insecurity”'

+ Jason Cowley & Mehdi Hasan's '"I won’t be defined by the right-wing press"';

+ James Macintyre's 'Ed Miliband: next prime minister';

+ The BBC's 'Ed Miliband: Labour leader's 2010 conference speech in full';

+ Patrick Wintour's 'Labour Conference: Ed Miliband: 'We are the optimists'';

Tension, Animosity & Strong Opposition

(This article was written prior to the Labour Leadership Election reaching its conclusion. However, it was still felt to have some merit as a prelude to next week's profile of the new Labour leader Mr Ed Miliband)

In this new parliament, the Labour Party begins its adventure along the path of opposition. It is an art the party must re-learn after over a decade of governance with an iron-fist. In doing so, it would be wise to look to the devolved administrations for instruction.

In Scotland the Labour Party is led by Iain Gray. As can be seen from the various Scottish FMQs, or a raft of reporting on Scottish politics, there is a definite air of tension about Holyrood whenever Messrs Salmond & Gray enter the chamber. Whether you appreciate the tensions or not, the tenacity and ferocity of their approach to each other frequently throws the light upon the cracks in the armour on all sides of the floor.

The tense relationship between Gray and Salmond demonstrates the importance of tension in any successful narrative. As Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw, of games critique fame, puts it: 'conflict means adversity and adversity is the essence of drama'. And drama means audience and audience means scrutiny.

But this drama is no new thing to party leaders nor confined to Scotland. From the struggles between Gladstone and Disraeli, to none to subtle distaste that has been reported between Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown - on display in several parliamentary debates - the old politics has plenty of drama to go around.

But this is the leader-opposition dynamic of the 'old' bi-partisan politics. If politics is to evolve as Messrs Cameron and Clegg are hoping, then is it enough to be content with the unbalanced system of party spokespeople, limited to just two sides, haranguing one another across the floor? Again, as Ben Croshaw points out about the narrative in video games, 'conflict can be more than just two knuckleheads taking pot shots at each other from either side of a disused warehouse'.

This all leads to some Coalition news developments. The first is Charles Kennedy's refusal to support the Lib-Con conjoinment in Coalition. The second is the arrangement laid out in the Coalition Agreement for a separate Liberal Democrat spokesperson to voice opposition on behalf of dissenters from the 'government line' on controversial issues.

Mr Kennedy laid out his issues in The Observer, pointing to the danger the deal presented to the identity of the Liberal Democrats. Having previously been a Social Democrat MP, Mr Kennedy has plenty of experience of the turbulence and difficulties facing coalitions. His major cause for disappointment was the derailing of the long term Lib Dem strategy to 'realign the left', thanks to a lack of Labour 'reciprocal will'.

As for the arrangement, with specific reference to Nuclear Power, there are provisions for a Liberal Democrat Spokesman to present the dissenting case to parliament, without threatening the stability of the government. These provisions could prove an essential foundation for the future of reasonable and moderate coalition governments.

In all of this there is a scientific responsibility of government to present ample time and weight to opposition views, both in-government (such as Kennedy) & out-government (leaders of the opposition). This means ensuring the legitimacy and authority of various kinds of parliamentary opposition are not undermined. They must also account for one of the few results of the live debates that actually gave a general consensus across all media feedback. The public does not like it when politicians attack each other. They want debates to be constructive.

Taken together, this means acknowledging the history of the opposition's role, while admitting the need to advance and adapt the role to contemporary needs.

These issues raise the need to consider:

• First, the role of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition at a time of political evolution. As shown above, politics appears to be (hopefully) shifting beyond the two party dynamic. With this shift there will be calls for greater representation of the views held all across the house. How can the role of opposition develop to meet these challenges?
• Second, with the advent of an era of Party Leaders being scrutinized in increasingly public forums, can parties any longer afford to appoint/elect/enthrone a leader with anything other than a perfect public relations record?
• And finally, considering all of the above, how can the Labour Party best balance all the needs for the first senior opposition leader of this new era?

They must strike the balance between PR image and doggedly tackling the issues, while acknowledging that the opposition role must now adapt to represent a broader band of views more equally. If that were not pressure enough, they must also meet the demands of the public to be constructive. In all, reconstruction of the opposition appears to be a task that requires the attention of all sides of the house.

