Left from Right: Part 1 - Definitions

One of the more perplexing elements of politics is most certainly the way people describe it; the polarised left and right. So what are we talking about when we say left or right?

There are (at least) two kinds of left-right scale in politics. The most prominent of these are those used by The Political Compass:

+ The economic; that is left-Communism & right-Capitalism.
+ and the social; that is left-Libertarianism & right-Authoritarianism.

The Liberals and Labour traditionally represent two faces of the same left-wing of British politics.

The larger part of the Liberals professed 'social libertarianism'. Now this merely describes a certain alignment, a set of values. In this case the Liberals are described as believing that society is best served through individuality and civil liberties, protected by law, with the government only interfering with society to prevent harm; that is libertarianism.

Economically, classical liberals believed in a right-wing approach to economics, that of free market capitalism. This evolved by the start of the C20th into 'social liberalism'. This advocated some restriction on the market to allow for increased and above all 'fair' competition. The approach meant ensuring that, financially, everyone has a common basic starting point that is considered the very least a civilised human being could be expected to have a chance to succeed from. They believed this allowed for 'individuals' to have the greatest chance of success and that there-in lies the success of all. That then is the social; that is to say that society, through public investment & regulation, should act to shape our economy, albeit still for the elevation of individuals.

Labour on the other hand have usually advocated socialism. In reality this has meant a belief in a strong state that best serves the people with a strongly directive approach, sometimes almost authoritarian. The idea is to intercede on behalf of the people in order to deliver social justice. The focus is on society, community and equality over individualism.

Economically, socialism has traditionally expressed a wish for nationalisation of various industries and organisations in order to establish the state, and there-in the people's control over the means of production. This allowed for the easier establishment and enforcement of equality. However economies based on state-run enterprise have suffered on global markets. So Labour adopted what is known as the 'Social Market Economy'. This system has regulation to limit and restrict the market; towards a goal of ensuring fair competition which can then be taxed to pay for state run organisations.

However these are just simplifications. The reality is that parties are not uniform and have many faces & factions. Labour has been visibly afflicted by this in the past, particularly during its thirteen years in office (Jones, 2006). Even more than that, these positions can change with social and economic trends as the ever sensible Mr Tony Benn (2010) observes about the Labour Party:

'What is really significant about [Blair's] political life was that he set up a new political party, New Labour. This transformed the Labour party... when Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson concluded that Labour could never win unless it adopted the economic policy that Mrs Thatcher had set out'.

In the next issue we will explore this idea further, looking at how the left and right can change shape, drift and even merge.

==========
References:
==========
+ The Political Compass

+ Nicholas Jones' 'Brownites vs Blairites - the Full Story'; September 2006;

+ Tony Benn's 'What is really significant about Tony Blair was that he set up a new political party, New Labour'; September 2010;

10 O'Clock Live so far...

It has been several weeks now since Channel 4's excellent Alternative Election Night team returned to our screens as 10 O'Clock Live.

I have yet to be convinced by the show. There have been some good points. While Jimmy Carr and Lauren Laverne have played dress up and Charlie Brooker does what Charlie Brooker does best, David Mitchell has been the star. While a lot of the show has been about bringing in a partisan voice opposite to conservative tone that dominates the press, Mitchell has been a refreshing and commendable voice of sense and moderation. While far from unwilling to speak his mind, he has used it to get everyone's cards on the table to engage in a serious attempt to, not just figure out who is right, but where the views might be reconciled.

However beyond Mitchell, 10 O'clock Live has been at serious risk of treating its audience with as much contempt as the right-wing press treats theirs. Frankly, if I want to be pandered to, I'll buy the Daily Mail. Hearing Jimmy Carr utter that he 'would struggle to take any sort of interest' in the Liberal Democrat conference, was a crushing blow to the credentials of a team hosting a topical-politics show.

How can a show hope to be taken seriously in its satire and viewpoints if it can describe the conference of a governing party as outside of the interest of one of its hosts?

