Where now for Cameron & his Opponents?

With the summer recess here, Mr Cameron has to use the time ahead to rebuild his image, tattered in spite his surviving the special debate on the Hacking Scandal (Robinson, 2011).

There will of course be questions over the future of the coalition and the coalition agreement, in light of the shadows cast over Mr Cameron. Cooperation between the parties will be strained more-so than ever. Mr Clegg has already shown clear signs of distancing himself from the PM on this issue; with his body-language during the special debate and his words in a press conference the following morning.

Events began to draw in the PM when the campaign against the News Corp-BSkyB takeover coincided with the renewal of investigations into phone hacking, leading to the closure of the News of the World. The story raised questions of political honesty; the kind of questions Mr Cameron will certainly not have wanted to be pointed at his government.

And so Labour will keep pushing the hacking scandal issue. Experts believe this story is not going away (Robinson & Daily Politics, 2011), so the opposition will not let this story lie. Mr E Miliband acted fast and must capitalise upon the advantage he gained. If Mr Cameron is to survive he can't let his future dealings be framed by his connections to these scandals.

Once more this situation gives us the chance to look at parallels between the Conservative parties of the UK and Canada. In Canada Mr Harper was accused of impropriety during his previous terms as premier, including the proroguing crisis (Economist, 2010) and particularly the issue of obstructing parliament that led to his being found in contempt (CBC, 2011). Mr Harper nevertheless outmanouvered his opponents & critics during the ensuing election and returned to office.

The thoughts of other leaders during crises can teach Mr Cameron something as well. In the days when Churchill sat as a Liberal, he was sure to warn his party of the dangers posed by delaying reform of society. He warned of leaving conditions that would risk Liberals being swallowed up by the fresh challenger Labour (Marr, 2009). This has already happened to the Liberal Democrats in Scotland, where the SNP displaced them as Labour's left-alternative (Watt et al, 2011).

Mr Cameron has to choose his battlegrounds with the same care as Canadian Premier Mr Harper did. He will be keen to keep the image of the leader of a responsible and reforming government that he has tried to push since coming to office. In order to do, Mr Cameron needs positive policy successes, specifically for financial markets to prove that austerity was justified lest another party usurp the image he is spinning. He has bought himself time, albeit at great expense of, aptly enough, unsustainable levels of political capital. And though it does give the premier time to solidify his position, any concessions the coalition leader has to make to the Tory backbench '1922 Committee' (Maddox, 2011) or to his Lib Dem partners and House committees, may bite him hard down the line.

As for the opposition, they must tread carefully to avoid the fate of the centre-left parties in Canada (BBC, 2011). Mr Ignatieff's Liberals and Mr Duceppe's Bloc had their parliamentary numbers devastated in an election that sought to capitalise on a parliamentary scandal, but only discovered a lack of interest in those issues amongst the general public. Labour, Liberal Democrats and the Green party in particular should be very wary about risking an election. Labour have been performing very well in the polls, but even during this crisis have slipped back towards the Tories on certain polls.

The parties of the centre-left have to be ready to govern together if Mr Cameron is caught in the whirlwind of this scandal. None of them can afford to go it alone with the close polling figures or to be seen to be scoring political points on a serious issue. But the centre and left shouldn't worry. The best tool it has at its disposal right now is patience. Mr Cameron must wait out the full play of this scandal, passively ignoring each new piece of evidence, while his opponents can patiently and actively weave them into a compelling narrative.

==========
References:
==========
+ Nick Robinson's 'Phone hacking: With friends like these...'; 20 July 2011;

+ Nick Robinson on 'The Daily Politics Special'; at 1.15.40; 20 July 2011;

+ The Economist's 'Canada without Parliament: Halted in mid-debate'; January 2010;

+ CBC's 'MPs' report finds government in contempt'; 21 March 2011;

+ Andrew Marr's 'The Making of Modern Britain: From Queen Victoria to VE Day'; MacMillan, 2009.

+ Nicholas Watt, Severin Carrell & Steven Morris' 'Lib Dem support collapses across north while SNP make gains'; 6 May 2011;

+ David Maddox's 'PM's BSkyB stonewall smashed by blunder'; in The Scotsman; 21 July 2011;

+ BBC's 'Canada Liberal leader Ignatieff quits after election'; 3 May 2011;
 also includes Lee Carter's 'Analysis' from BBC News Toronto;

also see:
 CBC explains 'Contempt'
 Parliament passes 'no-confidence' vote

And let us not forget...

As the revelations keep pouring out and as the inquiries settle on regulations for the future of our media, let's hope that those rulings keep in mind the dark heart of this problem.

Let's hope that Mr Clegg's wish to create a plural media (and not a stifled one) is the place to which we are heading. Let's hope we are heading to a place where tyrants are forced out of the media. Let's hope it leaves our media free to hold power to account.

