A sudden, stark and tragic turning point for our common humanity

Yesterday, the British media at large made a dramatic U-turn. After years of pushing aggressive and insensitive attitudes towards migrants of all kinds, the death of one small boy - an image thrust right into face of people across the UK - has produced a dramatic volte face (Wintour, 2015).

Suddenly, the reality of the humanitarian crisis caused by the war in Syria and by the other ongoing conflicts in North Africa - such as in Libya and Iraq - was out in the open. These people were no longer dehumanised 'immigrants' out to steal jobs. They were human beings again, terrified strangers fleeing for their lives.

With the apparent shift in public opinion represented by the change in the media's tone, David Cameron's Premiership is suddenly under substantial pressure (Wintour, 2015{2}). While Cameron has stood resolutely aloof, governments across Europe have at times creaked with the strain and ordinary people have taken the responsibility upon themselves to save lives and to shelter them (Duffy, 2015; Moore, 2015).

The shift in the media tone may well be the signal for the government to now alter its policy with regards to the crisis - in particular accepting more of the refugees from Syria. But, behind the present crisis, there is a dangerous matter just as large that the shift in tone may begin to address. And that is the dehumanisation that has crept into public attitudes over the last decade (Kingsley, 2015).

Those attitudes, of reducing human beings to crude caricatures based on simplistic, grim and derogatory terms, posed as much of a threat to the internal workings of British society as it did to outsiders unfortunate enough to cross paths with it. It turns people cold towards outsiders of all kinds - including the least fortunate in their own communities, who find themselves suffering from cruel stigmas and draconian crackdowns in addition to poverty and homelessness (Sparkes, 2015).

Hopefully - and it should be stressed that this is hope - this one tragedy, and the sudden stark turning point it has made possible, can at least have a decisive impact and force a step forward in the recognition of our common humanity.

What are the liberal alternatives to the austerity cuts?

Vince Cable and Nick Clegg, two of the most senior Liberal Democrats, were quick to make their voices heard in response to the Autumn Statement and to the Conservative push for more cuts during the next parliament. The essence of their narrative was simple: the Lib Dems believe that austerity has been pushed as far as it can or should go.

Cable was quick off the mark with a letter to the Office of Budget Responsibility, which called for the OBR to make a clear a distinction between the future policies of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats  (Wintour, 2014). Clegg followed in his wake by stressing that the Tory determination to cut tax was not matched by available funds (Marr, 2014) - meaning more public services would have to go.

The economic analysts seem to agree with them. The analysis released in response to the Autumn Statement stressed that public spending would have to be reduced drastically if the Conservative path was to be followed (Johnson, 2014). And this week the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) announced that its research had shown that inequality is bad for economic growth, and that a redistributive economy is far more conducive to economic success - not to mention beneficial to social welfare (Elliott, 2014).

So what would the Lib Dems do differently?

Well, Clegg says that they are not ashamed of the role they have played in arresting public spending (Mason, 2014), but the party has expressed disagreements over the way forward. While the Conservatives want more and deeper cuts, the Lib Dems think that the realistic plateau has been reached. Instead of more cuts, they want a rise in tax that is controlled to protect the poorest (Lansdale, 2014).

While serving as a practical challenge to the Conservative narrative pushed by the Tories and UKIP, people are unlikely to be inspired by ideas aimed at just keeping a sinking ship afloat. People want an opportunity to make things better - and there are liberal ideas, more radically progressive, that the Lib Dems could push.

Though the modern Lib Dems have been focussed on the idea of reducing the state - with a Gladstonian commitment to capitalism, in opposition to the state - when the old Liberal Party began to modernise in the early twentieth century, the new social liberalism it had embraced opened the party up to the idea that there was a role for the public sector to play, though still with the proviso that it should be reduced wherever possible.

Those deep rooted liberal tendencies have produced ideas, beyond simply reducing state influence, that are more conducive to creating a new era of reform. In the 1920s, Liberals under the guiding hand of John Maynard Keynes produced an in depth report of the British economy that included in its recommendations co-operatives, and democracy in the workplace (Yellow Book, 1928).

'The worker's grievance arises from a sense of the inadequacy of their reward, of their insecurity of livelihood and tenure, and of their lack of information as to the financial results of their work... The present ownership of industry is unduly concentrated and should be diffused as widely as possible among industrial wage-earners. Such diffusion, tending towards the popular ownership of industry, may be effected partly by progressive taxation and restrictions upon the inheritance of large fortunes, but more directly by the stimulation of employee-ownership under schemes of profit-sharing and investment by employees, by the encouragement of popular banking and investment, and by the creation and development of investment trusts. All these processes should be encouraged and, where necessary, regulated by the state.'