The show seems to buy into the idea that the best counter to a right-wing slanted press is some left-wing slanted media. No. What viewers need is more balanced coverage, more moderation and more David Mitchell.

==========
References:
==========
+ 10 O'Clock Live on Channel 4

Good Cause Coercion

The last hour of comic relief in the very early hours of Saturday morning was rather uncomfortable. As the night wore on it was announced that Fearne Cotton would appear once more in her bathing suit if enough people texted in with donations. Ms Cotton's discomfort and anxiety at uncovering, for as good a cause as it is, was palpable. Having been asked several times she offered a seemingly reluctant acquiescence to it.

The grand finale of the night became the uncovering of a young woman who did not seem entirely comfortable with it, but coerced by a good cause.

How on earth did that happen? Please don't take this as a derogation of that very good cause, but it seems good sense and some decency fled the scene in the wee hours; good causes, especially the best of causes needs always to be wary and sensible lest they cross the line.

(Please go now to the Red Nose Day site and contribute to the best of causes.)

Budget March 2011 - Educate & Cooperate

The first real opportunity since last year's election to get a truly progressive government will soon be upon us and if it is to happen the Labour Party has to step up and be counted.

Labour must actively engage and cooperate with other opposition parties if they want to make real strides towards effective opposition and real changes.

They must be seen to cooperate. Not just behind the scenes, but in public with joint ventures and public displays alongside others on the left. If they want to tell people they represent the united face of the left then they have to start acting like it.

Otherwise Mr E Miliband might as well just get comfortable sitting on the opposition benches for the next four years. But they don't have to.

Labour must educate people, get their message out and let people know their true constitutional options.

Labour must be prepared to govern at any moment should the cracks in the Tory-Liberal coalition widen and split the tenuous union.

If Labour can muster enough support to block the Conservative budget they will trigger a vote of no confidence. In that situation all possible options will be considered before parliament is dissolved and another election is called.

In that event Labour must be organised and have strong alliances.

The most obvious government following a coalition split would be the Tory minority that was felt likely after the 2010 election or a rebuilt Tory-Liberal coalition. But Labour will have the chance to demonstrate that they can command the confidence of the house, something they can only do with an effective coalition.

To build that real opposition and governing alternative I feel Mr E Miliband must stop slapping Liberals with his right hand, refusing all cooperation, while attempting to convert them with his left. It is only breeding resentment amongst the party that has long been Labour's closest ally in parliament.

Mr E Miliband must find Liberal Democrats he can work with and support their efforts to oppose and expose the Tory excesses. He must give the Liberal backbenchers real options in the the ongoing struggle to recover the UK economy while leading united opposition resistance to the more illiberal moves by Mr Cameron & his followers. A great chance has been presented by Shirley Williams' successful defence of Liberal Democrat health policy at their spring conference (Helm, 2011). Labour should be following this up with parliamentary support for better and more progressive options.

Recent news (Wintour & Stratton, 2011) that Mr E Miliband will be sharing stages with Mr Charles Kennedy (Liberal Democrat) and Ms Caroline Lucas (Green) are a step in the right direction. I hope for more of this from Labour in the future.

==========
References:
==========
+ Toby Helm's 'Nick Clegg suffers defeat as Liberal Democrats reject health reforms'; March 2011;

+ Patrick Wintour & Allegra Stratton's 'Charles Kennedy can share pro-AV platform with Labour leader'; March 2011;

The Most Convenient Truths

Truth in politics is a rare thing. Mostly because the political world moves so fast. It is easier to explain away your current troubles by casting blame in the direction of your predecessors (and ideological opposites), than it is to give precious time to a serious analysis of the factors involved.

And so governments deliberately stumble onto the most convenient truths. In our current parliament this plays out as Mr Cameron blaming Labour, Labour blaming Mrs Thatcher; and we know how Mrs Thatcher blamed the Unions.

The fact is that society is just more complex. Many interconnected factors are involved in the rebuilding of the British economy after the wars and the cycle of nationalisations and privatisations that characterised transitions between Labour and Tory ascendency.

