Manifesto Promises

Accusations from audiences on BBC's Question Time have voiced a belief that many seem to hold, that Liberal Democrats haven't been fulfilling their promises. Usually this revolves around two factors:

+ Liberal Democrats going into a coalition with Tories;

+ and the highly publicised choice of Lib Dem government ministers to drop their opposition to tuition fee rises as part of the coalition agreement to get other policies;

The Liberal Democrats have made it clear that they are counting on being able to demonstrate what they got in return for compromises - in return for dropping student fees - at the end of a four year plan (Daily Mail, 2010).

'Maybe in three or four years time, people will look and say they were a little bit harsh to the Liberal Democrats'
-Paul Scriven, the Sheffield Lib Dems leader (Guardian, 2011)

Amongst those achievements will be the increase in personal allowance on tax to an eventual £10,000, deferring Trident weapons spending and encouraging a green investment bank. They may also stress that the party gave people a choice on a voting system with the AV referendum, even if those people rejected the proffered system.

The full extent of hits and misses by both partners in the coalition can be found at The Guardian site, plus policies committed to but not yet presented to parliament.

In terms of policies the Lib Dems have offered a lot of results considering they came third in a general election. But is that a good enough measure? Will that salve the wounds of those that voted Lib Dem on the issues that were dropped?

I fear the Lib Dems risk falling into the trap of judging means by ends. The party leaders could have, and should have, been clearer about the nature of negotiations and what could be given up and what might be gotten in return (Watt, 2010).

This goes for all parties.

Labour have made noises about a number of issues, in particular EMA and social housing, with Shadow Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform, Mr Chris Bryant, describing the government's social housing policy as 'sociological cleansing' (BBC, 2010).

It is with some interest then, that we can see the same policy appear in the Labour manifesto for the most recent election (Labour, 2010). Furthermore, Labour backed AV for elections and yet failed to support it wholly in the referendum and for a progressive party are acting in suprisingly anti-Europe ways (D'Arcy, 2011).

This forces me to ask: what exactly is the purpose of, and the point of, a manifesto that we must treat as unreliable?

==========
References:
==========
+ Daily Mail's 'Clegg admits it will take four years to "rebalance" Britain but tries to offset fears about savage cuts'; 9 September 2010;

+ Polly Curtis, Patrick Wintour & Helene Mulholland's 'Liberal Democrats have taken "big knocks", says Nick Clegg'; in The Guardian; 6 May 2011;

+ Nicholas Watt's 'Revealed: Lib Dems planned before election to abandon tuition fees pledge'; in The Guardian; 12 November 2010;

+ 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;

+ 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';

+ Mark D'Arcy's 'Labour vote against more IMF funding raises questions'; in BBC; 6 July 2011;
   Mark D'Arcy's 'Surprise timing helps IMF funding passes Commons'; in BBC; 12 July 2011;

Majority Politics

Disagreements in the coalition are once again in the news, in response to the English Riots (Helm & McVeigh, 2011). This is just the latest split: from Cable on Murdoch to Lib Dem backbenchers on Health Reform, the struggles within the government have been highly visible. There have been claims that this is the most transparent government in history, which seems fair considering how often the coalition's dirty laundry has been aired in public.

Yet there is something satisfying about seeing the two parts of the government challenging one another in the public eye, then having to work together and stand by collective decisions back at the office. Considering the social issues gulf between liberals & conservatives, it's a wonder that the centre and left parties failed to find as much in common to tackle in government.

It may be that some senior figures in the Labour Party where not yet willing to give up the party's internal struggle to find policies with which they can monopolise the entire bredth of leftist & moderate supporters. With Mr Blair & his heirs having departed, the internal wrestling has moved on too; focusing on how to claim that monopoly. These contests are not new to Labour. For instance, the party once saw a struggle between the left-wingers aligned with Mr Tony Benn and Social Democrats.

Today's struggle is between the New Labour we have come to know; business friendly and big spending; and the new contender, Blue Labour, described as more conservative, more hands on and more antagonisic (Fabian Society, 2011). Blue Labour has already antagonised its opponents enough to inspire Mr Peter Mandelson, an important figure for New Labour, to accuse the movement of clutching 'at straws and grab[bing] at any passing sentiment' (Wintour, 2011).

Fragmented Majorities

The reality is that political parties are themselves coalitions, groups of similar groups, all with their own policy agenda, all trying to get to the top of the party pile. And every party has this baggage; the factional strife & dealmaking is not the reserve of formal coalitions.

The Conservatives, the epitome of a Unionist party, has its own factions and tensions. Shortly following the 2010 UK general election, Mr Cameron muscled his way onto the 1922 committee, a Tory backbencher's group, in a way that made some senior party members rather upset (Tebbit, 2011).