These ideas are still woven into Lib Dem policy proposals. Nick Clegg has previously called for a move towards a 'John Lewis Economy' (Clegg, 2012), with companies embracing workers holding shares, and party members have argued that co-operatives should be at the forefront of the Lib Dem economic policy (Donaldson, 2013) - as they are in the preamble to the party constitution.

Now could be the time to start bringing those ideas to the forefront. Co-ops represent a huge step forward, giving people more autonomy in their working lives and spreading the profits of their labour more equitably. If the Lib Dems are to see the aims of the authors of the 1928 Yellow Book report fulfilled, to ensure that individuals may enjoy life more abundantly, co-operation is going to play a key role in achieving them.

The Autumn Statement shows us the flaws in the Tory cuts agenda

The UK government's Autumn Statement, released last week, is a mid-year review of its economic policy (Treanor, 2014), and an opportunity to stop and assess the general health of the national economy.

On this occasion, that assessment has stirred up controversy. The main story behind the review was that the Conservatives have not reached their target reductions to the country's budget deficit, and will likely seek further and deeper cuts to public spending in the next parliament (Allen, 2014).

While senior Conservatives have criticised coverage of future spending cuts as hyperbole predicting that the world would fall in (BBC, 2014), they did not deny that further cuts would be coming. In fact, further cuts to welfare certainly appear to be planned.

The most baffling thing is that, despite the Autumn Statement having laid bare that the Conservative approach has failed to deliver the promised results, the government seems intent upon pushing on, further and deeper, with their strategy of cuts, and of placing trust in markets. They seem to be turning a blind eye to the fact that the economy is still weak, the recovery remains slow, and the public deficit has not been eliminated.

The possibility of more cuts is sure to inflame more than a few hearts that are already set against the Conservative austerity agenda. That will not be helped by independent assessments that say future cuts could take the UK's public spending down to an 80 year low, the lowest since the inter-war era (Reuben, 2014; Johnson, 2014).

It has been suggested that one key reason for the failure of the Conservative approach to achieve its goals, was hinged upon a rise in private sector employment. Conservatives thought that a rise in employment - which they believed would follow from economic incentives and encouragements for the private sector, along with cuts to the public sector - would boost the economy to pick up the slack as public sector spending was reduced. Their gamble, however, did not deliver (Arnett & Nardelli, 2014).

The new jobs, that the Conservatives have celebrated, have come with very low pay and short, unstable hours. In conjunction with the general failure of wages to rise, the decrease in unemployment has not led to an increase in the funds available to pay off public debts and deficits. Further, and even more disastrously, austerity and cuts are being directly linked with rising poverty (Wintour & Butler, 2014).

If, as predicted, the next stage of the Conservative approach returns Britain to its pre-war settlement, with a drastic reshaping of the state and its role in society - with further retraction of the state and a return to a market place with fewer safety nets - it is not unreasonable to ask if the continuation of the cuts agenda will drop public spending so low as to threaten even the most basic services like health and welfare that protect people who fall on hard times.

Conservative policy is steering towards an economy built on the backs of workers labouring through unstable and fluctuating hours, for low pay, and with no safety net when something goes wrong in their incredibly temporary situations. That assault upon the security of workers lives, in pursuit of making labour markets more 'dynamic', is undermining the living standards of workers while simultaneously failing to produce a useful growth in the common wealth.

And that is not good enough. It's not enough to just peddle cheap impermanent work, and assume that work itself will be some sort of miracle cure for societies ills. To live the better and fuller lives that they deserve, people need more security and better pay, with real safety nets.

'We believe with a passionate faith that the end of all political and economic action is not the perfecting or the perpetuation of this or that piece of mechanism or organisation, but that individual men and women may have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.'
(Yellow Book, 1928)

The Autumn Statement is just the latest demonstration that Conservative austerity and cuts are failing, both economically and socially, to address the problems of the day. The question now becomes: what alternatives do we have?

==========
References:
==========
+ Jill Treanor's 'Autumn statement 2014 at a glance: eight key points'; in The Guardian; 3 December 2014.

+ Katie Allen's 'George Osborne thrown off course by pay squeeze and falling income tax take'; in The Guardian; 3 December 2014.