Liberal democracy has always been susceptible to these half truths. Obama's administration has faced much criticism for financial problems his administration inherited. In Britain today, parties are showing a similar susceptibility to short memory. Some policies around which much Labour MP outrage has circled, offer a particular example. As the coalition unveiled its social housing policy Labour was yelling 'social cleansing' from the benches. It has be said that it's a fairly astonishing claim since the policy was an idea proposed by Labour in their manifesto (2010).

And as Labour frontbenchers like Mr Burnham call out against the scrapping of EMA (Mulholland, 2011) it is worth remembering that scrapping it was also their idea (Roberts, 2011; Lloyd, 2007).

The Liberal Democrats have had little higher ground from which to call Labour out, however, courtesy of twenty of its ministerial members conveniently forgetting how solemnly they signed a pledge guaranteeing that they wouldn't vote for what they then voted for. All that we can do to counter these events that trigger our moral indignation are ensuring we have the right checks & balances to hold our leaders to account.

We must also build guards against our own susceptibility to what social psychologists call 'confirmation bias'. That is, build our defences against our way of using evidence selectively to prove our pre-made conclusions. This usually means happily disregarding evidence that damages or outright opposes what we think and instead putting the focus on (often tenuous) evidence that confirms our beliefs (Maccoun, 1998).

Now it has been suggested that even that most inimitable symbol of La Revolución, Ernesto "Che" Guevara , owes his determination and struggles to a more complex struggle against ambivalence and anxiety (Castaneda, 1997). If even an icon such as El Che can be seen as a more complex figure, as 'just a man', then maybe we should not be so hasty to conclude that the living, breathing world of political economics is a straight forward, black & white matter.

It seems to be our way to almost deliberately stumble onto these most convenient truths. We like them because they agree with what we know, assuage what we fear or even stoke our fears, that they might confirm our identities. I have seen it put little better than these words from a fellow blogger:

'I don't know why my mind involuntarily thinks up the most bizarre scenarios possible, even when the truth is staring me right in the face. I wish I didn't impulsively bypass the obvious and fabricate my own wild fantasies, filling in the gaps with increasingly absurd details until I've convinced myself of the worst.'
(Ellis, 2010)

==========
References:
==========
+ The Labour Party Manifesto 2010: 'A Future Fair for All'; 2010;

+ Iain Roberts' 'The same policy can be good or evil – depends who thought of it'; November 2010;

+ Helene Mulholland's 'Decision to scrap EMA 'stacks the odds' against poor, says Burnham'; January 2010;

+ Iain Roberts' 'Labour’s plan to scrap the EMA'; January 2011;

+ Tom Lloyd's 'Education: Maintenance grant to be axed when leaving age is raised'; April 2007;

+ Robert J. Maccoun's 'Biases in the interpretation and use of research results';

+ Jorge Castandeda's 'Compañero: The life and death of Che Guevara';  Bloomsbury, 1998.

+ Adam Ellis' 'There Are No Facts, Only Interpretations'; October 6, 2010;

Latin America - A Shade of Red

The Pink Tide is the name of the leftist movement that has risen to power throughout Latin America since 1999, with the election of one progressive President after another (Painter, 2005). But is the tide of progressivism still alive a decade later?

There have certainly been many positive steps in the past ten years.

In Bolivia their charismatic President Mr Evo Morales has broken one barrier after another. From his outspoken support for the rights and interests of the indigenous peoples, such as the Cochabamba protests (Kohl & Farthing, 2006), where Mr Morales gave what has become continuing support to the coca growers; to famous sweaters and passionate speeches on the environment (Vidal, 2010), his presidency has been a progressive step for the representation of indigenous peoples in modern politics.

Meanwhile in Brazil the country has been undergoing massive regeneration programs, the jewel in the presidency of the now former President Mr 'Lula' da Silva, around the objective of 'Fome Zero'. One of the ways in which Brazil has sought to bring about these radical social programs has been through the shrewd economic policies of Mr da Silva. The state in Brazil has worked to increase it's stake in the oil industry; using the funds generated to underpin it's redistributive work (Sarmiento, 2009).