Even the Liberal Democrats are not immune to a bit of intrigue. The Liberal Democrat Party developed out of an alliance between the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party (many of which where the same social democrats who had vied with Labour's left-wingers). Since then, that divide has been replaced by two major factions in the party, the Orange Book group and the Social Liberal Forum.

The senior party members at present, such as Messrs Clegg, Alexander, and Laws (Assinder, 2008) are broadly supportive of the economic liberalism focus of the Orange Book (2004) - that is low taxes, free markets & less state intervention.

The more left-leaning Social Liberal Forum, who's ideas are heavily influenced by Brack, Grayson & Howarth's 'Reinventing the State' (2007), have been visible of late due to the SLF's involvement in opposition to the planned Health Reforms, led by member Dr Evan Harris.

And let's not forget either that Labour sit in parliament as an American-style caucus - being formally two parties that sit as effectively one, due to an electoral alliance with the Cooperative Party.

Consensus Politics

The reality of majority politics is that it, and not coalition politics, is politics behind closed doors. Majority politics is the system where news breaks six years after the fact of suspected plots & schemes within parties (BBC, 2011).

Labour have shown what happens when you are unwilling to cooperate or compromise. This stubborness can be found at the heart of the party splits of the 70s & 80s, and the fragmentation of worker's parties, not to forget Labour's inability to keep office in a hung parliament following the 2010 UK general election (Wintour, 2011).

It is a stubborness that breeds an extreme all or nothing mentality, that Alan Moore's (1986) famous creation Rorschach symbolised:

'No. Not even in the face of armageddon. Never Compromise'

The left has always had divisions. The competition of ideas is key to scientific progress in politics. But these debates must stay above the gutter level rhetoric, the 'us-or-them' mentalities; the fear & blame tactics that created our polemicised left-right political culture.

In order to overcome the alienation produced by this system, the left could learn something from the coalition and the code of Cabinet Collective Responsibility. Plural parties of the left can support choice from plural interests, while still allowing for a united front in the face of intolerance & injustice and in support of common ideals. The Labour leader sharing a platform with representatives from the Green Party and Liberal Democrats to campaign for AV was a good start and a bold, new direction for the left in regaining the interest of voters.

==========
References:
==========
+ Toby Helm & Tracy McVeigh's 'England riots: coalition row grows over "kneejerk" response'; in The Guardian; 13 August 2011.

+ Patrick Wintour's 'Peter Mandelson lambasts "anti–immigrant, Europhobic" Blue Labour'; in The Guardian; 26 July 2011.

+ Norman Tebbit's 'The scandal of the 1922 Committee putsch'; in The Telegraph; 20 May 2010.

+ Nick Assinder's 'Clegg's orange revolution'; on BBC News; 14 January 2008.

+ Paul Marshall & David Laws' (ed.) 'The Orange Book: Reclaiming Liberalism'; Profile Books, 2004.

+ Duncan Brack, Richard Grayson & David Howarth's (ed.) 'Reinventing the State - Social Liberalism for the 21st Century'; Politico's, 2007.

+ BBC's 'Leaked memos: Ed Balls denies plot to oust Blair'; 10 June 2011.

+ Patrick Wintour's 'Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition hopes end in recriminations'; in The Guardian; 11 May 2010.

+ Alan Moore's "Watchmen"; Titan Books, 1986.

Numbers count for something

Socrates once complained that 'thorubos', the 'tumult, baying, shouting, the acclamation of the rabble' - disrupts the course of justice (Hughes, 2010). But what of organised mass action?

As opposed to the 'tumult of the rabble', organised protests have proved a powerful means of improving the way the world works. From Gandhi to Dr King to the women's suffrage movement, organised peaceful protest can be an excellent vehicle for change.

In that spirit, movements have been made in the Lords to repeal rules preventing protests within 1km of parliament. Lord Tyler's private member's bill seeks to break down the barriers that prevent the powerful hearing the voices of demonstrators. While protests are well coordinated campaigns, such as the Avaaz involvment with anti-Murdoch & anti-News Corp protests (Kingsley, 2011), demonstrations and strike action can withstand the calls of reactionaries for continued suppression of mass action.

Charlie Gilmour's imprisonment, along with other incidents resulting from recent protests, has shown us that violence is always a risk when demonstrating. And when violence occurs, it not only sullies the name of mass action, but can overshadow the purpose of the event itself. In the Westminster cuts and tuition fees protests, the causes behind them became obscured by so-called teenage 'anarchist' window smashing. And in the past week we have seen a matter of police conduct in Tottenham completely drowned out by arson & looting - more violence that can be used as justification for anti-strike & anti-protest regulations.

