Better when we're together?

(Update: Just a quick note to let you know that we'll be back in the new year, on Monday 7th January 2013.)

The separatist movements in Scotland (Carrell, 2012) and Catalonia (Guardian, 2012) present a difficult and curious case for the European Union. It must decide whether to support the integrity of present international borders, or the right of peoples to self-determination.

For the separatist countries themselves, the decisions of the European Union on this matter should greatly affect how the public vote in the independence referenda - whether a new small nation has autonomy within a larger federation, or must go it alone, will seriously affect its affluence. For a small nation-state to go it alone will likely mean, in the short term, isolation - resulting in rising costs.

But there are benefits to autonomy. Moving democratic decision-making closer to local communities, along with control of funds raised from local resources and control of taxation can all make democratic representation more direct, and grounded in local needs. If that nation can then secure favourable trade deals with other nations, or additionally gain the solidarity of a larger federal community; being part of local-continental relationship rather than a nation-state can certainly start to look tempting.

A nation with local autonomy and federal solidarity could offer its people everything a nation-state might, but more so. Decisions made closer to those they affect, yet with a much wider legal jurisdiction - making clamping down on things such as tax evasion much easier.

Separatism, with the options it presents, also offer a means of renegotiating relationships between nations - something that will be particularly attractive for peoples that form minority cultures within their present nation-states. For Scotland and Catalonia, in Britain and Spain, this may be doubly so considering the past of imperialist, and more recent centralist, dominance of the majority culture.

In the UK, the right to self-determination for nations has been settled by the UK Government's acknowledgement of the Scottish National Party manifesto, which won majority popular support in 2011, by way of agreeing to hold a referendum (Black, 2012). In Spain the matter is still to be resolved (Tremlett, 2012).

The question now (at least in the UK) is not whether communities have the right to separate and self-govern, but whether it is the right thing to do, based on all of the evidence.

Crucial to answering that question will be the position taken by the EU on statehood for secessionists. And the economic crisis in Europe is serving as a powerful motivator for the EU to present an image of unity, strength and stability to recover market confidence. It may well be that economics will force the EU into offering unfavourable ascension terms, in order to dissuade separatism.

At least for the moment, it seems that the feeling at the European Commission, the EU executive body, is against separatism (BBC, 2012). If that is the case, if the EU shuns separatists, the transition to statehood will be made more difficult due to isolation from the trade and diplomatic status afforded to members. And that will likely encourage voters to use their right to self-determination to maintain the unionist status quo.

==========
References:
==========
+ Severin Carrell's 'Scottish independence: the essential guide'; in The Guardian; 16 October 2012.

+ The Guardian's 'Barca-loners: Will breakaway Catalonia fracture Spain?'; 19 November 2012.

+ Andrew Black's 'Scottish independence: Cameron and Salmond strike referendum deal'; on the BBC; 15 October 2012.

+ Giles Tremlett's 'Catalonia joins Scotland in push for 2014 independence vote'; in The Guardian; 13 December 2012.

+ BBC's 'Scottish independence: EC's Barroso says new states need "apply to join EU"'; 10 December 2012.

Keeping a Healthy Distance

Amongst many issues for which the internet is being assailed, one of the more controversial is the misuse of internet anonymity. It's a complex issue that takes in aspects of free speech (Atkinsowon, 2012) and the psychological impacts of internet use upon our behaviour (Szalavitz, 2010). But what is particularly fascinating is that certain factors enabling questionable 'trolling' behaviour are not dissimilar from those behind the, seemingly at times, heartless austerity programs of some conservative dominated governments.

When we place a real or imagined distance between ourselves and others, it hinders our ability to, as novelist (and Nerdfighter) John Green describes it, 'imagine others complexly'. This distance removes the subject from context, which robs us of perspective, and of empathy (Rifkin, 2010) - and can lead to miscomprehension and even callousness towards others. The chief dangers here, when failing to grasp the complexity of another human being, is dehumanisation.

Part of the risk of dehumanising others is to the one posed to ourselves. When we reduce others to mere caricatures, it becomes all to easy for us to become monsters. Though not all monstrosities are obvious and many can seem quite mundane. This seems to be some of the fuel behind scorn for the UK Government's austerity program and it's slogan of 'we're all in this together' (BBC, 2012); at present being assailed by the opposition over welfare cuts (Helm, 2012).

Such governing attitudes and opposition to them has not been limited to the UK. In Chile, students have been leading protests for a better education system, in response to which President Pinera (Goodman, 2012) has said:

'We would all like education, health care and many other things to be free, but when all is said and done, nothing in life is free. Someone has to pay.'

There seems a certain kind of callousness necessary to so summarily dismiss the paid-for-by-tax support networks that the most disadvantaged depend upon. And distance is a problem here - it's not necessary to have been poor to understand their plight, only to have empathy based on a realistic comprehension of the difficulties faced.

Reason requires distance from the emotive aspects of matters, in order for the facts to be clearly assessed. But this does not mean keeping a distance from the realities of poverty and of suffering; nor does it require coldness towards others (particularly when you think no one can see you).

Walling yourself in behind pre-determined opinions, and only that information that supports your views, is a self-destructive path whether you're part of a semi-aristocratic government or an internet user hurling abuse from behind the mask of anonymity. Real solutions require a realistic perspective.

==========
References:
==========
+ Victoria Atkinsowon's 'Online anonymity is ugly - but it's vital for free speech'; in The Telegraph; 19 July 2012.

+ Maia Szalavitz's 'Empathy and the Internet'; in The Huffington Post; 17 June 2010.

+ Jeremy Rifkin's 'The Empathic Civilisation'; on RSA Animate; 6 May 2010.

+ BBC's 'Coalition and Labour clash over "strivers' tax" claim'; 6 December 2012.

+ Toby Helm's 'Ed Miliband to wage war on George Osborne over benefit cuts'; in The Guardian; 9 December 2012.

+Amy Goodman's 'Part Two: Camila Vallejo & Noam Titelman on Massive Chilean Student Protests, Post-Pinochet Chile'; on democracynow.org; 17 October 2012.

Living in the Moment

It has become commonplace to implore people to live in the moment - to be more impulsive and more spontaneous. To encourage them to let go of tomorrow and to seize the day. But what are the implications of not considering the implications?

Firefly's Jayne Cobb is the perfect example of a character living in the moment. He has a preconceived focus - himself and getting paid - and a notion as to their order of precedence - 1: Himself, 2: Getting Paid, 3: Everything Else.

Yet while this driving motivation makes Jayne's behaviour consistent, in a way that those around him can have some stable idea of what to expect - that he will always look to himself first - it also drives a number of conflicts that damage Jayne's own interests. His selfish focus leads to an attempted sell out of fellow crew members - the fugitives Simon and River - and the betrayal his Captain, Mal.

Jayne's intense focus upon deriving the maximum personal benefit from each task leaves him disconnected from the bigger picture. While in isolation his actions furthered his narrow and impulsive interests, in context, these separate actions formed a patchwork, a whole, a sum that threatened the very aims that motivated the parts.

This is no singular trope. From Scott Pilgrim, to Bender Rodriguez, to even the Dark Lord Sauron, a narrowly focused intent on completing immediate tasks to achieve desired aims, has kept characters blind to greater dangers on the horizon.

Becoming caught in this kind of narrow bubble is a danger, all too prevalent, in the real world (Green, 2012). Not least amongst these dangers is the limiting of our ability to change (McGilchrist, 2011) - something that has been observed of the persistence of governments with economic austerity even as it struggles to achieve the stated aims (Wintour, 2012).

A narrow focus on immediate tasks, and obstacles to be overcome, can deprive us of the important information that context offers us about our actions. But, possibly an even greater danger is that, we can lose perspective - and without perspective we can become detached from the larger consequences of our actions.

This can lead us into repeating our mistakes - our lack of comprehension only serving to blind us, as our behaviour impacts upon ourselves and those around us.