At Liberty to Object

As we remember today all those who have given their lives in the name of freedom and peace, let us not forget those who risked their lives by refusing utterly the order to kill.

As we remember the unequivocal resolve of the Partisan Guerrilla Fighters of Spain during the Napoleonic Invasion or the French Maquis & Polish Post Office Workers in the face of the Nazi occupation; or the many lives of people of all nationalities of all wars who fought in defence of their homes and their freedom, let us not forget the powerful volitions of the conscientious objectors, who chose a hard path in the face anger, fear and accusations of cowardice.

As we remember those who choose to give their lives for our safety, liberty and peace, let us not forget that still in this world their are men, women and children who still do not have a choice.

In this world there still exists conscription, national service and groups putting guns into the hands of children.

In this world there still exists tribunals to whom you must justify your unwillingness to kill.

In this world there still exists punishments for soldiers who hold conscientious objections to wars their nations wage.

In this world, are we still not past Kennedy's 'What you can do for your country' speech? Are we yet mere peasant subjects, commodities to be traded by medieval institutions? It certainly seemed to be a sentiment John Lennon believed.

In a decade when there are serious moves towards multi-lateral nuclear disarmament; with no more cold war; when the death of soldiers on foreign soil is front-page tabloid scandal; with no great war to fight; the human right not to kill has never been more relevant to the world stage.

I believe society can only reach its individual & collective potential through cooperation. But for that to happen, we need new kinds of sense and some old kinds of courage.

'There is one thing that nobody can deny them: and that is courage. The most difficult form of courage in the world. The courage of the individual against the crowd.'
(Capt Stephen Gwynn MP, on Conscientious Objectors)

==========
References:
==========
+Ian Hislop's 'Not Forgotten: The Men who Wouldn't Fight';

A Poignant & Beautiful Story

I would like to use this week just to say that this last season of Doctor Who has been my favourite since the reboot back in 2005.

In particular though I wanted to compliment Mr Richard Curtis and the Doctor Who team's depiction of both Van Gogh and his madness. It was remarkable. Brilliant. The picture of a soul in torment, a rage of passion and emotion unable to be tamed by the strictures of society. Tony Curran gave a beautiful performance as the troubled master, assailed by demons.

For me the most poignant moment was when The Doctor sought to comfort Amy, saying:

'The good things don't always soften the bad things. But vice-versa the bad things don't spoil the good things or make them unimportant.'

This, to me, is the true essence of beauty. That beauty is not perfect. Perfection meets all aspired parameters exactly. It is repeatable, it can be reproduced, it can be mass produced, it is dull. Beauty is imperfect, its own darkness illustrating its light.

It is nice to know that there are people out there who do not see the world in absolutes, light or dark; but rather in competing shades of grey.

==========
References:
==========
Richard Curtis' 'Vincent and the Doctor'; Doctor Who, BBC, 2010

When is a Tory not a Tory?

The deal was done and the coalition was formed. I must admit that being on the left, the deal upset me somewhat. That said, if this was a deal done by any other Tory I would have to be impressed by how they sacrificed so much of what they stand for to get Liberal backing. But I'm not so sure there has been that much sacrifice.

You see Mr Cameron has never been a Tory. Yes he represents the party, yes he now represents the country (although Scotland, Wales and the North might disagree), but throughout his leadership he has had no shortage of critics from within his own party. They have never really felt he was singing from the right (wing) hymn sheet.

I would say that this extraordinary compromise deal would confirm those doubts within his own party. But if he isn't a Conservative, what on earth does Mr Cameron stand for?

'Being under the rule of David Cameron is like being in an abusive relationship.'
        ('A Backbench MP'; Metro, 2010)

'I really don't think it's anything to do with politicians whether you [get married]... My view of Conservatism is that it's not for us to tell you [what to do through] the tax system ... This is social engineering for God's sake and when I joined the party we weren't in favour of it.'
        (Kenneth Clarke, 2009)

As far as I have ever seen, Mr Cameron has only ever stood for whatever position opposes Labour. Time and again he takes stances on behalf of 'his' party which most of his own ministers find utterly abhorrent. This deal suggests to me that Mr Cameron is a man far less concerned with political stances than with the pursuit of power. In doing so he has increasingly taken on all the characteristics of Mr Blair's type of leadership: populism.