+ BBC's 'Osborne: Autumn Statement cuts warnings 'hyperbolic''; 4 December 2014.

+ Anthony Reuben's 'Headline Numbers: Public spending heads to 80-year low'; on the BBC; 3 December 2014.

+ Paul Johnson's 'Institute for Fiscal Studies: Autumn statement briefing, 2014 - Introductory remarks'; for the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS); 4 December 2014.

+ George Arnett and Alberto Nardelli's 'Why has George Osborne missed the deficit target?'; in The Guardian; 3 December 2014.

+ Patrick Wintour and Patrick Butler's 'Tories seek to avert rift with Church of England over food bank report'; in The Guardian; 8 December 2014.

+ 'Yellow Book' or 'Britain's Industrial Future: being the Report of the Liberal Industrial Inquiry'; Ernest Benn Ltd, 1928. [Buy Now]

Fear poisons the democratic well and leaves us ripe for exploitation

Over the past few weeks and months there have been attempted armed assaults on elected officials in two Western countries (The Guardian, 2014; Roberts, 2014); there has been war, kidnap and murder in the Middle East (Swinford, 2014); a deadly disease has posed a threat to three continents (BBC, 2014); and crude and aggressive attempts are being made to stop women from speaking up for their rights (Hern, 2014). All of these events have one thing in common: Fear.

In the UK, from welfare to migration (Wintour, 2014; The Guardian, 2013), fear has started to play too large a part in the political arena, much too often. A rash of issues have been blown up into alarmist struggles, with the disproportionate and scary language used feeding the negative emotions that complicate and confuse matters (Jenkins, 2014).

The US has faired little better. The arrival of the Ebola virus has sparked all sorts of animated and colourful reactions from conservative commentators (Younge, 2014). The fear these events spark upset the order of people's lives, destabilise the things that they depend upon, and that makes them feel vulnerable and afraid, and that fear can lead to escalation (The Guardian, 2013).

Fear, either as a result of fear-mongering or ignorance, is potentially extremely powerful. It can be a potent mover of public opinion, but it does so only by poisoning the popular democratic environment. It poisons debate, it drowns out reason in a howl of noise, and it corrupts our ideals. When that happens, our liberty is at stake. It is a dark road down which we travel when we let fear, and our frightened reactions, override our reason.

Niccolo Machiavelli, the much maligned Florentine political philosopher, gave us an insight into the power that fear, when we let it control us, gives to those who might exploit it:

'And here comes in the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both; but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved. For of men it may generally be affirmed, that they are thankless, fickle, false studious to avoid danger, greedy of gain, devoted to you while you are able to confer benefits upon them, and ready, as I said before, while danger is distant... For love is held by the tie of obligation, which, because men are a sorry breed, is broken on every whisper of private interest; but fear is bound by the apprehension of punishment which never relaxes its grasp.'

That cynical view on how the fears of the people may be exploited serve us now as a warning. During the good times, when people have freedom, and their lives have some measure of stability and security, it is easier for them to think clearly and make good decisions. But when their world is upset, they feel vulnerable and so close ranks.

Fear, whether it is of change, violence, chaos or punishment, can be used to control us, or to steer us towards extreme solutions. As we retreat to familiar ground, shut out others and become less tolerant, we give life to extreme solutions. Our fears present a potentially profitable exploit to others willing to react to the situation and give us a sense of security.

However, as reactionaries offer us the extreme solutions that we, in our fear, desire, they only affirm those fears and exacerbate them (The Guardian, 2013). Fear and reaction can this way become a vicious cycle, each causing the other in turn to escalate.

We need to find a way to be calm, to be considered and thoughtful, as we take important decisions. When the world is at its worst is the time when cherished values like kindness, hope and generosity are needed the most. The answer to violence and danger, to exploitation and fear, is not to retreat into narrow tribal groups. Instead we need to find more friendship, and more support for our most cherished values, amongst more people and across many and more diverse cultures.

==========
References:
==========
+ The Guardian's 'The Guardian view on the terror attacks in Ottawa: hold fast to tolerance and diversity'; 23 October 2014.

+ Dan Roberts' 'Armed intruder had penetrated farther into White House than admitted'; in The Guardian; 29 September 2014.

+ Steven Swinford's 'David Cameron breaks off holiday after 'British' jihadist beheads kidnapped journalist'; in The Telegraph; 20 August 2014.

+ BBC's 'Ebola: Mapping the outbreak'; 22 October 2014.