==========
References:
==========
+ Iain McGilchrist's 'The Divided Brain'; RSA Animate on YouTube; 21 October 2011.
+ John Green's '#42: Globalization II - Good or Bad?'; Crash Course World History on YouTube; 9 November 2012.

+ Patrick Wintour's 'George Osborne prepares for climbdown on missed fiscal targets'; in The Guardian; 2 December 2012.

Scientific Government

John Stuart Mill postulated that a democracy requires both the voices of conservatism and liberalism, supporting both what is and what might be, in order to fulfil its mandate.

'It is almost a commonplace that a party of order or stability and a party of progress or reform are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life, until the one or the other shall have so enlarged its mental grasp as to be a party equally of order and of progress, knowing and distinguishing what is fit to be preserved from what ought to be swept away. Each of these modes of thinking derives its utility from the deficiencies of the other; but it is in great measure the opposition of the other that keeps each within the limits of reason and sanity.'

At present this debate is playing out in several ways; there is the debate between the central authority furthered during Labour's years in office (Ringen, 2010) and the devolution of the state's institutions to facilitate people in doing things for themselves (Huhne, 2007); and there is the debate as to the role of taxation and public bodies in providing or supporting services (BBC, 2012). But important debates like these are often born from and swallowed up by ideology.

The facts about them are often distorted. Other facts are simply discarded. And facts are often used like a 'drunkard clings to lampposts - not for illumination, but for support' (Prodi, 2006).

An important part of this problem is the sectarian nature of the political process. The political divide and the systems that reinforce it - whether habitual party allegiance, the gerrymandering of constituency boundaries or the competition over concentrated power - all of these factors make reasoned debate and evidence based policy extremely difficult.

It is a problem that needs desperately to be overcome as, at worst, the obscuring of truth or the outright manufacturing of mistruth, is dangerous.

Dr Ben Goldacre (2012) has argued that the absence of an evidential basis for policy 'is a disaster'. As part of the solution to this problem, Goldacre and others wrote a Cabinet Office paper explaining the how and why of policy testing. It is a positive step to try and establish the scientific method at the heart of government, where reason can play a substantial part in developing policy.

But there is far more to be done. There are still great inconsistencies to be found in the UK's democratic institutions - unelected lords and bishops with the power to propose and amend law (Clegg, 2012); an electoral system based not on representation but on competition for office; systemic and institutional corruption that stretches beyond parliament, into complicated exploitation and dodging of the tax system (Leigh, Frayman & Ball, 2012); and, an administrative nightmare created by a complex and multi-tiered system of local government, that overlaps constituency, police and health authorities, leaving jurisdictions lacking transparency and oversight.

Each of these matters needs to be tackled, and reason, the scientific approach, offers the best route. It can serve as a guide to developing better institutions and also serve at the centre of them. Accomplishing this requires debate, testing, evidence and co-operation - where the arguments for the old and the new, for what is and what might be, as John Stuart Mill hoped, both play a part in the rigorous testing of ideas. What it does not require are two groups playing by their own versions of the truth, to prevent change or advance it, as part of an ideological adherence.

==========
References:
==========
+ John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty'; 1859.

+ Vernon Bogdanor's 'Multi-party politics and the Constitution'; Cambridge University Press, 1983.

+ Stein Ringen's 'The Economic Consequences of Mr Brown'; on RSA Animate; 14 September 2009.

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

+ BBC's 'Anti-austerity marches take place'; 20 October 2012.

+ Romano Prodi quoting George Bernard Shaw, 3 April 2006; quoted in 'Prodi v Berlusconi: Italy's ugliest election?'; on spiked-online.com; 11 April 2006. Report in Italian at 'Premier nervoso in difesa'; on repubblica.it; 4 April 2006.

+ Ben Goldacre's 'Here’s our Cabinet Office paper on randomised trials of government policies. Read it.'; on badscience.net; 20 June 2012.

+ 'Nick Clegg: Lords reform plans to be abandoned'; on the BBC; 6 August 2012.

+ David Leigh, Harold Frayman & James Ball's 'Offshore secrets revealed: the shadowy side of a booming industry'; in The Guardian; 25 November 2012.

Vision and Vigilance: The Part That Leaders Play

In the past week the UK went to the polls (sort of) to elect the latest newly-established public officials, onto whom local powers are to be devolved. The elected police commissioners, along with elected mayors, can be seen part of a persistent narrative. That narrative centres on the perception that leaders play a dominant role in their relationship with 'followers'.

Why is this limited notion of leaders as nothing more than dictatorial administrators so persistent?

Why - even as huge groups of people act concertedly through organisations like Occupy that build support networks offering mutual aid (Wilkins, 2012) - are we still seeking to create more positions, carrying more centralised power?

These questions need to be considered - especially when there are discussions centring on who should be tasked with leading Europe through its present crisis. Due to its strong economic position much of the expectation has fallen on upon Germany. Despite this, there is a reluctance amongst Germans to carry an extra share of the weight (Connolly & Traynor, 2012). That reluctance seems to suggest a profound loss of faith in the responsibilities cast upon the country due to its dominant role.

There is some sense behind that attitude - founded in the problem that a lot is expected of a leader and yet there is only so much that a leader can do. As Stephanie Flanders (2012) points out at the BBC:

'...the notion of a pivot state goes beyond sheer power, or economic heft - the pivot state isn't necessarily or even usually the biggest country. Rather, it's the fulcrum that helps to tip history one direction, or another.'

Regardless the truth, the dominant perception in Germany seems to have become that it is expected to do the majority of the work necessary to carry everyone through. What leaders need, what Germany wants, are partners - others to work alongside from an even footing for a common goal. It was precisely that kind of relationship that made the post-unification bailouts to eastern cities, such as Leipzig, a success (Dowling, 2012).

It is the kind of relationship that makes micro-financing projects such as Kiva so successful. Micro-financing agrees with the findings of many studies; people are capable and driven. They don't need dictators, they need facilitators. The success of projects like Leipzig or Kiva, and further more the existence of willing contributors as shown by movements like Occupy, should be the stone that casts down the negative perceptions that generate the kind of reluctance being felt in Germany at present. These projects show us that people are only in want of an opportunity to flourish and helping them to do so is an investment that pays off in the long run.

And to that end, people do not need greater control exerted over them. They need leaders to facilitate. They need leaders to offer oversight. These are the kind of non-executive roles through which elected officials could really make a contribution. Vision and vigilance; to guard against misdeeds and to illuminate positive outlets for our energies.

==========
References:
==========
+ Brett Wilkins' 'Where FEMA fails, Occupy Sandy delivers storm relief'; in digitaljournal.com; 12 November 2012.

+ Kate Connolly & Ian Traynor's 'Germany's savers feel resentment and guilt over pressure to end euro crisis'; in The Guardian; 16 September 2012.

+ Siobhan Dowling's 'A leap worth taking: how Leipzig was saved from economic decline'; in The Guardian; 16 September 2012.

+ Stephanie Flanders' 'Who will dictate Europe's future?'; on the BBC; 16 November 2012.

Concerns about the Police and Crime Commissioners

The UK's police and crime commissioners voted in today are the replacement for the police authorities, singular locally elected leaders to replace the previously less transparent bodies - as committed to in the Coalition Agreement.

While they offer an increase in democratic control, these elections also expose key public services to partisan politics. The Liberal Democrats, though junior partners in the government, have none the less expressed some concerns and even some opposition to the commissioners (Tall, 2012).

On the opposition benches, Labour have also expressed concern. Their worries centre on partisan elected police commissioners opening the police to privatisation (Wintour, 2012) - and as such are standing their candidates with a commitment to transparency in all of their commissioners' meetings to prevent secret deals.

The Conservative Minister for Policing, Mr Damien Green, has been attempting to reassure voters that the elected position would serve to end the cosy relationships at the top of police forces (Travis & Perkins, 2012). There was also a promise of an oath of impartiality for elected commissioners to prevent partisanship.

