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.