So what do I mean by that? Well from theoretical perspectives leadership can be interpreted as a two-way relationship, counting on a constant circle of feedback to clarify, reinforce and define a unified message. Such a relationship is designed to manage the identity of a group towards in-group members, out-group members and the obstacles faced in achieving goals (House, 1996).

When talking about a populist, I speak of a leader who makes their sole concern the managing of their relationship with followers. As I see it this corrupts the reasons for leading a group of people in the first place; by inverting the nature of the factors to produce an effect where future paths and goals are mapped to manage a fluctuating follower landscape. It is in this that I find a difference between Populist Movements and Social Movements, in forcing activities to become focussed purely upon the maintenance of the group's by-product: power.

When combined with the out-group negativity that, certainly the right-wing press at least has adopted, it breeds a loop of scaremongering and press stunts designed towards managing the dynamics of power, not the achievement of goals. It is the shifting stance that became very familiar with Mr Blair and Mr Cameron is swiftly becoming very adept at tugging at the public's sensitive strings.

 'There is nothing to him. He is like a hollow Easter egg with no bag of sweets inside. Cameron will say absolutely anything if he thinks it might get him elected.'
        (Charlie Brooker, 2007)

These then are my concerns:

+ First that the new Prime Minister commands with far too great an emphasis upon how best to ensure & insure power and not nearly enough on what the purpose of attaining such power would be.

+ Secondly, considering my first concern, should a Conservative administration subsequently become strong enough to govern in a manner unfettered by Liberal Democrats, what affect this could have on British politics. My fear is that a leader with such an amorphous stance before public opinion, backed by a heavily right-wing & reactionary party could blind the public to the realities of serious situations.

While I may be just be another whining lefty, I nonetheless have serious concerns about the serious objectives of this new administration. This is something to be watched with open eyes in the future.

==========
References:
==========
+ Robert J. House's 'Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy and a reformulated theory'; Leadership Quarterly 7 (3): 323–352; 1996.

- For more on Leadership:
Colin Barker, Alan Johnson and Michael Lavalette's: 'Leadership and social movements'; Manchester University Press, 2001.
Dan van Knippenberg & Michael A. Hogg's 'Leadership and Power: Identity processes in groups and organisations'; Sage, 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership

+ John Higginson's 'Bull-boy Cameron stands accused of abusing power';

- For more about David Cameron:
Tories call on David Cameron to quit
Tory MPs react to David Camerons Surprise 1922 committee vote
1922 Committee: David Cameron wins vote on rule change

+ Laura Miller's 'Ken Clarke calls Cameron's marriage policy "social engineering";

- For more angry Ken Clarke:
Ken Clarke clashes with David Cameron over cash crisis
Clarke in 2003: Supremacy Act “fundamentally incompatible” with EU membership
Ken Clarke brands Cameron plan for Bill of Rights as 'xenophobic'
Clarke slams Cameron rights plan

+ Charlie Brooker's 'David Cameron is like a hollow Easter egg, with no bag of sweets inside. He's nothing. He's no one';

Bystanders Affect

On taking up the Presidency of the United States of America the Obama Administration (unlike the Bush Administration), decided it was time to return to the table of international politics and take part in the UN Human Rights Council.

On the international stage, the entrance of the United States into the UN Human Rights Council is a big step for the United Nations. As part of its commitment the US recently submitted its first Universal Periodical Review (UPR), taking a step towards multi-lateral decision making. It is also the first sign of a possible shift in the United States' historical stance to events not American.

Back in 2003 Ms Samantha Power, Director of Multilateral Affairs for the National Security Council, wrote a detailed piece on the history of United States foreign policy towards genocide. Ms Power showed a consistent invocation of isolationist stances by the US, even where lives were very likely to be lost. There is even a suggestion that the resolve of the aggressors was strengthened by American inactivity (Power, 2003). I find it worrying to see resolve can be strengthened by an inactive vigilance.