An oath is simply not a good enough fall-back. There are real concerns that have not been addressed in making Police Commissioners elected - concerns that are not improved by establishing a singular elected party-partisan figurehead. With turnouts at the polls expected to be low and concerns remaining unaddressed, it might have been better for police commissioners to go back to the drawing board.

But election day has arrived. It remains to be seen if the expected poor turnout forces a rethink.

==========
References:
==========
+ Stephen Tall's '76% of Lib Dems reject elected police commissioners - but 73% want there to be Lib Dem candidates'; on libdemvoice.org; 8 November 2012.

+ Patrick Wintour's 'Yvette Cooper: Labour police chiefs won't cut secret deals on privatisation'; in The Guardian; 9 November 2012.

+ Alan Travis & Anne Perkins' 'Police commissioner elections will end cosy relations with officials - minister'; in The Guardian; 12 November 2012.

One Nation: Blue Labour is driving Miliband onto Romney's path

At this year's Labour Party conference Mr Ed Miliband finally began laying the foundations for future policy. The 'One Nation' Labour he presented has however been the cause of some concern. The worries arise from suggestions that One Nation Labour is just a rehash of the 'Blue Labour' ideas that came under fire last year (Seymour, 2012).

The defenders of Blue Labour promoted the movement as a response to the 'managerial, arrogant and ultimately doomed' micro-management approach of New Labour (Glasman, 2011). As the alternative to the perceived 'culture of complaint, and an expectation of state beneficence' the group offered 'stronger institutions', 'tradition' and 'solidarity'. The 'Blue Labour thinker' Jonathan Rutherford warned against embracing liberal individual choice, encouraging instead the sentiments of the 'more conservative culture... which values identity and belonging in the local and the familiar', that he felt holds sway in much of the country (Wintour, 2011).

Under its surface though, is conservatism - the domineering power of establishments, institutions and authorities - as a way to assert control. It is the championing of an effective means of gaining power over rational discourse and debate. But it goes further than just electioneering. Blue Labour is a concept that plays with the politics of identity to achieve its ends, adopting traditions and subjectivities to manage a group identity. But doing so spells danger - this isn't the language of multi-cultural tolerance, but of corporatist regimentation.

The Blue Labour direction proved controversial when policies began to be put forward, with particular criticism given to its views on immigration - rhetoric of 'white working class' and 'immigrants' drawing dangerously close to the far-right (Rooksby, 2011). Amongst the suggestions were the Labour Party embracing the EDL, limiting immigration to just a few skilled migrants and renegotiating the UK out of the free movement of labour (Painter, 2011).

Such identity-based ideologies are narrow and divisive - but worse, by preying upon these frustrations to rally support rather than offering solutions, more problems are created that make real long-term solutions more difficult to achieve. Not least amongst these, is that by limiting the free movement of workers, their power in the face of capital is further reduced.

However, Labour Party leader Mr Ed Miliband backed it when it was called Blue Labour and is now pushing it as One Nation, 'where patriotism, loyalty, dedication to the common cause courses through the veins'. Why would the Labour Party leader turn to such desperate and demonstrably dangerous options? Here is an excerpt from Mr Miliband's speech from the 2010 party conference:

"Every day out of power, ... another day when we cannot change our country for the better."

It is the same motivation that drove Governor Mitt Romney to pander to the most conservative elements of the Republican Party. All of this rhetoric serves as a means of putting together a voting base; seeking a majority on the back of what are perceived to be sufficiently large 'categories' of people. There is no idealism to it. No activism. Just a ferocious determination to win - by whatever means are effective or sufficient. And didn't that just work out well for the GOP?

Is it time for the GOP to start over?

Is it time for the Republican Party, the GOP, to clean house and start over?

If there is anything that the election of 2012 has taught us, it's that certain core Republican policies hold a great deal of bipartisan popular appeal. Low taxes, balanced budgets, limited government - all things that some Republicans have tried to argue need more attention (Frum, 2011). But these Republican values have found themselves buried by rising conservative extremism (Daily Kos, 2012).

This election could very easily have resulted in a Republican White House (Scheiber, 2012). However, policies and views pushed to pander to extreme parts of the party coincided with sudden drops in polling support for the Republican candidate - creating the unflattering perception of wealth favouritism and aggressive conservatism against women's rights.

First, Governor Romney's dismissal of a large portion of Americans as 47% that don't contribute (Gross, 2012) coincided with a poll slump that gave him an uphill battle right up until the election.

And, second, the GOP candidate faced a massive turnout of women who were galvanised to vote for President Obama (Telegraph, 2012) - as a result of derogatory, dangerous and conservative comments and attitudes towards the rights of women expressed by Republican congressmen (see below, Republican Party Attacks on Women).

That slump in support and that rallying of the opposition crippled a campaign that could have been otherwise successful. Not only was religion-based social conservatism rejected in the Presidential election, along with wealth-friendly conservative economics, but the Republican Presidential Primaries also rejected the far-right Tea Party position. The only salve for the Republicans has been the retention (with a slightly reduced grip) of the House of Representatives.

There is a lot of room in American politics for a moderate party of limited government. But it cannot ignore minorities and the poor, and it must recognise as in demand both cost-effective accessible healthcare and steadfast support from government in hard times. The argument cannot be for the ditching of welfare in favour of limited government, but rather for how to offer welfare with limited government.

The path to a modernised moderate Republican Party begins with the GOP moving to open up the America's two party system. Acting to remove the restrictions that prevent the Libertarian Party from involvement in the national presidential debates, and stop them getting onto presidential ballots, offers a route to a more moderate party at the same time as enhancing the democratic process for voters.

That enhanced democratic competition decreases the value of extremism, helping to counter the extremist elements within the GOP. Those elements - with deeply aggressive conservative stances on social issues - cost the Republicans the White House, where a moderate party of limited government would have enjoyed wide popular support. The failure to modernise and cast off the narrow hostile conservative extremism of this campaign (Boyarksky, 2012) will likely mean the GOP is dead in the water as a national party.

==========
References:
==========
+ David Frum's 'When Did the GOP Lose Touch With Reality?'; in New York Magazine; 20 November 2011.

+ Daily Kos' 'Charlotte Observer: Extremism will be what costs Romney this election'; 4 November 2012.

+ Noam Scheiber's 'Romney Had a Chance to Beat Obama, and He Blew It'; in The New Republic; 7 November 2012.

+ Daniel Gross' 'Romney's "47 Percent" Comments Were  Bad Economic and Bad Politics'; on thedailybeast.com; 18 September 2012.

+ The Telegraph's 'US election: Here come the girls as women make historic gains'; 7 November 2012.

Republican Party Attacks on Women, a selection:
+ NY Times' 'The Campaign Against Women'; 19 May 2012.
+ NY Times' 'Republicans vs Women'; 29 July 2012.
+ Kia Makareshi's 'Mila Kunis Blasts Republicans' "Attack on Women" and "Offensive" Stance on Religion'; on the Huffington Post; 9 October 2012.

+ Bill Boyakrsky's 'How Could the Republicans Have Been So Stupid?'; on truthdig.com; 7 November 2012.

Between Chaos and Control

Misinformation is dangerous. As well as the obvious problem of acting on bad intelligence there is also the time and effort that is redirected to the dispelling of myths, panic and lies - time and effort that could be better applied.

As Hurricane Sandy made landfall in the United States - after causing large amounts of damage and taking at least 20 lives across the Caribbean from Jamaica to the Dominican Republic (Fox, 2012) - a Twitter user @ComfortablySmug, that has apparently turned out to be one Shashank Tripathi, spread rumours of power cuts being enacted across New York that were picked up by national news coverage (Kaczynski, 2012).

These kinds of mistruths are subject to some scrutiny in Max Brooks' fiction World War Z, where the lack of comprehension in the face of fear led to the Great Panic - where superstition and unbridled rumours caused as many or more deaths than the undead blight itself.

