David Cameron's campaign against Juncker exposed the dangerous crossed-purposes of centralised power

David Cameron has had a busy month. Since the European elections he has been campaigning hard in Britain and across the rest of Europe, in a losing effort to prevent Jean-Claude Juncker from ascending to the role of President of the European Commission (Helm, 2014). That defeat was followed by hasty apologies from Cameron following a guilty verdict for his former communications chief, Andy Coulson, over charges related to the phone hacking scandal (O'Carroll & Winter, 24/6/2014).

In an article published in The Guardian (Cameron, 2014), Cameron interpreted the results of the European elections as the people having instructed their politicians to restructure the EU in favour of growth and jobs. Just for the record, this was the election with a less than 50% turnout that returned a majority of largely pro-EU party groupings, even despite an upsurge in votes for far right parties.

Cameron tried in his article to warn against the dangers of European centralisation, especially by what he calls a 'back-door power-grab'. But he largely came off as a conservative patrician hypocritically bent out of shape because power was centralising somewhere away from his own supporter-base. Particularly when managing to patronise the citizens of Europe by seemingly suggesting that they were too distracted by the World Cup to concern themselves with European politics.

In fact, Cameron's whole approach to recent matters has reeked of these kinds of crossed-purposes.

Cameron is not, in principle, entirely opposed to the UK being part of the European Union - albeit a much reduced and reformed business- and trade-oriented union. But he cannot simply go to his party and push for a pro-European position without the EU reorienting itself into something more English Conservative friendly first (Watson, 2014; Traynor & Watt, 2014).

This is made all the more ludicrous by the fact that he is not necessarily a million miles away from the truth when he speaks of a Juncker Federalist Presidency as being a little far from public expectation, or needs, right now (The Guardian, 2014). The Guardian's own editorial assessment of the matter manages to make much the same argument in a more sober and less slanted way. They do have it easier though, since they aren't trying to win two games with one move.

The controversy over Cameron's employing Andy Coulson, the former News of the World and hacking-associated Editor, represents another such mixing of the partisan and public purposes. The PM's careless or cynically pragmatic ill-timing of apologies, for not having more thoroughly vetted Andy Coulson, drew criticism from the presiding judge for potentially affecting the case (O'Carroll & Winter, 25/6/2014).

There were even suggestions that the Prime Minister had had broken the rules regarding commenting on an ongoing case and was close to, if not completely in breach of, contempt of court (BBC, 2014). It's not even like this is the first time Cameron has found himself facing this kind of criticism either. His 'Team Nigella' comments during a fraud case in which she was embroiled were wildly inappropriate and were deemed regrettable by the judge (Raynor, 2014).

Cameron has criticised the centralising of political power in Europe, while being part of a government centralising power in the UK (Adams, 2014). His government came into office talking about the Big Society, citizens taking control over their own lives, and yet they run Westminster like a big corporation, as if they're directors and the country, the detestably named 'UK plc', is to be turned for a profit (Moulds, 2012). Watching the budget has never felt more like spying on a corporation's board of directors arguing about their shareholders, stakeholders and profit margins.

Cameron's political actions appear to have been consistently undermined by carrying multiple purposes. His appeals to ideologically conservative nationalist attitudes, as part of domestic partisan movements, while negotiating the UK's future within a wider world, have seen public matters complicated by personal and party ambitions.

If we are to tackle the problems of our time, it cannot be done effectively, our freedoms cannot be protected effectively, within a system with crossed-purposes. Leaving great powers in the hands of singular individuals will only invite these conflicts of interest. They are only to be expected when power is centralised, and its retention becomes tied up and tangled with the use of the powers of office, exercised at the office holder's discretion, on the public behalf. The Prime Minister actions are only symptomatic of that problem.

==========
References:
==========
+ Toby Helm's 'Cameron faces defeat in bid to thwart Juncker European presidency'; in The Guardian; 22 June 2014.

+ Lisa O'Carroll & Patrick Wintour's 'Andy Coulson guilty over hone hacking as Rebekah Brooks walks free'; in The Guardian; 24 June 2014.

+ David Cameron's 'Electing Jean-Claude Juncker would be a back-door power-grab'; in The Guardian; 13 June 2014.

+ Iain Watson's 'Tory MPs unhappy at Cameron's EU tactics' on the BBC; 27 June 2014.

+ Ian Traynor & Nicholas Watt's 'Britain closer to EU exit after Jean-Claude Juncker vote'; in The Guardian; 27 June 2014.

+ The Guardian's 'The Guardian view on the commission presidency: old politics in new times'; 6 June 2014.

+ Lisa O'Carroll & Patrick Wintour's 'Andy Coulson trial: jurors fail to reach verdicts on remaining charges'; in The Guardian; 25 June 2014.