And let's hope we don't forget that it wasn't the media and its methods that caused these problems. Rather it was powerful, monolithic entities that didn't hold politicians and police to account, but rather made them fearful and cowed.

==========
References:
==========
+ Ros Wynne-Jones' 'Red-top redemption: Why tabloid journalism matters'; in The Independent; 22 July 2011;

Hacking Scandal - Ed Llewellyn

News breaking today has made the situation for the Prime Minister rather uncomfortable. It appears that PM Mr David Cameron's future as Premier will heavily depend upon the role played in these matters by his Chief of Staff Mr Ed Llewellyn.

It has been suggested that Mr Llewellyn acted to insulate Mr Cameron from information that a former colleague of Andy Coulson had been working for the Met Police. Mr Clegg, Lord Ashdown & the Guardian newspaper all claim to have given Mr Cameron warnings about hiring Coulson, with the Guardian believed to have handed information to Mr Llewellyn. Mr Cameron has denied receiving the messages.

With calls in the Guardian for Liberal Democrats to move a motion of no-confidence and the Tory backbenchers' 1922 committee set to meet, tomorrow's debate, beginning around 11:30, aught to be very interesting.

Political Honesty

News that has dominated the airwaves in the past weeks has brought sharply into the focus the issue of political honesty. This is not however the first time political honesty has been called into question since the Coalition Government took office.

When Mr Nick Clegg offered a rational response to the Browne review, having considered the review set up by Labour and carried out by Lord Browne; and acted on the weight of pros for Lord Browne's proposals over others and the current system, the Deputy PM unleashed a storm that has yet to abate for the Liberal Democrats (BBC, 2011).

The main and most controversial recommendation of Lord Browne's review was the raising of the tuition fee cap. In response to choosing to comply with the review's advice, Mr Clegg stressed that:

'The pledge [not to vote for a rise in tuition fees] was made quite clearly on the assumption that we would deliver that promise if we were in government on our own... In life, just as in politics, you say you want to do things and then circumstances prevent you... decisions we have taken collectively in the coalition government... have a knock on effect on the amount of money that is available'
-Mr Nick Clegg, Radio 5 Live, 8 December 2010

Lord Ashdown explained that this decision by Mr Clegg and the Liberal Democrat coalition ministers, to vote contrary to a previous commitment not to raise fees and to phase them out over six years; was taken because:

'One, you start repaying back £6000 higher than at present, two you're going to be paying back less and three the richer... will be paying back more than the poorer... [the proposals are] far better than you've got at present'
-Lord Ashdown, 5 Live Breakfast, 8 December 2010

It is clear that while in the short term it means raising the fee threshold against a promise, Liberal Democrats believed the Browne review to constitute a step towards a more progressive policy. The plan appears not to raise the real terms cost of tuition for students, nor to raise the actual amounts contributed by the lowest earners (IFS, 2010). Lib Dems seem to have hoped this would act as a step towards a more progressive system of higher education funding - but it's also as a sneaky economist's trick.

You see, by shifting from the public to students the bill the government runs up paying for higher education, the government can claim a portion of the deficit to have been reduced, apparently as much as £6000 per degree. By setting fees higher, the government increases spending on higher education while still making good on deficit reduction. This is because total student debt now becomes the total funding for universities, with the various measures in place, such as thresholds and low repayments, serving to prevent the total debt weighing too heavily upon the shoulders of individual students.

Honest Communication

Now, while all of this amounts to a deficit reduction for the treasury and a system of tuition fees slightly more progressive than the previous one for students, too little of this was made clear and too little made it into public discourse. And at no point was it made abundantly clear that this system of funding would be a possibility. Dr Evan Harris, a former Lib Dem MP, stresses that Liberal Democrat ministers made mistakes. Dr Harris lists poor communication, failure to clearly demonstrate their priorities and the failure to be clear as to the circumstances under which pledges can be kept amongst the party's mistakes (Harris, 2011).

In all, the sum of their failure was ineffective communication with their own supporters and voters.

This failure of communication has been answered with anger, with many voters feeling that wool was pulled over their eyes by the Liberal Democrats and that the strength of their commitments is unclear. This anger seems to at least partly have a basis in the existence in the past of Lib-Lab pacts and close association between these parties as representatives of voters on the left. Such a standing perception of the party would obviously make a coalition with Tories and the breaking of a pledge a heavier blow.

The weight of this dissatisfaction has overawed the policy successes of the Liberal Democrats and has allowed other parties to get away with their own hypocrisies. From Tory & Labour members jeering the name 'Michael Brown' at Mr Clegg at Deputy PM's questions, inspite of being the parties of Lord Ashcroft and vested union interests (YouTube, 2011); to dramatic shifts and changes of policy, with Conservatives adopting Labour Manifesto social housing promises (Labour, 2010) only for Labour to criticise them as 'social cleansing' (BBC, 2010); accountability is threatened when parliament cannot scrutinise hypocrisy because faith has been lost in those that people rely on to represent us.