However, Voloshinov highlighted the dangers of allowing just the opposite: too much institutional control of truth (Voloshinov, 1973). Language, as the medium for debating evidence and there-in fact, is a dangerous thing to leave to the control of any central institution. Through such control comes the possibility of tyranny - even over ideas and the ability to offer critique.

The previews to Hideo Kojima's upcoming addition to the Metal Gear series, Ground Zeroes, seems likely to delve into some of these issues (Dawkins, 2012). It appears likely to tackle the ideological divide revealed in Guns of the Patriots to have been the driving force behind the events of the series. This divide - between Major Zero and Big Boss - was caused by the separate interpretations of their admired mentor's will; it billowed into full-blown ideological war between control and chaos.

There has to be a safe haven between the dangers foreseen by both Orwell and Huxley - the opposing dangers of the institutionalised control of truth, and the contextless, unverifiable, rumours and speculation. John Stuart Mill described this middle ground as requiring the active participation of both sides, both conservatism and liberalism, in order to see the whole picture (Mill, 1859):

'It is almost a commonplace that a party of order or stability and a party of progress or reform are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life, until the one or the other shall have so enlarged its mental grasp as to be a party equally of order and of progress, knowing and distinguishing what is fit to be preserved from what ought to be swept away. Each of these modes of thinking derives its utility from the deficiencies of the other; but it is in great measure the opposition of the other that keeps each within the limits of reason and sanity.'

Yet checking sources, checking evidence and considering the logical likelihoods with a critical eye - all while being wary of personal subjectivities and dogmatisms - offer us a guard against mistruth. The fact that @ComfortablySmug's rumours made it onto national news coverage is a testament to the difficulty of the task; and a reminder that we sometimes fail (Beaujon, 2012). Those failures cannot be passed off onto social networks like Twitter, which aided in the carrying out of at least as much good as bad when Sandy made landfall (Pearce, 2012).

As always, our best safeguard remains personal vigilance.

==========
References:
==========
+ Everton Fox's 'Hurricane Sandy hits the Caribbean'; on Al Jazeera; 29 October 2012.

+ Andrew Kaczynski's 'How One Well-Connected Pseudonymous Twitter Spread Fake News About Hurricane Sandy'; on BuzzFeed Politics; 30 October 2012.

+ Max Brooks' 'World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War'; Duckworth, 2007.

+ Valentin Voloshinov's 'Marxism and the Philosophy of Language'; Harvard University Press, 1973.

+ Daniel Dawkins' 'Exposed: The secrets of Metal Gear Solid Ground Zeroes'; on CVG UK; 30 August 2012.

+ George Orwell's 'Nineteen Eighty-Four'; Secker & Warburg; 1949.

+ Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World'; Chatto & Windus;1932.

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

+ Andrew Beaujon's 'Whose fault is it that "Comfortably Smug" lies about Hurricane Sandy spread'; on Poynter.org; 1 November 2012.

+ Matt Pearce's 'Twitter in the time of Sandy: A few lies, and then redemption'; in the LA Times; 5 November 2012.

Where will it end?

The financial crisis has loomed heavily over government decisions since the Coalition came into power in the UK. In order to alleviate the pressure this has put on all areas of the economy several policies, like the National Loan Guarantee System, have been directed towards the task of making credit available for small businesses (BBC, 2012).

First-time and potential home owners have also been targeted with assistance, with schemes being launched to make mortgages more accessible (Osborne, 2012). But these policies have risked lurching into the desperate, as the quest for economic growth continues. The latest proposals from the Liberal Democrats involve clearing the way to parents and grandparents using their pensions to guarantee their children's mortgages (Mulholland, 2012).

Critics have urged caution (Parkinson, 2012). The use of pensions as collateral is a risky move - potentially gambling a person's retirement on the ability of a new home owner getting (and staying) on the property ladder. There is a significant worry that the plan has been developed to offer some short term growth boosts at the risk of longer term dangers.

These fears run parallel to those that have surrounded the cuts agenda. From fear of the long term effects of large-scale unemployment on the UK's social fabric, to the long term effects of cuts to education funding - the primary concerns about the Coalition's economic strategy appear to be the narrow focus on the here and now.

These arguments were presented with some particularly damning evidence in July, when tax receipts were substantially less than expected (BBC, Aug. 2012) - necessitating the borrowing of around £600m. Despite news that the UK is recovering from recession, albeit slowly (Rowley, 2012), there remain concerns that austerity has 'choked off the recovery'; in particular, The Economist warned against interpreting the meagre recovery as an opportunity for more cuts.

In his critique of Mr Gordon Brown's time as Chancellor and Prime Minister, Professor Stein Ringen called Labour's time in government a failure (Ringen, 2009). Professor Ringen suggested that statistically their effect upon various important policy areas had been negligible - even though they possessed massive funds for investment, had no shortage of power and demonstrably used both to exercise control. The problem he points to is instead an economic approach that was 'poor value for money'.

It is this same trap that the coalition is at of risk falling into, but with the complete opposite approach to public investment. The short term focus on proving Labour's economic ineptitude, the short term focus on eliminating debt & deficit, and the search for policies to provide short term economic growth - there is a danger that the huge long term cost of the cuts might have stymied the short term recovery, while offering little of value in return for the long term development of the UK.

The Liberal Democrats went into the 2010 UK general election with plans to revitalise the economy by reorganising the banks to get credit flowing and making public investment available for numerous regeneration projects - not least the refitting of shipyards into centres for green energy production (Telegraph, 2010). These are policies with real consideration for long term concerns - for increasing jobs, skills and production; and lowering energy prices by increasing competition, thereby decreasing the financial pressure on both consumers and businesses.

However, the grim state of the economy served as the spur for Lib Dems to join the Tory led Coalition in focusing instead on the short term goal of deficit reduction - a goal to which numerous public investment policies were sacrificed, not least university funding (BBC, 2010). Those prior policies could be providing a much needed boost right now as energy prices continue to rise. Yet they seem to have disappeared under what began as a temporary redirection of focus, but has become an entirely new direction.

Before these proposals for using pensions as mortgage guarantees comes to fruition, serious concern needs to be given to the long term effects of such a policy. In the scramble to make credit available in an economy where too much money is getting stuck too far up the ladder, policy makers need to start considering whether more debt and credit is the answer to problems caused by debt and credit? What will this open the door to? Where will this end?

==========
References:
==========
+ BBC's 'Bank lending scheme targets smaller businesses'; 20 March 2012.

+ Hilary Osborne's 'Funding for Lending scheme launches amid scepticism'; in The Guardian; 1 August 2012.

+ Helene Mulholland's 'Nick Clegg: parents can use pension pots to help young people buy property'; in The Guardian; 23 September 2012.

+ Justin Parkinson's 'Lib Dem conference: Pension funds could back mortgages - Clegg'; on the BBC; 23 September 2012.

+ BBC's 'UK government borrows £600m in July as tax receipts dip'; 21 August 2012.

+ Emma Rowley's 'GDP figures show Britain's double-dip recession is over'; in The Telegraph; 25 October 2012.

+ Stein Ringen's 'The Economic Consequences of Mr Brown'; on RSA Animate; 14 September 2009.

+ The Telegraph's 'Nick Clegg wants disused shipyards to become production centres for wind turbines'; 11 February 2010.

+ BBC's 'Tuition fees vote: Plans approved despite rebellion'; 9 December 2010

Redirection

Leadership isn't always plain sailing and Liberal Democrat leader Mr Nick Clegg has learned it the hard way. After two and a half years of pushing for the coalition to co-operate in a grown up and meaningful fashion (White, 2012), Mr Clegg has encountered an obstacle.

Last month he saw his work come seemingly to nothing when Prime Minister Cameron and his party failed to honour the coalition's agreement to reform the House of Lords (BBC, 2012). This roadblock forced a response from the Liberal Democrat leader. A new combative attitude was on display (and celebrated) at Deputy Prime Minister's Questions (Lindsay, 2012). But that is only a part of the story.