Particularly so since, as individuals, studies have often shown us to be no more disposed towards intervention. Studies show our chances to help are often dependent upon a whole variety of factors and tripping over any of them can trigger a non-responsive behaviour (Latané & Darley, 1970; Davidio & Penner, 2004).

Some studies also show that self-perceptions of our own competence and qualifications when dealing with situations can affect our response (Baron & Byrne, 1991). This all provokes some questions:

+ Can some combination of cost-reward analysis and a perceived lack of authority go some way to explain US bystander disinterest in all things not American?

+ Is a standing policy of intervention necessary to counter those who would use violence or intimidation and other abusive threats to get what they want?

+ And finally does intervention in a situation always mean physical or violent counter-threats? Is it ever enough to make those who threaten aware they are being watched?

Whatever the explanations, with one gesture the United States has changed things. In joining the council it has thrown its not inconsiderable power behind United Nations led, peaceful, diplomatic resolutions. This act gives hope to individuals the world over in their struggles. The task before the US and the world now is to determine how effective these resolutions can be.

I'd like to think it could be enough to make the world aware that we're watching, but I am wary lest I let the Bystander Effect transform into 'Bystanders Affect'. Some examples of organisations I can think of in Britain today that are promoting active watchfulness are Bridlington's Community Wardens, the Met Police & CSOs on the beat and of course cameras. It has been said that the price we pay for democracy is our vigilance. But how effective can our vigilance be?

===========

References:

===========

+ Report of the United States of America... In Conjunction with the Universal Periodic Review

For more on United States participation in the UN HRC:

- United States Elected to Human Rights Council for First Time...

- United States Wins Seat on U.N. Human Rights Council

- State, Arizona and the UN , The Guardian

+ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)

+ Wikipedia page on the United Nations Human Rights Council

+ Samantha Power's '"A problem from hell": America and the Age of Genocide'; Harper Perennial; 2003. See an extract at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2003/05/b228409.html

+ Bibb Latané & John Darley's 'The Unresponsive Bystander: Why does he not help?'; Apple-Century-Croft; 1970.

+ J.F.Davidio & L.A.Penner's 'Helping and Altruism'; in M.B.Brewer & M.Hewstone's 'Emotion and Motivation'; Blackwell Publishing; 2004.

+ R.A.Baron & D.Byrne's 'Social Psychology (6th ed); Allyn & Bacon; 1991.

+ The work of Bridlington's Community Wardens:

+ Jon Stewart discusses Safety; Daily Show clip from March 9 2010 with Marc Thiessen

+ Jon Stewart discusses Safety; Funny Guy Jon Stewart Makes Deadly Serious Points, Newsweek

+ John Philpot Curran, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" from the speech 'Right of Election', 1790; Published in 'Speeches on the late very interesting State trials', 1808.

Constitutional Niceties

It's now past 100 days of the Coalition government. So far it has survived its fair share of scandals and reached the traditional time to review the early days. Here I wish to point out something that occurred to me following the post-election negotiations.

Constitutionally, Mr. Brown & Labour won the election. That fact appears indisputable. Our constitutional 'tradition' posits that if no other leader is able to muster a parliamentary majority at an election, then the sitting Prime Minister 'wins' (BBC, 2010; Blick, 2010). By that, of course, I mean he remains Prime Minister as a constitutionally appointed duty. It is also then his responsibility to form a workable government.

So when Mr.Clegg chose to disregard constitutional precedent in favour of the moral authority of 32% of the population (52% of a 65% turnout), what he in fact did was set in motion a coup d'état.

Now let me clarify that a little bit before I start a mass panic. Our constitution is often referred to as being 'unwritten'. That is not necessarily the case. It is more that it is not contained on any one piece of paper. We have one, it is however the sum of a number of separate laws and traditions.

These traditions are what we have to thank for Mr.Clegg's actions not sparking civil panic. They are what allows the press (Telegraph, 2010) to call for a candidate who has not strictly won, to have a chance to construct a majority. Some however see this not so much as one of the positives of a flexible system, but the result of an impenetrable and convoluted collection of constitutional traditions that leaves us manipulated in the dark (Blick & Wilks-Heeg, 2010).