+ The BBC's 'Judge rebukes Cameron for comments on Coulson conviction'; 25 June 2014.

+ Gordon Rayner's 'David Cameron criticised by judge for 'Team Nigella' intervention in trial'; in The Telegraph; 12 December 2013.

+ Richard Adams' 'Governors of new academies and free schools told to abide by 'British values''; in The Guardian; 19 June 2014.

+ Josephine Moulds' 'Cameron and co drum up business for UK plc at lavish conference'; in The Guardian; 26 July 2012.

Ed Miliband's populist approach is dangerously lacking in substance

It's been a mixed couple of weeks for Ed Miliband. On one day he receives the cheers of a trade union audience, on another he insults the entire population of Liverpool. The Labour leader's determination to do the popular thing, regardless the inconsistencies or hypocrisies, is proving unhelpful to establishing a solid base of support for the party.

In a speech to the GMB trade union, Miliband certainly made all the right moves. He promised to tackle social insecurities, things like low pay, the lack of affordable housing and zero-hour contracts. But his most extraordinary move was to make the merest hint of a concession of the possibility that the railways aught to be renationalised. This earned him the most meagre of ovations (Wintour, 2014).

However, he did not get to enjoy his success with the trade union audience for very long. Just a day later, he followed the lead of other senior political figures in posing with The Sun's free special edition marking the 2014 FIFA World Cup in Brazil.

What he failed to consider was the reaction that posing with The Sun would provoke from his own MPs, from his party's own councillors in Liverpool and the groups representing the victims and survivors of the Hillsborough tragedy of 1989 (BBC, 2014). Miliband was roundly criticised by all of them for associating himself, for his own short-term polling benefit, with a publication that covered the tragedy so disgustingly disrespectfully and with an insulting bias (O'Carroll, 2012).

How can Miliband have been so completely on message for progressives one day, and so entirely out of touch the next?

The answer is that Ed Miliband's approach is to appeal to the lowest common denominator. It might be effective at creating 'brand awareness', or at making an average viewer think that their priorities are shared by the Party, but it buys those gains at the great cost of alienating many other groups. It trades substance, like the real, thought out policies, for simply being seen.

Such cynical tactics are pursued for one purpose alone: getting elected. From his first speech as Labour leader, Ed Miliband has made it clear that getting into government, and getting the power that comes with it, is his first priority for the party:

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

It has been said before on this blog, that power being important enough to warrant whatever means to achieve it, does not lead to good things. That motivation completely disassembled the election campaign of the Republican candidate Mitt Romney in 2012, in a year when electoral victory should have been a straightforward matter.

And all indications seem to be that those same polling headaches that derailed Romney's populist appeals, are in time going to become increasingly important factors in UK politics (Muir, 2014). With British cities following the trend of many others in Europe, and developing so-called 'super-diversity' - diverse and multi-cultural city populations - aiming at the lowest common denominator will ultimately be poisonous to your election chances.

If you play to the crowd in the crudest and most simplistic ways, you are going to alienate a diverse society. People who are marginalised or treated unequally, or have their lives rendered insecure by a country's establishment, need real solutions not empty platitudes. Worse still, by trying to just hint to each group that they will get what they want by voting for you, even when it runs contrary to other stances taken, people will notice. In the end all a party will achieve is to be mistrusted by the public.

Labour's best bet now is to break from this path, and to get out of the habit now. Diversity is the bane of this simplistic populist approach and if Labour don't start to get away from it, they'll find themselves dragged down with it's failure.

==========
References:
==========
+ Patrick Wintour's 'Miliband vows to end epidemic of insecurity sweeping through Britain'; in The Guardian; 12 June 2014.

+ The BBC's 'Ed Miliband Apologises for offence over Sun picture'; 13 June 2014.

+ Lisa O'Carroll's 'Hillsborough: MacKenzie offers 'profuse apologies' for Sun front page'; in The Guardian; 12 September 2012.

+ Hugh Muir's 'Labour and Tories face decline if they ignore minority vote, study finds'; in The Guardian; 20 June 2014.

London, Water Cannons and the Dangers of Suppression

After discussions about it back in January, the Met Police have formally requested and received clearance to purchase water cannons (BBC, 2014). That decision has brought London one step closer to seeing them deployed on the streets, with only one major remaining obstruction - permission is first required from the Home Secretary, currently the Conservative Teresa May (Travis et al, 2014).

The decision to seek out such armaments for the police is a troubling move. Protesters in many countries are already being faced with regular suppression by police armed with water cannon and tear gas, and it is sad that the UK government has not chosen to buck that dangerous and illiberal trend.