Journalists & Politicians

For the majority of people to scrutinise political goings-on, on a regular basis, some measure & balance of journalistic & political integrity is required to enable them. This, as recent news is showing, has been a very difficult balancing act.

With both the Conservative & Labour Parties being very close to Murdoch and enjoying the support of his news titles and Mr Clegg's Liberal Democrats forced to defend against attacks from the right-wing press during the 2010 UK general election (Tall, 2010), as the only party free from Murdoch connections and capable of locking Murdoch out of British government politics (Yelland, 2010); it becomes difficult to get clear facts with which to make informed decisions.

At the heart of the matter is that a voter is essentially trusting. Our parliamentary democracy is founded on the basis of elected representatives being sent to parliament to advocate the views of a portion of the people. People for the most part maintain busy, working lives; mostly as a result of political decisions. These people depend upon elected representatives to put their case for them, informed and open. People HAVE to trust in them.

It is not much to demand of politicians that the trust of people not be abused when they are often too busy to put legislation under scrutiny personally. This is why the unanimous motion against the BSkyB takeover is so refreshing along with the sum products of the statement & debate of Wednesday 13 July, which announced an inquiry leading to major reform of both journalistic practices and government transparency.

Reforming the media and government towards greater transparency will be immensely welcome and a chance for parliament to make a huge stride towards improving how the public perceives it. And therein a chance to tackle the causes of that social symptom most dangerous to democracy: disinterest.

==========
References:
==========
+ The Browne Review or 'Securing a Sustainable Future for Higher Education - An independent review of Higher education funding & student finance'; 12 October 2010;

+ BBC's 'Vote 2011: Lib Dems "biggest election setback since 1980s'; 6 May 2011;

+ Radio 5 Live; Nick Clegg speaking to Victoria Derbyshire; 8 December 2010;

+ 5 Live Breakfast; Paddy Ashdown to Georgia Emblen; 8 December 2010;

+ IFS Press Release 'Graduates and universities share burden of Browne recommendations'; 12 October 2010;

+ Dr Evan Harris' 'The myth of Lib Dem 'betrayal''; May 2011;

+ BBC's 'DPMQs, 'Question 5: What progress has been made on the reform of party funding?'; on YouTube; 5 July 2011;

+ Labour's 'Living Standards - Prosperity for all not just a few'; Chp 2, Pg 3; in 'Labour Party Manifesto 2010 - A future fair for all';

+ BBC's The Record covering Labour accusing the Coalition of "Sociological" Cleansing; on YouTube; 27 October 2010; from DPMQs, '...How does he propose to make electoral provision for those displaced people?'; 26 October 2010;

+ Stephen Tall's 'Too busy to read all the "Get Clegg" smears in the right-wing press? Here they all are in one handy digest'; 22 April 2010

+ David Yelland's 'Nick Clegg's rise could lock Murdoch and the media elite out of UK politics'; 18 April 2010;

Just say no: Clegg and Miliband say no to Murdoch

Since we covered the unfolding scandal midweek, the News of the World has closed and Rupert Murdoch's bid for BSkyB looks like it's on hold. But don't think this story is going away. And you shouldn't want it too.

The Deputy PM & Liberal Democrat leader Mr Nick Clegg hit upon a crucial issue today, as he called upon Rupert Murdoch to withdraw his bid.

If the bid is simply delayed, then it will become possible for News International to separate the controversy and inquiries from the bid. And while that would be News International's most strategically sensible move, it would also be unfair. Labour leader Mr E Miliband said that he believed the situation had made Murdoch's bid 'untenable'.

To simply pause and to allow the matters to become unhitched from one another in the course of time, would be to ignore how heavily the outcome of the inquiries weighs upon the suitability of such a bid. It is important to assure these affairs remain tethered together in order to determine, as the former Labour MP John Prescott wrote in his letter to OFCOM, whether News International and Rupert Murdoch 'are fit and proper people to have outright ownership of BSkyB'.

Priorities

Last Thursday a number of Public Sector workers went on strike against government plans to introduce cuts to pensions as part of the Tory led chorus of 'We're all in this together'.

So I'm sure that strikers will be pleased to discover that while they marched, protested and strove to make their voices heard and opinions felt, parliament was discussing the Civil List; how best to finance the monarchy for the forseeable future, including calls to reinstate the Royal Yacht by Conservative Mr Rees-Mogg.

Inscrutable, Unaccountable

The attempted takeover of BSkyB has caused an outcry against the power of a one man media empire to dominate so large a portion of the media in any one country.