This is no new debate. It is Dr King or Malcolm X; it is Suffragists or Suffragettes; it is non-violent civil disobedience or the use of violence to advance a cause.

The women's suffrage movement in particular is a fine example of this violent versus non-violent conflict. The Suffragettes have become the better known group, but for all the wrong reasons; that is they are known primarily for the militant extremism that led some members to lose their lives. Yet they failed to achieve the aims of their cause. The larger, more organised and more peaceful Suffragists, backed by women & men alike, engaged in peaceful protests & debates. Eventually they tipped the balance of the argument in their favour, thanks largely to the widespread involvement of their members in taking over previously 'masculine' jobs during the Great War.

For years, organised protests, demonstrations and strikes have been an effective way of displaying public consensus on an issue, often in opposition to majority elected members; and acting as a check & balance that keeps both sides honest. Where we can overcome Socrates' 'thorubos', mass action plays an essential role in the democratic life of a nation.

But when we act we must always consider what our actions will justify and legitimise.

What past incidents will my actions be used to justify? What future actions will I legitimise? The fact is that numbers count for something - but for what will you make them count?

==========
References:
==========
+ Bettany Hughes' 'The Hemlock Cup'; Cape, 2010.

+ Lord Tyler's second reading of 'Demonstrations within the vicinity of Parliament Bill' to the House of Lords; 10 June 2011.

+ Patrick Kingsley's 'Avaaz: activism of "slacktivism"?'; in The Guardian, 20 July 2011.

Riot Cleanups - Real Community Power

Amongst the horrific events that began in London and spread last night, there are at least a few little rays of sunshine.

One in particular I would draw your attention to are the riot cleanups, that Charles Jupiter of Liverpool promoted on the BBC earlier today. His words, 'It's my city too', burn to the heart of these terrible events. These riots have been self interested, self centered, selfish vandalism and theft.

Many lives and livelihoods have been ruined by this violence, where hundreds have selfishly trashed the communities they share with tens of thousands.

Our best response now is to give our full support to the Fire Service and Police; and to support them as much as possible with clean ups organised by people from all walks of life: individuals, community groups and unions.

please retweet #riotcleanup and visit riotcleanup.co.uk to see what you can do to help or just to help advertise the better side of our collective community spirit

(Ed, in 2019 - This article really didn't stand the test of time. Even after a week. The riots where a selfish shamble, a shock for which the move by communities to clean up was a positive offset. But there was more than a little middle class snobbery to the response, and it's subsequent highjacking by conservatism. When authority maintains itself through oppression of action, promotion of public ignorance, and accompanying poverty with consummerism, the slipping of authority is going to result in chaos. It is the disorder inherent to hierarchal power. It remains true that the rioters where selfish and self-defeating, trashing their own communities. But the blame lay in the corridors of power and with those that acted as arms of their authority.)

Victim Blame

We are all very much used to the excuses of politicians & the powerful. But we should not be lulled into letting a blame culture evolve out of those excuses and surround us.

As leaders might seek to shift the focus of attention away from them and what they have done, so too they might seek to shift the blame.

'Such men as Papineau, and others of note, were dismissed... for creating disaffection among the people by their language'      -Thomas Storrow Brown, 1872.

These were the responses of British Imperial authorities to words of 'such men as Papineau', who spoke against governing abuses and led a movement that began calling for Responsible Government and ended in full blown rebellion. As a critic, along with allies and followers, he found himself blamed for pointing out injustice, rather than those who created and perpetuated the injustice.

There is a similar tendency to blame the poor for being poor; to blame the oppressed for upsetting the status quo by expressing their dissatisfaction with the system, a dissatisfaction that Oscar Wilde (1891) admired:

'the best amongst the poor are never grateful. They are ungrateful, discontented, disobedient, and rebellious. They are quite right to be so. Charity they feel to be a ridiculously inadequate mode of partial restitution, or a sentimental dole, usually accompanied by some impertinent attempt on the part of the sentimentalist to tyrannise over their private lives. Why should they be grateful for the crumbs that fall from the rich man's table? They should be seated at the board, and are beginning to know it. As for being discontented, a man who would not be discontented with such surroundings and such a low mode of life would be a perfect brute. Disobedience, in the eyes of any one who has read history, is man's original virtue'

Wilde observed that the powerful profited greatly from trammelling the poor into finding virtue or personal blame in their state of poverty, noting that 'in that case he is far more obedient'.

Protesters have suffered from this blame & stigma; the violent minority amongst them being used as an excuse to blame those campaigning for upsetting good order, rather than addressing the injustices that provoked them. The latest example is the police willingness to treat masked & self-titled 'anarchist' teenagers smashing windows as the face of an entire political ideology, one that inspired the likes of Oscar Wilde and George Orwell - Orwell who fought alongside the Anarchists against the Fascists in Spain (Orwell, 1936); in order to justify rounding up the followers of an alternate ideology (Booth, 2011).