In Venezuela socialism has been backed by a very strong mandate since Mr Chavez was elected back in 1998, seeing victories in the large majority of provinces being maintained across several elections (McDermott, 2008). Once elected Mr Chavez brought in a new constitution that ensured the rights of many and has since participated in numerous elections, with even the the heated 2004 recall election process receiving the backing of independent observers for the way in which it was conducted (Carter Center, 2005).

However socialism, along with democracy, is still facing difficulties. For instance it has been observed that the 'oil nationalism' that funds a number of Brazilian regeneration policies also weakens ties with other nations. It has been suggested that this might be taken as protectionism; something that could reduce the pool of funds available for public works since foreign investment is reduced (Sarmiento, 2009).

In Bolivia, even Mr Morales has not been able to avoid the Latin America wide problems in the mining industry. As the rights and conditions for miners have hit headlines globally, so in Bolivia too there have been street protests with claims that Mr Morales has forsaken miners (Carroll & Schipani, 2010).

And incidents such as the ongoing issue of the decree powers enabled for Venezuelan President Mr Hugo Chavez (Cawthorne & Ore, 2011) have only served to weaken the world's perceptions of Latin American democracy.

The South American nations believe these issues can be challenged and all of these strengths can be supported through a strong community. An example of this cooperative spirit between the nations across Latin America is the Bank of the South. Founded by 7 nations in 2009 (MercoPress, 2009) it has sought to solidify those national friendships into a supportive community. More than that it also presents an image of solidarity for the world's perceptions.

In particular the perceptions of the United States have have been very important to how Latin America is able to prosper. It has in the past spent a lot of time and energy on ensuring that the Americas would be their unchallenged sphere of influence, essentially for self-defence; all they seemed to have achieved however is supplanting the old world powers. How the United States addresses relations with its neighbours in the long term will have a telling effect upon the outcome of this reshaping of socialism.

As Maxwell A. Cameron put it in the Guardian back in 2006:

'In light of the Chavez victory, one can only hope that Thomas Shannon, US assistant secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere, is sincere when he says that "regime change" is not part of his vocabulary. The US reaction to the victory of Chavez will be a test of whether the US can live peaceably and cooperatively with a region, long seen as its backyard, that has moved sharply out of its orb of influence.'

The Latin American Libertadores fought united across South and into Central America; now those nations again stand united as they seek to achieve the independence and self-determination for 'Columbia' that they have sought for since the Republic of Haiti got the ball rolling in 1804.

For me socialism, with its history of espousing solidarity and community, is not a surprising ideology to find having new life breathed into it in South America. As previously mentioned, theorists believe that the global financial crisis provides a heavy impetus for people to back increasingly anti-capitalist politics. Discontent in Latin America with US backed free market agendas (Martinez, 2006) can only serve as a further catalyst to such movements if they accomplish long term progressive goals.

==========
References:
==========
+ James Painter's 'South America's leftward sweep'; March 2005;

+ Benjamin Kohl & Linda Farthing's 'Impasse in Bolivia: Neoliberal Hegemony and Popular Resistance'; Zed Books, 2006.

+ John Vidal's 'Bolivia's defiant leader sets radical tone at Cancun climate talks'; December 2010;

+ Salvador Sarmiento & John Feffer's 'Oil Nationalism in Latin America'; September 2009;

+ Jeremy McDermott's 'Hugo Chavez declares Venezuela polls a victory for Bolivarian socialism'; November 2008;

+ The Carter Center's Observing the Venezuela Presidential Recall Referendum: Comprehensive Report; February 2005;

+ Rory Carroll & Andres Schipani's 'Tourists brea free of Bolivian protest'; August 2010;

+ Andrew Cawthorne & Diego Ore's 'Venezuela's Chavez may cut short decree rule'; January 2011;

+ MercoPress' 'South American leaders sign agreement creating South Bank; September 2009;

+ Maxwell A. Cameron's 'Pink tide rising'; December 2006;

+Nadia Martinez's 'Bolivia: Moving to the Left'; February 2006;