+ Alex Hern's 'Felicia Day's public details put online after she described Gamergate fears'; in The Guardian; 23 October 2014.

+ Patrick Wintour's 'Welfare state presides over 'culture of fear', charities say'; in The Guardian; 18 February 2014.

+ The Guardian's 'Migration: politics of fear'; 30 December 2013.

+ Simon Jenkins' 'Downing Street’s Ebola panic is a classic case of the politics of fear'; in The Guardian; 17 October 2014.

+ Gary Younge's 'Ebola has exposed America's fear, and Barack Obama's vulnerability'; in The Guardian; 19 October 2014.

+ Niccolo Machiavelli's 'The Prince'; from Chapter XVII; 1513. [Buy Now]

History has shown us that the working class have little to gain from far right groups like UKIP

The unfortunate electoral success of the far right over the past year ought to be a wake up call. It should alert anyone who has yet to notice that the world is not content.

One of the beneficiaries of this discontent are UKIP. They have found fertile ground for their anti-immigrant, anti-government, right-wing populism in the South East of England and now look to test the soil in the North.

Those to whom they will look for new support are the working class who make up the traditional base of the Labour Party's support. They will look to these people in hope that their disillusionment with the Labour movement, and its many deals done with and within a distant Westminster establishment, not always in the worker's best interest, will be enough for them to supplant the Labour Party in working class affections (The Guardian, 2014).

Their play seems simple enough. Lower taxes, protection of the NHS, curbs on immigration and a restoration of national pride - out from under the European Union (Mason, 2014).

The trouble is that these are vague, and often bad, promises. The interests of the working class are not served by a society restructured for the benefit of only a capitalistic few, no matter how the policies leading to it are dressed up in a simplistic and emotional pitch. Cutting taxes is being pitched to the working class, but benefits only the wealthy. The poorest are most likely to be deeply disadvantaged by resultant public service cuts, and to find the least recompense from the market.

The comedy in the promise is that it's not as if this is the first time these kinds of promises have been made, to the working class by the far right, and its not as if they haven't failed before. Spectacularly.

Fascism

The fascist parties that emerged following the Great War made many of the same promises that the far right still turns to today. The main difference is that these parties believed in a state dictatorship that would oversee a populist nationalist movement - one that would restore national pride and advance the national interest, which usually led down violent and racist paths.

Fascism, on top of its fundamentally conservative aims - preservation of tradition, moralism and social status-quo from any sort of change - carried corporatist ideology. They sought to manage society, in a fundamentally totalitarian fashion, through state affiliated trade unions, or entire sectors of the economy through massive private corporations.

The policies of Mussolini's Partito Nazionale Fascista in Italy saw the most ready applications of those beliefs, though other countries, such as Spain where Franco's regime and the Falange party ruled, saw fascism flourish as well.

Mussolini tried to achieve full employments through state guilds, or national syndicates, that enlisted all men, and even banned women from the workplace - confining them to a 'traditional place' in the home as wives and mothers. His efforts however produced few results.

More prominent were the social attitudes of fascists, that drove militaristic language and attitudes into civil society. Mussolini in particular, in his The Doctrine of Fascism, said that:

"Far from crushing the individual, the Fascist State multiplies his energies, just as in a regiment a soldier is not diminished but multiplied by the number of his fellow soldiers."

Fascism in Spain was also heavily infused with militaristic nationalism from the beginning. Franco's Regime began as a military coup against Spain's Republican government, its Republic constitution and the political left that supported it. It sought to regiment society in an authoritarian order, along the lines of conservative values - tradition, hierarchical order and morality.

Though Franco's system of fascism was altered in subtle ways from the Italian model, with a greater emphasis on national moralism - Spanish Catholicism - it retained most of the common elements. A patriarchal society, deeply controlling, with dictatorships that protected the landed classes and the wealthy, and their institutions, by holding the population in an iron-handed grip.

The people were controlled by the state, in favour of those with vested interests and good connections, with the benefits to the people being peripheral or dependent upon a complete denigration of individual choice and an acceptance of, and compliance with, authoritarian rule.

Neoliberalism

The new era of far right movements, represented by political parties such as UKIP, have learned the lessons of fascism's failure. But, they have also learned the lessons of English classical liberalism and neoliberalism, and of American libertarianism and objectivism.

It is no longer necessary to control the state, and thence society, to protect the interests of the upper classes. The language of militarism has been replaced by the language of the boardroom and the stock market floor. The powerful corporations no longer find themselves beneath the authority of states (Orr, 2013).