The targets of this kind of blame-shifting culture are not just limited to those who speak out and march against injustices, but also direct victims:

'On January 24th, 2011, a representative of the Toronto Police gave shocking insight into the Force’s view of sexual assault by stating: "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized"'            -excerpted from slutwalktoronto.com

Victims are blamed for making themselves a target; victims are blamed for being victims. And once more an injustice has provoked protest. Those protests, the Slut Walks, are bringing light to this shameful process of shifting blame to those who have no voice to answer and this is making the Slut Walks a powerful movement. From the original events in downtown Toronto, these protest marches have have now reached as far as Delhi in India (BBC, 2011) and provoked both support and outrage from across the political & journalistic spectrum.

Toronto walk organizer Sonya Barnett has demanded that victim-shaming change (CBC, 2011); it is an aim that all those who protest injustice will support with fervour.

==========
References:
==========
+ Thomas Storrow Brown's 'Brief Sketch of the Life and Times of the Hon. Louis Joseph Papineau'; Dominion Monthly, January 1872.

+ Oscar Wilde's 'The Soul of Man under Socialism'; London, 1891.


+ George Orwell's 'Homage to Catalonia'; Secker & Warburg, 1936.

+ Robert Booth's 'Anarchists should be reported, advises Westminster anti-terror police'; in The Guardian; 31 July 2011;

+ BBC's 'India 'Slutwalk' sex harassment protest held in Delhi'; 31 July 2011;

+ CBC's 'Slut walks: Are they helping to bring about change?'; 8 May 2011;

The Bipartisan President

Mr Barack Obama's presidency has struggled with an extremism that was, at the least, less visible before his election.

From the violence of Tea Party supporters towards critics of their candidates to numerous issues playing themselves out in Arizona, like immigration law & prison profits; Obama has struggled to run his administration in the bipartisan manner he wanted.

So it will be a real coup for Obama and other American moderates that a bipartisan debt deal has been reached. So will this spark a new era of cooperation? Are we on the verge of a third party in maintream American politics, a Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican Party? Is this the time when a Moderate Party takes the middle ground and isolates the extreme wings of both major parties?

According to Chris Weigant in the HuffPost, probably not.

When covering last September's Remarks by the President on the Economy, Weigant points to how Obama himself stresses the gap between Republican & Democrat positions. A bipartisan party will have to remain a pipedream for the moment, but a move towards more parties & more moderacy remains a shift that could really change American political discourse for the better.

Perceptions & Overlooked Questions

Perceptions are immensely powerful and the way subjects are portrayed can tell a lot about how we see the world. Jessie J's 'Do it like a Dude' portrays women flawlessly imitating masculine culture and it's an imitation that we should take notice of.

It is impossible to escape from the fact that this depiction of masculinity borders upon the Nouveau Riche - as a heightened stereotype of the real thing, in this case a picture of the powerful from the view of the oppressed. And it isn't a pretty picture.

This depiction of what a man is shares a lot with Chomsky's portrayal of world views towards the United States as a superpower (Chomsky, 2006). It is the image of a callous, aggressive group; showboating, degrading & intimidating.

This depiction makes it worth considering not only whether you CAN 'do it like a dude', but also whether you should WANT to. In spite of the song's empowerment theme, we should not forget the risks of imitating the powerful in order to share the limelight that they bask in.

To do so would be to give in to ignorant clanism - like Chauvin, Napoleon's supporter in vain, to become an obsessive and doting sycophant; and to flatter and reinforce less than admirable qualities.

Jessie J's presentation of a 'man' is dependent upon the trait approach, where people are categorised according to a list of descriptive attributes. Traditional femininity is largely defined by nurturing & caring traits. These are qualities oft sidelined in favour of the dominance & ambition assigned to men. But those sidelined traits are admirable qualities. They are liberal qualities of concern, care & compassion.

While Jessie J's song is important for holding up a mirror to masculinity, it would be well to accompany that critique with the promotion of a positive femininity (Yearwood, 2011). There is very much a need for the promoting of that rich femininity - as much for men as for women. One that dissuades people from adopting or usurping the worst of the stigmatised 'masculine' qualities, instead encouraging in people the confidence to break with their social roles and aspire to something better.

==========
References:
==========
+ Jessie J's 'Do it like a Dude';

+ Noam Chomsky's 'Failed States'; Allen & Unwin, 2006.

+ Lagusta Yearwood's 'Nigella Lawson is right. Baking is a feminist act', in The Guardian, 31 May 2011;