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';