Protection of the interests of the upper classes today takes place in a world run by money and financial investments, where most of the vested interests find any kind of government at all to be an inconvenience. So begins the era of small government and minimal taxes.

Talk of freedoms is twisted to fit the narratives of the privileged elite, who became so thanks to the protections of 'English liberty' - the protection of private property and the freedom of business and financial transactions. The state, home to the public institutions that restrict and regulate the interests of the elite, becomes a hindrance.

But even a minimal state still requires democracy, with voters on your side, and the trouble for the 1% is that there are just so few of them. In their search for populist narratives to supported a conservative political establishment that is favourable to the interests of elites, the old far right overtones seem to have been revived.

Historically, the far right of old either made an autocratic appeal to the army and suspended democracy; or it made a popular appeal to the people - the poorer, more numerous, and more ignorant, the better - on simple emotive terms. It appealed to religion, to nation, to duty.

The new front of the far right seem to have found for themselves a new role within that neoliberal, economic conservative, pro-business, anti-state era. They are wedding the neoliberal economics of globalised corporate capitalism, with the politics of nationalism, traditionalism and moralism that underwrote the old far right - in a way that has been so effective in the United States.

Controlling the state has become bypassing and minimalising it - even maiming it along the way to keep it quiet and ineffective as a token veil of democracy that is being otherwise shredded in favour of elitism.

Promises

UKIP, as the newest voice of the far right in the Britain, makes all the same appeals as the far right groups of the past. It appeals to popular sentiments, promising national revivals and returns to traditional values, while wielding a language of divisive nationalism - combined now with profitable capitalism.

But those promises, when made by the far right before, have not been kept, and have often been sought along those paths at a great price. The lie of nationalism has divided workers into nations, and then divided them again, against themselves, into cynical ideologically named groups like 'strivers and skivers', of hardworking citizens and welfare cheats.

It is to be hoped that UKIP's brand of far right populism finds itself far removed from the dark days of fascism. But their own brand of anti-Europe, anti-government, anti-immigrant, low tax, pro-business and National revivalist politics, bearing all the hallmarks of the far right of old, deeply conservative and deeply reactionary, carries plenty of causes for concern.

The far right of today may not want to control society by controlling the state any longer, but their attempts to popularly undermine the state does no favours to the working classes. The state is not necessarily in itself a good thing, but its replacement as an establishment force by a capitalist market dominated and controlled by the interests of massive corporations and a 1% of wealthy elites is hardly an improvement.

More privatisation, with corporations given even more of a free hand, together with being bound within a narrow society shaped by narrow perceptions of otherness, does not give the impression of either freedom or prosperity. Neither laissez-faire capitalism, nor far right nationalism, have ever offered the working class something without taking more for a powerful elite. There seems to be no reason to believe that has changed.

==========
References:
==========
+ The Guardian's 'The Guardian view on Ukip conference: Nigel Farage’s phoney flutter'; 26 September 2014.

+ Rowena Mason's 'Ukip vows to slash immigration and cut taxes in pitch for blue-collar vote'; in The Guardian; 29 September 2014.

+ Deborah Orr's 'Neoliberalism has spawned a financial elite who hold governments to ransom'; in The Guardian; 8 June 2013.

For more information about Fascism and the historical far right:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Fascist_corporatism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falangism

Four years, two hundred articles, and there are still reasons for hope

This is the two hundredth weekly post on this blog. Over the last four years we have covered everything from the Scottish independence referendum, to the Hacking Scandal, to the Chilean Winter student protests and the first free elections in Tunisia since 1956.

The purpose of this blog, from the beginning, has been to observe politics, society and authority; to scrutinise them and attempt to find moderate solutions to our contemporary anxieties. This has meant searching out the motivations behind political and social movements, identifying ideological themes, exposing them and analysing them.

At times that has been a gruesome task. The past year, in particular, has seen the world take a significant turn for the darker. War has broken out once more in some parts of the world, like Iraq, where the West had believed that peace had been achieved.

In other places, war has broken a long peace. Ukraine has been pulled apart by war after protests against the government led to a severe split in the country, between the pro-European and the pro-Russian elements.

Furthermore, the world has yet to break out of the economic crisis that began in 2008, and continues to be affected by how governments have responded - especially the, Conservative ideology influenced, economic orthodoxy of public sector cuts.