Mr Clegg recently revealed he'd had "lengthy conversations" with several senior Labour figures (Mulholland, 2012), confirming the reports in an interview with Andrew Marr:

"Grown-up politicians talk to each other across party lines. Over the last few weeks I have had lengthy conversations with Ed Miliband, David Miliband, with Tony Blair, with Peter Mandelson … talking about Europe, talking about political reform."

Changing tides call for changing tactics. And its not just the Lib Dems who are looking for a new direction. The Tories, who it has been suggested are also fearing defeat (Toynbee, 2012), appear to be looking for a new direction. The recent cabinet reshuffle, which strengthened the hand of the party right, was followed by hints of the possibility for a future Tory-UKIP alliance. The leader of UKIP suggested that his party might (under certain circumstances) be a possible alternative to the Liberal Democrats as Tory coalition partners, if needed, after the next election (Davies, 2012).

For leaders, its not always enough to direct efforts towards an uncompromising goal set by a predetermined plan. Stagnation, decline and obstacles unforeseen, can all force leaders to consider new directions (Johnson et al, 2001). As relations within the Coalition become strained, the leaders of both sides must start looking for an insurance policy.

In their attempts to redirect their parties, leaders will have to redefine them - an action that always risks creating identity crises amongst followers. In any crisis there are opportunities - for those within the group and those outside - to influence the outcome. While the Coalition tries to redefine its own identity, the Labour party, the Green party, and other third parties have a chance to affect the course of these debates and the new direction of political discourse.

==========
References:
==========
+ Michael White's 'Nick Clegg lead Lib Dems in shunning "tribalism"'; in The Guardian; 25 September 2012.

+ BBC's 'Nick Clegg: Lords reform plans to be abandoned'; 6 August 2012.

+ Caron Lindsay's 'Nick Clegg gets sassy at DPMQs'; Lib Dem Voice; 17 October 2012.

+ Helene Mulholland's 'Nick Clegg: parents can use pension pots to help young people buy property'; in The Guardian; 23 September 2012.

+ Polly Toynbee's 'George Osborne's strategic mind? Long may it continue to whirr'; in The Guardian; 4 October 2012.

+ Lizzy Davies 'Ukip says no Tory election deal without EU referendum pledge'; in The Guardian; 21 September 2012.

+ Alan Johnson, Colin Barker & Michael Lavalette's 'Leadership & Social Movements'; Manchester University Press, 2001.

Fresh Starts

Following heavy defeat at the 2011 federal election, the Liberal Party of Canada is burnishing itself with a fresh start. Canada's longest lived federal party is hoping to rebuild its fortunes through a leadership election.

That leadership election took off in earnest last week when Mr Justin Trudeau officially launched his campaign (Naumetz, 2012). Since arriving on the political scene, as the son of former Premier Mr Pierre Trudeau, he has been courted as a future party leader (Greenway, 2008). Yet so far he has a lean record when it comes to policies.

Now the moment has come to clearly lay out the policy platform for a liberal future. When doing so there are a few things for Mr Trudeau and the other candidates to consider.

It has been covered previously on this journal that the UK's parties of the left have had plenty of lessons in cooperation to take from the Canadian left. Now, however, Canadian liberals have plenty of reasons to watch Mr Ed Miliband's progress as leader of the Labour Party in the UK - to study how leadership elections affect parties, what issues are affecting people, and what methods may or may not work.

A primary issue for the Liberal Party of Canada will be addressing the unexpected collapse from last year's election - not to mention a long term polling slump that still hangs over their heads (White, 2011). But a new leader is no sure salve: UK Labour's new leader Mr Ed Miliband has had a rocky ride since his election - which was won only by the narrowest of margins. He has tried to cast off the towering shadows of Mr Blair and Mr Brown (Telegraph, 2011) and rebuild the party's reputation. But such shadows are hard to shake.

And those inherited troubles have lead Labour, and will lead the Canadian Liberals, down a difficult road. Labour have had to try and rebuild their much maligned economic credibility (Elliott, 2012), which was so sorely strained over the course of the election - and afterwards when the full scale of public debt came to light. Overcoming those stigmas has lead the party to alienate some of its core support by backing the theme of the government's economic approach - even as they oppose the details (Wintour, 2012).

The Canadian Liberal party will need to avoid such alienation of its core supporters as it looks for a solution to the number of voters who have moved over to the Conservatives. While the easiest route will surely be to try and match their opponents blow-for-blow, there are alternatives - not least providing a realistic, practical and affordable way to assuage the fears that have driven voters over to a Conservative majority.

A third lesson should also be taken from UK Labour's leadership election. The favourite, Mr David Miliband, lost narrowly to the his brother Mr Ed Miliband - a point particularly pertinent to the favourite in the Canadian Liberal leadership race, Mr Trudeau. Nothing can be taken for granted.

Canadian Liberalism needs to be wary of the selfish path to short-term polling success. While effective at putting a party on the radar, it also breeds instability, alienation and dissatisfaction down the line - as UK Labour saw when its long-term policy of establishing itself as the sole bastion of the UK's political left has seen the party lose ground to left alternative parties across the last two elections. The question then becomes: how do you build a core of support and a framework of policies while avoiding the alienation of potential allies?

Beginning to answer that question will mean restating the values of liberalism and figuring out how those words translate into policy in the 21st century. And that means finding a starting point, something like the words of that former citizen of Mr Justin Trudeau's constituency,  Louis-Joseph Papineau (1867):

'It is to my fellow-citizens of all origins that I call on today as I always did; to them I say that we must not only be anxious to preserve the rights which are acquired, but that, by free discussion, we must unceasingly endeavour to acquire new ones.'

==========
References:
==========
+ Tim Naumetz's 'Trudeau makes it official and Liberals riding a wave of voter interest, 30,000 outside party sign up for leadership election';in Hill Times; 3 October 2012.

+ Norma Greenway's 'Justin Trudeau top pick as Liberal chief: poll; But rookie MP says he's not interested'; in the Montreal Gazette; 29 October 2008.

+ Anne White's 'In Canada’s election there have been two surges: the far-left in Quebec and the far right in the rest of Canada. The result bucks the recent trend of hung parliaments and may offer some lessons for the UK'; on British Politics and Policy at LSE blog; 5 May 2011.

+The Telegraph's 'Ed Miliband tells 2011 Labour Party Conference "I am my own man"'; 27 September 2011.

+ Larry Elliott's 'Labour still has a long way to go to restore its economic credibility'; in The Guardian; 30 September 2012.

+ Patrick Wintour's 'Ed Miliband backs Ed Balls's stance on spending cuts'; in The Guardian; 15 January 2012.

The success of co-operatives

2012 has been the United Nations International Year of Co-operatives, and at the end of October celebrations will culminate in a festival in the City of Manchester. The year of the festival seems well timed, considering the recent strength of co-operative organisations.

This strength was demonstrated just two months ago when the the The Co-operative Banking Group spent around £400m (possibly rising to £800m) on the purchase of a large number of Lloyds branches - a deal that increased the Co-operative Group share in the current account market to around 7% (BBC, 2012). These successes have not been limited to banking either. Farming Co-operatives of various sorts have been starting up and expanding (Bourne, 2012); in the Basque Country, Mondragon, a co-operative working in machine assembly, has laboured on and protected its employees even during the worst of the financial crisis (Burridge, 2012).

And it seems that (at least a part) of the UK Government has started to take notice. In January the Liberal Democrats advanced proposals to put workers closer to company decision making processes (Clegg, 2012) - a move to counter the re-emergence of the mismanagement that has been strongly tied to the causes of the financial crisis.

Co-operatives, building societies, credit unions: these organisations have yet to be perfected. Each have had their share of issues throughout the past decade, even if they have shown themselves to be very competitive. Last summer the Co-operative Group began seeking a buyer for parts of its insurance arm and just last month claimed worse than expected profits.

But in the face of the most recent financial meltdown, people are taking a fresh look at how to get democratic values into the heart of business. The reasons are twofold: it is primarily the long-awaited next step in the advance of social democracy, but its also serves as a means of building greater stability into businesses. Co-operatives, thanks to their resilience, provide a sound foundation for building towards those aims.