As various progressives have expressed, from leader of the Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg (Wintour, 2014) to a Guardian editorial (The Guardian, 2014), water cannon are a reactive, suppressive mechanism. They provide police forces with more weapons with which to suppress dissent, but do nothing to address the reasons for unrest. In fact, it may even create more reasons for unrest, with accounts of the injuries suffered by those on the receiving end of water cannon making grim reading (Travis et al, 2014).

While it might be argued that they can break up an ongoing incident, the mass student-led Chilean Winter protests in Chile have shown that the use of such tactics - protests being quashed repeatedly by police using tear gas and water cannons (Aljazeera, 2014) - does little to dissuade those who will protest from doing so (Franklin, 2011). The campaigns in Chile have run now for four years, and water cannon has done little but make for some very unpretty coverage.

And there-in lies a dangerous consequence of suppressing tactics. Unpretty news coverage, pictures of protesters beaten and downtrodden, can only create a dangerous perception in the minds of those watching, about the values of a country and the methods of its government.

In Brazil, these kinds of questions have already been raised. Money has been spent of extravagence and the suppression of dissent rather than on providing the socially supportive schemes demanded by the people that might address the actual causes of unrest (Hughes, 2014).

The UK, the US, and other parts of the western world, have already been criticised over double-standards towards police tactics and government suppression of dissent (Sherlock, 2013). Pushing further into such territory can only be considered troubling. With a background of government budget cuts being met by prolonged and well attended protests, the UK government arming itself in order to suppress unrest does not give the best of impressions (The Guardian, 2014).

Fears of the suppression of civil protests is already high around the world, from Chile and Brazil to Turkey and across the Arab world. Protesters campaigning for political reform, and for general progressive measures, have been met everywhere with resistance by authorities.

It would make a real difference for a nation to move in a different direction, to set a new trend by rejecting suppression. Choosing security over liberty, the path to suppression, only escalates conflict. In the face of disillusionment with unequal societies, turning the debate over reform into a battle between the people protesting for reform and the state protecting the privileged establishment, is a surefire way to make matters worse.

Our actions always send a message. They become the legitimising precedents used by those who come later, and as the facts used to judge our character. So what kind of message do water cannon send to the people of the UK about their government? What kind of message does it send to the people of other countries? What do we want our actions to stand for?

==========
References:
==========
+ The BBC's 'Metropolitan Police given permission to buy water cannon'; 11 June 2014.

+ Alan Travis, Rowena Mason & Vikram Dodd's 'Cameron and May at odds over Boris Johnson's water cannon'; in The Guardian; 11 June 2014.

+ Patrick Wintour's 'Water cannon won't stop riots in London, says Nick Clegg'; in The Guardian; 12 June 2014.

+ The Guardian's 'The Guardian view: no water cannon in London'; 11 June 2014.

+ Aljazeera's 'Tear gas used at Chile protest over education'; 12 June 2014.

+ Jonathan Franklin's 'Camila Vallejo - Latin America's 23-year-old new revolutionary folk hero'; in The Guardian; 8 October 2011.

+ Thomas Hughes' 'Own Goal: How Brazil is Stifling the Right to Protest'; in The Huffington Post; 2 June 2014.

+ Ruth Sherlock's 'Turkey protests: Recep Tayyip Erdogan accuses EU of double standards'; in The Telegraph; 7 June 2013.

How do the Conservative policies in the Queen's Speech look in context?

Last week's Queen's Speech represents the beginning of the last year of Conservative Party led government for this parliamentary cycle. The Conservatives, through the traditional and rather odd mechanism of getting the queen to read them aloud to the country's gathered parliamentarians, for the last time took the chance to lay out formally the legislation they plan to pursue between now and the next election.

The bills announced in the Queen's Speech included, in particular, policies regarding privatisation, cutbacks to public sector redundancy payouts, and attempts to push private pensions (Clark & Mason, 2014; BBC, 2014). In isolation, these seem like limited measures, taken to tighten the public purse strings in response to a broader economic crisis.

However, these announcements do not exist in isolation. The Conservative led plans are being announced against a background of public sector services, awarded as contracts to private firms, being exploited to generate massive private profits (Armitage & Holmes, 2014). When seen properly in that context, some of the bills announced represent a struggle that will be central to this coming year, and an essential matter that the next election must address.

The privatisation friendly proposals are each extensions of previous moves on the part of the government, aimed at reducing the public sector and passing services and their responsibilities over to the private sector - for example the wrestling with public sector workers over cutting back their benefits (The Telegraph, 2011), to wanting to rearrange the European Union in order to repatriate powers over the workplace and minimum wage regulations (O'Grady, 2014).

With an election coming up in a years time, and at the behest of the Liberal Democrats, some extra securities were included for workers, like promises to further enforce the minimum wage and to take action for fairer contracts (Clark & Mason, 2014; BBC, 2014).