Now, the Conservative Party, being broadly supportive of traditionalist stances, which includes the maintenance our current governing system; have taken power by that system. However the supporters of a republican style written constitution, more broadly to be found on the Labour left, did not implement that form of constitution while in power. Had it been introduced by the party for the 2010 UK General Election, it would have solidified the sitting Prime Minister's position, giving Labour the firm backing to declare victory.

This is the particular point I wish to address. With the sitting Prime Minister's constitutional role enshrined on paper, would there have been an outcry against Mr Brown remaining in Downing Street when no other majority could be found? Would we now be under a Lib-Lab or Progressive Coalition?

This I think exposes the strengths and weaknesses of our constitutional system compared to a written model:

+ The 'unwritten' model allows room for negotiation and flexibility in situations requiring adaptability.

+ However they can also create 'constitutional crises' in the event of differing or competing interpretations.

+ The written model provides a stable and accountable document demonstrating the divisions of power and constitutional roles.

+ Some written constitutions have been criticised for a perceived inflexibility and the potential for highly subjective stances to be enshrined. Arguments suggest these might be exploited as much as 'unwritten' documents, yet be harder to counter, eg. The Weimar Constitution of 1919.

The questions seems almost to come down to one of preferences. A question of comparison between a looser set of traditions & precedents, adaptable to the realities of the political situation, against a set of inflexible rules that are laid out and cover the chain of political power and everybody's roles, rights and liberties.

For me the jury is still out. However, it is nonetheless comforting (as someone who can safely be described as a NON-TORY) to know that, from a certain point of view, David Cameron is Prime Minister courtesy of a anti-constitutional coup d'état.

==========
References:
==========
+ The BBC's 'Election 2010: First hung parliament in UK for decades'; 7 May 2010

+ Andrew Blick's 'Changing the Rules by Stealth: the UK's Constitution is being written as the public follows the election'; 28 April 2010

+ Andrew Blick & Stuart Wilks-Heeg's 'Governing without majorities - coming to terms with balanced Parliaments in UK Politics'; 16 April 2010

+ The Telegraph's 'General election 2010: Labour has lost and the Conservatives deserve a chance to govern'

+ Anthony King's 'ANALYSIS: So why didn't the Tories reach the summit?';

+ The Weimar Constitution of 1919

Condemnation & Recognition

This is not the article I wished to begin with. I find it, however, to be unavoidable. So I will use my first post here to roundly condemn Mr Nicolas Sarkozy, the 23rd President of the French Republic, for his 'ethnic' policies towards the Roma people.

These policies, as reported last month, involved orders to target the ethnic Roma people for eviction and expulsion from France. Investigations are already under way to determine whether it is in violation of International Human Rights. It is most certainly in violation of all decent morality, not to mention European Union Freedom of Movement laws.

This kind of cynical abuse of a minority in order to bolster flagging political support, as is the accusation levelled at Mr Sarkozy by his critics, is outrageous.

The only light that can be found in the murky depths of this issue is the bravery of the EU Justice Commissioner in standing up to the French State on this issue. Ms Viviane Reding's actions have been nothing short of admirable and gives hope I think both for the future of the EU and for the peaceful and satisfactory resolution of this issue.

==========
References:
==========
For more on these serious events:
- Nicolas Sarkozy rounds on critics and vows to keep dismantling Roma camps (The Guardian, Sept 16 2010)
- Orders to police on Roma expulsions from France leaked (The Guardian, Sept 13 2010)
- Nicolas Sarkozy tells Luxembourg to take in Roma (The Guardian, Sept 15 2010)
- Germany contradicts French statement on Roma camps (BBC News, Sept 16 2010)
- Reding did not mean the Holocaust, but the 'Great Devouring,' Andor says (EU Observer, 17 Sept 2010)
- European Commissioner likens France's deportations of Roma to Nazi genocide (Telegraph Blogs, 18 Sept 2010)
- Angry Nicolas Sarkozy pledges to deport more gypsies (The Metro, Set 16 2010)

For more on International Human Rights:
- http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Introduction.aspx
- http://www.amnesty.org/
- http://tinyurl.com/2vze6cm