==========
References:
==========
+ BBC's 'Co-op to buy 632 Lloyds bank branches'; 19 July 2012.

+ Nick Bourne's 'Fruit and vegetable community co-ops rise to 350 in Wales'; on the BBC; 9 May 2012.

+ Tom Burridge's 'Basque co-operative Mondragon defies Spain slump'; on the BBC; 14 August 2012.

+ 'Nick Clegg calls for a 'John Lewis economy'' on the BBC; 16 January 2012.

Renewals

Cabinet reshuffles, like that of Mr Cameron's last month, are a fact of political life. They serve as a way to reorganise, to break from certain continuities or to shed unfortunate reputations that have been accumulated.

In 2003 Mr Blair reorganised his cabinet amongst much controversy (Jones & Rozenberg, 2003). His cabinet changes reformed and watered down the the role of Lord Chancellor (Wintour & Dyer, 2003). The changes came at a time when, after the outrage sparked by protests and resignations over the Iraq War, Mr Blair's New Labour were in need of reasserting their reforming credentials.

So what are the aims behind Mr Cameron's new cabinet?

Commentators are suggesting this reshuffle is a move to, or at least a concession to, the Tory Right (Clark, 2012). Such an attempt to shore up his support may reflect the difficulties the Prime Minister has faced. His role has consisted of trying to juggle party demands past his Liberal Democrat coalition partners (Stevenson, 2012).

There is danger, though, in being drawn in too far by these reshuffles. Methods such as these - used to manage public perceptions of government action - are reflective of the unfortunate role that personality plays, ahead of reason, in the formulating and carrying out of policy (although there have been attempts to rectify this).

This amount of focus given to personality allows ministries to get rid of bad impressions with an outgoing minister, and to press on from any newly established policy plateau - all without the baggage that comes with unpopularity. In this case, the reshuffle betrays concern in Tory ranks about their chances at the next election.

Changing faces, changing personalities - these are just misdirections to ease the passage of difficult legislation. The realities are always more complicated. We must be wary not to let misdirections such as these distract us from maintaining vigilance against dangerous legislation.

==========
References:
==========
+ George Jones & Joshua Rozenberg's 'Blair casts aside legal history in radical reshuffle'; in The Telegraph; 13 June 2003.

+ Patrick Wintour & Clare Dyer's 'Blair's reforming reshuffle'; in The Guardian, 13 June 2003.

+ Tom Clark's 'Cameron's new cabinet: not just a shuffle but a great trek to the right'; in The Guardian; 4 September 2012.

+ Alex Stevenson's '"Chambermaid" Cameron told to stand up to Lib Dems'; in Politics.co.uk; 30 August 2012.

The failure to co-operate

The recent breakdown in co-operation between the coalition partners (BBC, 2012) left the political situation looking a little tense as the parties headed into the parliamentary recess. So far co-operation between the parties of government has moved a number of pieces of legislation through parliament - some controversial like the NHS Bill, some fairly positive such as the Protection of Freedoms Bill.

We have also seen co-operation between other parties on other campaigns. From referendum on AV to debate over Scottish Independence, multiple groups have come together on a number of issues more often than in recent parliaments. It has been an important factor of this parliament that co-operation has taken such a major role on the political scene.

But the cabinet reshuffle (BBC, Sept. 2012) seems suggestive that many in political circles are unhappy with these present conditions - conditions that require co-operation and consensus to move forward. In fact, the Tory right-wing appears to have been reinforced within the cabinet (Wintour & Watt, 2012), which serves to strengthen the representation of a number of conservative viewpoints around the cabinet table - from Euroscepticism to deficit reduction. This can only put more strain upon their Liberal Democrat partners in government.

The signs suggest the continuation of the Con-Lib coalition lasting beyond this parliament is getting ever more unlikely. They also suggest that various groups have hardened themselves against further co-operation. Largely, it seems, in hope for a return to the British majoritarian regimes of old.

The Labour party have, since the election, steered clear of tying themselves too tightly to any campaigns. The Tories have strengthened the presence of their right-wing in the cabinet. With Britain only two and a half years into its first coalition government in over 50 years, the country is very exposed to having a majoritarian relapse.

But it is worth keeping in mind the sentiments that led to a fractured political scene: the disenfranchisement, disaffection and disconnectedness that has  followed that system and which grew unchecked, with increasingly poor voter turnouts; and to consider this before being too willing to jump on the bandwagon once more.

==========
References:
==========
+ BBC's 'Nick Clegg: Lords reform plans to be abandoned'; 6 August 2012.

+ BBC's 'Cabinet reshuffle: David Cameron's new line-up'; 4 September 2012.

+ Patrick Wintour & Nicholas Watt's 'David Cameron's right turn in cabinet reshuffle'; in The Guardian; 4 September 2012.

We can work it out

In the Edgar Wright directed Scott Pilgrim vs the World, we see the protagonist constantly changing up his tactics to overcome the obstacles in his path. In order to date the girl of his dreams, slacker extraordinaire Scott Pilgrim must defeat her seven evil exes.

After overcoming the first opponent through his own skill, Scott soon finds himself over-matched. He makes up the difference with a combination of misdirection, trickery and a little help from his friends. However, despite relying upon their help he continues to focus on his own issues - largely to the detriment of his relationships with them, and particularly with his girlfriend Ramona.

His selfish attitude sparks a rift between himself and Ramona. Scott turns to three powerful (but possibly selfish) motivations to carry him through the fights with the last few exes: the power of jealousy, the power of love and the power of self-respect. They all play their part in helping him overcome his immediate obstacles. But they are never quite enough.

It is a common pop cultural theme that 'we get by with a little help from our friends'. Whether it's Luke who can't get it done without Han, Chewie, Leia and Ben, Frodo and the fellowship, or Harry Potter with Ron and Hermione, our heroes are shown time and again being assisted in their greatest personal achievements. They don't succeed as an isolated pillar casting off the shackles put on them by others, but by being liberated from those chains by the teaching, wisdom, love, compassion and support of others.

And it seems that when maths and evolutionary biology get together, their combined analysis is favourable to this pop cultural meme. Nowak & Highfield (2011) used game theory to propose that cooperation wins out because as a strategy - defined by being generous, hopeful and forgiving - our chances in zero-sum games are greatly improved.

'We are moulded and remoulded by those who have loved us; and though the love may pass, we are nevertheless their work, for good or ill.'        - Francois Mauriac (1925).

In the end Scott wins the respect of his peers by changing his ways - by removing himself from his selfish bubble and making personal sacrifices (most notably his ego) for the well-being of his friends. With this he achieves his goals and fosters a positive community that helps him thrive.

==========
References:
==========
+ Martin Nowak & Roger Highfield's 'Supercooperators: The mathematics of evolution, altruism and human behaviour'; April 2011.

+ The Beatles' 'With a Little Help From my Friends'; on Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band; 1967.

+ Francois Mauriac's 'Le Désert de l'amour' (The Desert of Love); 1925.

Split by Personalities

The power of personality is tremendously important in the marketing of everything - from political ideology to pop music. However, this can lead to a number of problems.

Max Weber described these factors in his works on authority (1994).  His category of charismatic authority, looked at the power of personality in leadership - where support for movements or ideas, and the choices people make about these things, is governed by the personal qualities of candidates.

The issues created by 'personality' go far beyond politics. It has also caused problems within scientific communities. In certain scientific fields criticism has been levelled over the way credit is assigned for the completion of certain projects (Aaronson et al, 2008) - and research has delved into the reasons for the development of unfairly lopsided 'credit allocation' (Kleinberg & Oren, 2011).

The problem of credit, of acclaim and celebrity, is its value - both monetarily and in terms of the status gained within a community.

The risks this presents go beyond the motivations behind the actions of individuals, to the attempts of outside observers to decipher issues - whose window on the complicated ideas is often those famous in their field. The fame of these 'personalities', while it can generate attention for the field of study, can also obscure important information.