Yet, standing in stark contrast to the hyper-capitalist doctrines espoused by the Conservatives over the past few years, these concessions are accompanied by yet more anti-public sector policies, along with promises of deregulation for business, that make clear that they are but small deviations from the main Conservative aims. They seem to be pursuing, from healthcare to education, a complete privatisation of service provision in the UK. While Lib Dem influence seems to be trying to stem the flow, by pushing for a fairer workplace, they ultimately appear to lack the power, or perhaps the will, to oppose the ongoing public to private shift.

The arguments over this shift from the public to private sectors should really be a subject of major debate at the next election. However, before the Conservatives came to power, many of these policies had already been started under Labour. So it seems that it will be avoided at all cost, since the indications are that no major party has a problem with the capitalist privatisation of services.

The reason for the absence of dissent appears to be simple: money. Privatisation, and the selling of public contracts to private firms, is too great a source of investment for many to turn down. And many others are persuaded by the promise of cheaper but more lucrative, that is profitable, services. But at what cost?

The point of public services had never been to turn a profit. Their role had been to provide an independent and impartial service. If we continue down this road into privatisation, what will their role become? As some profit greatly from the change, what might the rest of us lose?

==========
References:
==========
+ Tom Clark & Rowena Mason's 'Queen's speech: bills in brief'; in The Guardian; 4 June 2014.

+ The BBC's 'Bill-by-bill guide to Queen's Speech'; 4 June 2014.

+ Jim Armitage & Richard Holmes' 'Exclusive: How private firms make quick killing from PFI'; in The Independent; 4 June 2014.

+ The Telegraph's 'George Osborne: "no need for strikes over pensions"'; 28 July 2011.

+ Frances O'Grady's 'Merkel won't give Cameron what he wants most – an EU referendum'; in The Guardian; 27 February 2014.

X-Men: Days of Future Past shows us the limitations and dangers of power

The newly released X-Men: Days of Future Past delves into the fear produced by the rise of the mutants, and the reactionary attempts of the humans to retain control - not just of mutants but, ultimately, of everyone. A movie adaptation of a famous comic story-arc, it sees a surviving mutant resistance looking for a way to rewrite events in the past, to prevent the horrors of the future.

In its origin, the X-Men comics reflected important civil rights campaigns and the struggles of outsiders, outcasts and minorities for acceptance, usually in the face of hostility. The problems that the mutants face in the dystopian future of Days of Future Past, stem from the methods of their own leaders used in response to those struggles.

On the one side, Professor Xavier was a scheming, pacifist idealist, who wanted to save humanity in order to win their trust. The aim being to use that trust to carve out a place for mutants within human society, and from there to improve things through a policy of gradualism - change by increments - through education. However, by attempting to buy a peaceful place within the established order through the valour of mutants, Xavier's path comes with the risk of sacrificing much and still not changing the world at all.

Magneto, on the other side, is an angry, vengeful supremacist. He sees humanity as a violent lost cause to be swept aside to make way for the safety of his own people. His experience at the hands of the Nazis during the Holocaust has convinced him that humanity will never accept mutants, and that they will seek instead to destroy them as a threat. Magneto's response is to wage a war against them, to defend his people and gain power for them. That path does very much threaten the world with definite change, but only of rulers and not of methods.

It is ultimately Magneto's path that has the greatest impact. His war of liberation and supremacism creates fear and anger, and breeds only further conflict. His war on humanity only escalates the feelings of weakness and insecurity created by the innate powers of mutants, and it forces a reaction.

Rather than understand or educate their foe, or find a way to integrate them, the humans take a more 'efficient' path, one that would protect and extend their power, rather than require concession. They seek instead to place their trust in tried and proven tactics, escalating the conflict further by creating power to overmatch their enemy's power. However, meeting power with power only produces more fear, and more violence.

In the X-Men: Days of Future Past, through the novelty of the rather literal approach of time-travel, we see exposed the circularity of violence, and limitations of the short term methods, of the means justified by the ends. Fear breeds fear; violence breeds violence; these methods only ever lead you in circles.

==========
References:
==========
+ Bryan Singer & Brett Ratner's 'X-Men Trilogy'; 20th Century Fox; 2000. [Buy Now]

+ Gavin Hood's 'X-Men Origins: Wolverine'; 20th Century Fox; 2009. [Buy Now]

+ Matthew Vaughn's 'X-Men: First Class'; 20th Century Fox; 2011. [Buy Now]

+ James Mangold's 'The Wolverine'; 20th Century Fox; 2013. [Buy Now]

+ Chris Claremont, John Byrne & Terry Austin's 'The Uncanny X-Men: Days of Future Past'; issues #141-142; Marvel; 1981. [Buy Now]