The outcry came as the BskyB takeover by News Corp was authorised with conditions by the Culture Secretary Mr Jeremy Hunt (Press Gazette, 2011). Some have felt that in light of the ongoing hacking inquiries and the Milly Dowler-News of the World phone hacking allegations (BBC, 2011), both News Corp affiliated, it would be inappropriate to give that same organisation access to the huge profits, audience and further influence that the deal would allow.

Notably former MP Mr John Prescott has written to OFCOM to request that the bid be reassessed on the grounds of the recent investigations. It's a sensible move considering there are growing concerns about the bid's threat to editorial independence (The Independent, 2011) and the role of the press; and further the risk to British politics of having an undemocratic organisation with such international influence (The Telegraph, 2011) so firmly wedged into the middle of the political process (The Guardian, 2011).

That any organisation can so heavily dominate the media field is a credible threat to democracy. It is against such threats that checks and balances are needed; to stand against this kind of inscrutable, unaccountable power.

The deadline for submissions to the public consultation on the bid is midday, Friday 8 July 2011.

If you're interested in taking a stand against the takeover, head over to avaaz.org to see what you can do today.

==========
References:
==========
+ Press Gazette's 'Hunt backs Rupert Murdoch’s BSkyB takeover bid'; 30 June 2011;

+ BBC's 'News of the World "hacked Milly Dowler phone"'; 4 July 2011;

+ The Independent's 'Leading article: Power that threatens both an industry and democracy'; 1 July 2011;

+ The Guardian's 'News Corp/BSkyB deal underlines Murdoch's political clout' by James Robinson; 30 June 2011;

+ The Telegraph's 'News Corp's battle for BSkyB shows global ambition'; by Amanda Andrews; 2 July 2011;

A Balanced Approach

We live in a world in which it is becoming increasingly easy to lock yourself into a bubble of ideas & information that agree with your views (Pariser, 2011). Balance has never been more important.

At the recent European Grand Prix this issue was tackled deftly, with reference to the methods used to create the high performance and highly technical Grand Prix cars. The Virgin Racing team recently parted company with its technical director, Nick Wirth and his design firm on the grounds that development was not progressing fast enough (BBC, 2011). Wirth had pioneered the sole use of CFD, a simulation based design software, instead of the multi-faceted (and vastly expensive) testing measures involving the use of large facilities such as wind tunnels.

Virgin's decision is in essence not a rejection of the CFD technique. Rather it expresses what Grand Prix driver Anthony Davidson described as the need to gather as much information as possible, from as many sources as possible, in order to generate the best assessments possible and from them to be able to develop the best results possible. Limiting your potential sources of data would be like 'trying to complete a puzzle with pieces missing' (Davidson in BBC, 24 June 2011).

This forms a big part of the best scientific practices. If you want facts, accurate and evidential assessments of how things are, you must gather and test all the facts in all valid ways.

This reflects a matter of importance in society. Eli Pariser warns us about the risks of becoming enveloped by what social psychologists call 'confirmation bias' (Oswald & Gorsjean, 2004). This is where we allow information that agrees with our preconceptions to take precedence over ideas and evidence that disagrees. Our technology is increasingly allowing us to reinforce this effect by artificially shutting ourselves off from the sources of that information.

Ideology is a particular aspect of our lives in which we find difficultly in exposing ourselves to conflicting beliefs. Yet it is an aspect in which collecting information from diverse sources would offer us real benefits, helping us to develop more nuanced views. The benefits of such exposure are at the heart of the freedom of speech. In his work 'On Liberty', John Stuart Mill stresses the importance of the freedom of speech and particularly notes its curious relationship with the truth:

'The conflicting doctrines, instead of being one true and the other false, share the truth between them, and the nonconforming opinion is needed to supply the remainder of the truth of which the received doctrine embodies only a part.'

In practice this means gathering information from many media sources, in order to find the facts by process of elimination. Particularly through developing a sensitivity to the narratives media outlets from the right or left of the political spectrum are trying to weave around the facts. This means reading newspapers from liberal AND conservative sources in order to find the common facts and remove the subjectivities of the source; subjectives being things such as opinions, bias and situational or circumstantial influences.

As the Arctic Monkey's Alex Turner quoted, 'don't believe the hype'.

==========
References:
==========
+ Eli Pariser's 'Beware online "Filter Bubbles"'; May 2011;

+ BBC's 'Virgin Racing fire technical director Nick Wirth'; 2 June 2011;

+ BBC's 'European Grand Prix - Practice One'; 24 June 2011;
 David Croft & Anthony Davidson on Virgin Racing at 1.05.00;

+ Margit E. Oswald & Stefan Grosjean's 'Confirmation Bias'; in Rudiger F. Pohl's 'Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory';  Hove, UK: Psychology Press, pp. 79–96; 2004.

+ John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty'; 1859.