And there are always additional dangers when you engage with something because of the people involved, rather than directly with the facts - as much for them as for yourself. As author John Green (2008) put it in his novel Paper Towns:

'What a treacherous thing it is to believe that a person is more than a person'

Addressing issues on the basis of personality is an oversimplification. It is too simple and too easy to defer to an authority - whether that be a dogma, a canon or an authority figure.

People can never live up to that sort of scrutiny. What's more, it is unreasonable to let ideas stand or fall with people's reputations, rather than upon their own reasoned merits.

And here lies the problem of being moved by personality - it perverts reasoning and risks setting up dangerous authority figures.

The presence of strong authorities in all areas, and the importance of credit in the achievement of funding and security for those engaged in fields of intellectual study, all but assures the continuation of this problem for the present. But we must remain wary - and maintain vigilance against allowing our admiration to confuse attempts to get to the facts.

==========
References:
==========
+ Max Weber's 'Basic Concepts in Sociology'; Chp 4, Pt 4: Bases of Legitimate Order; Citadel 1994.

+ Scott Aaronson, Allan Borodin, Bernard Chazelle, Oded Goldreich, Shafi Goldwasser, Richard Karp, Michael Kearns, Christos Papadimitriou, Madhu Sudan & Salil Vadhan; 'Statement on conceptual contributions in theory'; on scottaaronson.com; 7 March 2008.

+ J.Kleinberg & S.Oren's 'Mechanisms for (Mis)Allocating Scientific Credit'; Proc. 43rd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing; 2011.

+ John Green's 'Paper Towns'; Bloomsbury, 2008.

Competing Interests

Late last year Benetton were forced to withdraw images of the Pope and a senior Muslim leader kissing from their 'Unhate' campaign (Butt, 2011). Benetton have gained fame - though have never been far from infamy - for their promotional campaigns and have long been at the forefront in marketing. Not least being the decision to buy and the subsequent running of a Formula 1 racing team for a little over a decade. In spite of the controversy, these campaigns have promoted the Benetton brand alongside various community campaigns and social issues.

Primark have also, in the last few of years, begun to publicise their efforts to promote more ethical attitudes in business practices. However, Primark's efforts are invariably tied to investigations into their own past ethical practices (McDougall, 2009).

Both organisations set about their campaigns for different reasons. Regardless of the initial intent behind those campaigns, there are complex issues to address around the tying of moral questions to the actions of an individual consumer.

The foremost of these is what Slavoj Zizek described as 'semantic overinvestment' (2010). When consumerist and charitable or community gestures are combined into one and the same action, it places a massive burden upon a simple consumer decision. In doing so it alters our reasons for purchasing particular products and gives us good cause to worry that it's oversimplifying charitable acts.

For companies such as Benetton and Primark, there is profit to be gained from the marketable image of a company-with-a-conscience. Not least in the potential to exploit the guilt fostered when a costumer is presented with the moral element of their consumerism. But there are real risks.

As companies offer a consumer product that contains a guarantee of certain welfare, charitable or ethical practices they are also distancing their customers from the suffering they are trying to alleviate. This distance invites the customer to have a too easy, too simple and too passive relationship with their own acts of charity.

As companies are first and foremost tied to profit, it is important to remember that there is a distinction to be made between doing a good thing because it is profitable and doing a good thing while finding a way to make it profitable. When we invest our charitable sentiments into standoffish second-hand actions taken through companies, we stand to lose a lot should the company no longer find them profitable.

But more still is the fear that, when we distance ourselves from the suffering of others - even as we seek to alleviate it - we merely build more walls between us.

==========
References:
==========
+ Riazat Butt's 'Vatican criticises Benetton picture of pope kissing Muslim leader'; in The Guardian; 17 November 2011.

+ Dan McDougall's 'Primark in storm over conditions at UK supplier'; in The Guardian; 11 January 2009.

+ Sarah Butler's 'Primark "ramps up" ethical efforts after exposé on working practices'; in The Telegraph; 21 January 2010.

+ Slavoj Zizek's 'First as Tragedy, The as Farce'; at the RSA; 2010.

House Divided

There are many things that can cause a division between partners and take from them the undeniable benefits of cooperation. Last week, the coalition faced its most serious divide - the kind of split every minor disagreement has been portrayed as for the past two years. Deputy Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat leader Mr Nick Clegg publicly accused the Tories of breaking their word and the coalition agreement that had been so sorely tested, though not outright broken, in the past (BBC, 2012).

It appears that ideology has won out over the 'national interest' that the coalition had avowedly a 'chance to serve' (2010). When you consider the competing commitments of those involved, it comes as more of a surprise that the coalition agreement hadn't been seriously imperilled sooner.

The commitments of the Tory backbench to staunchly conservative ideas have been confronted at every turn by Liberal Democrat attempts to liberalise coalition policy - and that was always going to be a difficult balance to juggle for the Conservative Prime Minister Mr Cameron. These competing commitments seem to have forced the emergence of what analysts have described as 'a definite air of tit-for-tat' (Brant, 2012).

However, the emergence of tit-for-tat need not demand as much pessimism about the future of that relationship as some propose. In fact tit-for-tat may represent some prospect of continued cooperation. In a talk for the RSA, expert on human evolution and development Mark Pagel (2012) described humanity's 'inexorable' advancement in terms of our increasing ability to cooperate with others.

'Cooperation can normally win out over endless cycles of betrayal and revenge, because there's always a sort of seduction of competition and killing your enemy - because then you get to occupy those lands - but you have to live with the fear of that enemy trying to kill you. And so it seems to be an inexorable part of our history that cooperation has had greater returns than competition.'

And this isn't a limited observation (Nowak & Highfield, 2011). It has been observed in numerous situations where several players compete for limited resources - a famous example from game theory being the Prisoner's Dilemma. And it is here that tit-for-tat emerges as a basis for a potential strategy for recovering cooperation rather than both sides collapsing into a 'death spiral' of aggression.

What, after broken trust and punitive response, does this information hold for the Coalition Agreement? With Mr Cameron's backbench broken from their bounds and with three years still to run, the shaken trust within the coalition will have to be repaired - because while both the Tories & Lib Dems surely have back-up plans, their chances at the next election largely depend upon public approval of their fully implemented program.

This creates room for the Liberal Democrats to seek a renegotiation of the Coalition Agreement (Kampfner, 2012), and necessity for Mr Cameron to find a way to bring his party back around the table to discuss it.

If he can't, he is presenting the main opposition, the Labour Party with the same kind of choice. To remain on the fence and take their chances in three years time or to be proactive now and drive wedges, to show the daylight between the liberal and conservative ideologies, all while offering a policy middle ground to court the potential coalition partner Labour would need to govern now.

The three main parties - due to the divisions resulting from ideology, find themselves competing for a finite staple resource: votes. These competing interests, however, do not  rule out the possibility of cooperation - in fact cooperation becomes the best strategy for representing all views. So, regardless of which of the three main parties seizes the initiative, all of them need to cooperate with others to guarantee their survival.

==========
References:
==========
+ BBC's 'Nick Clegg: Lords reform plans to be abandoned'; 6 August 2012.

+ 'The Coalition: Our programme for government'; Cabinet Office, 2010.

+ Robin Brant's 'Analysis: What does ditching Lords reform mean for the coalition?'; 6 August 2012.

+ Mark Pagel's 'Wired for Culture: The natural history of human cooperation'; (Quote at 11:01); March 2012.

+ Martin Nowak & Roger Highfield's 'Supercooperators: The mathematics of evolution, altruism and human behaviour'; April 2011.

+ John Kampfner's 'The Lib Dems are in a stronger position than the Tories – but hide it well'; in The Guardian; 9 August 2012.

Olympic Ideal - Rise, Fall, Struggle and Redemption

There has been much said already about the inspiration to be drawn from Team GB's medal haul last Saturday. However, Saturday did not have a monopoly on important Olympic moments. There is also some good to be taken from the 100m Olympic semi-finals and Dwain Chambers.

It stands as a major achievement because, for a long time, it didn't look like Dwain Chambers would ever run at a major championship ever again. Chambers was banned in 2003, for two years, after testing positive for a performance enhancing drug (Mackay, 2003).

But Chambers also faced a lifetime ban imposed on him by the British Olympic Association (BOA) - the organisation that select and run the British Olympic team.

Chambers' original ban punished the act of cheating - and the breaking of Coubertin's ideals: The important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle, the essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.

So what then was the lifetime ban punishing? By seeking to block Chambers from having a shot at redeeming himself once his ban ended, the BOA were taking a deeply reactionary response to Chambers - a reaction that aimed to make an example of him. In doing so the BOA failed to treat the athlete as an individual, or his case with due regard for the rules, and so found itself failing to comply with the spirit of the games - all in its hurry to make a point quickly and 'hysterically'. The lifetime ban was finally overturned (Guardian, 2012) - just months before the London Games - when it was also found to have failed to comply with the World Anti-Doping Agency rules.

Altogether Chambers' career has followed the path of the tragic heroes: the rise to prominence, the fall from grace - but also the chance for an act of redemption. Previously punished for cheating, he earned the right to compete once more; proved his fitness and qualified.

So while 'Super-Saturday' was a great moment for British sport, Chambers' answer when asked to sum up the whole occasion was also worth seeing (BBC, 2012):

Chambers:    I'm happy to be here man. I really am.
Interviewer: Was it worth all the heartache in the build up?
Chambers:    Yes. It was worth every moment of it. To feel that roar and be in this atmosphere again - money can't buy that and I'm glad I've fought so hard to get to this position.'

Chamber's answer reflects the importance that Coubertin placed upon the struggle over the triumph - and that through striving well there is more to be earned at the Olympics than medals.

==========
References:
==========
+ Duncan Mackay's 'UK's top sprinter in positive drug test'; 22 October 2003.

+ The Guardian's 'London 2012: Wada accuses BOA of making "hysterical statements"'; 30 April 2012.

+ BBC's 'Athletics: Finals'; from 1:11:00; 5 August 2012.

Presidents and Electoral Colleges

Last month, the European Union's slow meander towards a unified federation was brought a step closer to reality. President of the European Commission Mr José Manuel Barroso, the head of Europe's executive branch, heralded work done by the European Council and the challenge it presented to doubters of the EU's ability to get the necessary done (BBC, 2012).

As the EU takes these steps, the European Commission and the office of President are only going to become more influential. The office, holders of which have included former Italian Prime Minister Sig. Romano Prodi and British politician Mr Roy Jenkins, has faced some criticism over the indirect way in which the office is appointed - its indirectness insulating it from democracy (Mahoney, 2008).

However the indirect election of heads of state is not rare - the most famous being the Electoral College of the United States that elects the President. Also a similar case is Germany, where its Bundespräsident is elected by a grand convocation of both chambers of the German parliament.

In the US, delegates are appointed by the votes of the presidential election, and they in turn choose the next president. In both Germany and the EU, the delegates are the members of the respective legislatures.



Both the American & German systems have faced problems that call in to question how those offices are elected. Germany has only recently seen the resignation of President Wulff over corruption allegations (Pidd, 2012). And the United States has certainly faced controversy, with accusations that its electoral college is undemocratic - its process, which allows delegates to nominate a president against popular support, has received some criticism (Amar & Amar, 2004). Such problems might suggest that such models are not the best for the EU to emulate - that instead a more direct method of election might be preferable, and increase accountability.

As a means of balancing out and outmatching the often limited powers of these Presidents, there usually sits a body of elected representatives in whom is collectively vested the power to make law. For Europe that body is the European Parliament.

The European Parliament recently demonstrated the power of an effective assembly of elected representatives when it refused to ratify the ACTA Treaty, stopping the establishment of the treaty after massive public outcry across Europe. In doing so it went with public opinion over the will of the 22 member state government who had individually chosen to sign the treaty (RTE, 2012).

However, an alternative body with the power to offer checks and balances is not the same as an organisation that itself is accountable. With thoughts along those lines, steps have already been proposed to make the European Commission more democratic (Mahoney, 2010).

So, along with Germany and the United States, the European Union has an effective means to balance the potential power of its relatively insulated executive office. But as with those other offices, it must be proactive in raising its visibility and increasing its accountability - lest it become mistrusted for the indirect democracy by which it is appointed.

==========
References:
==========
+ Helen Pidd's 'German president resigns and could face prosecution in corruption scandal'; 17 February 2012.

+ Honor Mahoney's 'Barroso admits legitimacy problem for commission president post'; at euobserver.com; 28 February 2008.

+ Akhil Reed Amar & Vikram David Amar's 'The Electoral College Votes Against Equality'; September 8 2004.

+ RTE's 'MEPs reject anti-counterfeiting trade agreement'; 5 July 2012.

+ Honor Mahony's 'EP president wants future EU commissioners directly elected'; on euobserver.com; 23 March 2010.

Opposition and the blame game

In 'On Liberty' John Stuart Mill claimed that, for the good functioning of a system of government, two opposing forces must always be represented:

'It is almost a commonplace that a party of order or stability and a party of progress or reform are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life, until the one or the other shall have so enlarged its mental grasp as to be a party equally of order and of progress, knowing and distinguishing what is fit to be preserved from what ought to be swept away. Each of these modes of thinking derives its utility from the deficiencies of the other; but it is in great measure the opposition of the other that keeps each within the limits of reason and sanity.'

Here we have, not the ideological divisions of parties, but the opposing forces in a reasoned argument - the argument for the status quo versus the argument for change. And they are roles that cannot be played to their full measure through specific and persistent ideological polemics.

Few parliaments of recent memory have represented such an abstract division.

Britain is largely split between implacable rivals - Conservatives and Labour. So too is Germany - between CDU and SPD. The recent French elections, despite carrying hope for the French centre, have only further entrenched their left and right camps.

As for opposition parties: in the US, there have been suggestions (Cohen, 2012) that Republicans may have stepped a long way beyond merely keeping the government honest, and in the UK Labour has faced criticism (Lucas, 2012) for only beginning to develop prospective policy two years into this parliament (Wintour, 2012).

So why do these parties play the opposition role as they do? Why do they approach opposition as part of the strategic manoeuvring needed to challenge for the leadership?

It shouldn't really be a surprised that parties choose to build towards victory at the next election. But we should still be wary when parties offer little in the way of policy before elections - beyond the vagueness and vagueries. Because, in its own way, this absence of substance is tied directly to those aims of victory - the lack of policies making the party a less easy target to pin down.

All of it this is rooted with the primary problems of majoritarian democracy - there is power to be won. When held with a majority then the opposition becomes moot, a consolation prize for the loser. So the sides face-off to secure the all-to-often occurring majoritarian tendency of uncontested rule; where there are winners with power and losers without - rather than the representation of people in all the decisions of their lives that stands as the democratic ideal. And while they compete with tactical and strategic point-scoring, a great many things of importance are allowed to slip onto the back-burner in the name of victory in some greater ideological conflict - and this trend is troubling.

Particularly when it allows parties to conceal their policies and governing intentions while in opposition - then, if elected to office, to govern piece-by-piece through legislation; forcing journalists and others to act as translators and interpreters between these fragments and our attempts at building a macro-impression of that party's intentions.

And so, as these things cloud our vision, we're robbed of the oversight for which Mill described opposition as necessary.

==========
References:
==========
+ John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty'; 1859.

+ Michael Cohen's 'Did Republicans deliberately crash the US economy?'; in The Guardian; 9 June 2012.

+ Caroline Lucas' 'Labour's lack of alternative vision'; in The Guardian - Letters; 15 January 2012.

+ Patrick Wintour's 'Jon Cruddas to co-ordinate Labour's policy review'; in The Guardian; 15 May 2012.