The cutbacks and the hard times associated with them are not unconnected to the rise of far right populism in Europe, having often being the breeding ground for it in the past. Right wing groups have made a significant impact, gaining political representation in a number of countries, including the UK and France, and it has caused concern to many.

But in amongst these depressing events, over the past four years there have been reasons for hope.

Even while voting turnouts have dropped, public engagement with politics has been high. Progressive protesters of all kinds have taken to the streets to campaign for everything from the right to education, to the protection of vital public services like healthcare, pensions and welfare from ideologically driven public sector cuts, to the occupy protests that demanded a more equal society, free from exploitation.

The long struggle for equality of civil rights also continues. Awareness of feminism is at a new high. Rape culture and everyday sexism are all now well known issues, and people are standing up against them. The rights of gay people to civil equality is being taken seriously around the world, and beginning to bear fruit - the first steps of which has been gay marriage.

Rising awareness and greater possibilities of being better informed and better connected than ever before promise us that a new era of radical reformism is only just around the corner. Hypocrisies, contradictions and corruption are being exposed. People are speaking out, openly, about the need to pursue civil liberties, social justice and a sustainable society, and they are getting together to go out and campaign for them.

After four years, and two hundred weekly articles - posted every Monday - of sifting through corruption, hidden agendas and political double-speak, I can still see hope. There are lights sparking everywhere that, just maybe, can illumine the way forward. Thank you for your support, and we hope to see you back here again next Monday.

Doctor Who is showing us how Enlightenment and Romance are intertwined

With the advent of the 'no flirting' with the companions era of Doctor Who, the character of Clara is being forced to adopt a new role alongside the Doctor (Guardian, 2014).

In just two episodes, Clara's new role is already looking to be multi-faceted. Friend. Confidant. Carer. Counsellor. Human Liaison. Ethics Advisor. Teacher. Not just a companion. All of these new roles give us some clues about the nature of this new Doctor, too.

As Clara typifies the role of the Romantics, so the Doctor is playing the role of a product of the Enlightenment. Emotional intelligence, compassion and a caring connection to life, versus rational intelligence, cold and practical. However, Doctor Who has also shown us subversions of that same notion. By breaking these characters out of those moulds, the idea that these characteristics belong to some mutually exclusive personality 'types' is shown to be flawed.

When the Doctor's connections with his companions are loosened, he appears to be less human. By removing love and romance, by making him colder, more calculating and detached, he is loosed from what are seen as the quintessential human preoccupations. That is, emotional attachment and compassion.

He becomes more Gallifreyan, more of a Time Lord - his manner, his logic and fascinations become colder, less caring, and less romantic. He comes to embody all of the most deeply embraced stereotypes of an enlightenment thinker. Those stereotypes are, however, as flawed as their opposite; that of the warm, passionate romantic, embracing nature rather than devising machinery to control it.

It is not necessary to think of these characteristics - cold, romantic, practical or compassionate - as part of polarised and mutually exclusive personality types. In fact, Doctor Who has gone out of its way to remind us that it is not one or the other, but rather both working together in unison that makes us well rounded people.

The Doctor has been seen trying to teach an appreciation of beauty to a Dalek, and a love for Roman Philosophy and a capacity for logical thinking. We have seen before in Doctor Who that the Doctor's romantic nature, and his rational nature, all as one whole, have been what has set the Doctor aside from his own people. He cares. As a constant reminder of this, and its importance, he travels with companions who care.

The Doctor and Clara - with dinosaurs in Victorian London, a clockwork man with dreams of the promised land, and Daleks with thoughts of beauty - remind us that the Romantic-Enlightenment divide is false. It is necessary to have all of these characteristics in order to be well rounded. Rationality cannot overlook emotion as a factor, an important factor. Neither can Romanticism overlook the importance of understanding how the world works, even as we appreciate and connect with it.

We need tangible reminders of the impact of actions on living beings, to stop ourselves from drifting out of touch with the world. We need to avoid distancing ourselves from the world behind a wall of technology and pragmatic practical mechanical thinking. Likewise, we need to be able to understand the practical mechanics of the world if we are to appreciate it fully. Clara and the Doctor's new dynamic is subverting the old notions, and showing us just how much emotion and rationality depend upon one another.

==========
References:
==========
+ The Guardian's 'Doctor Who: Peter Capaldi promises 'no flirting' with sidekick in new series'; 27 July 2014.

+ Steven Moffat's 'Doctor Who: Deep Breath'; from Doctor Who Series 8; on the BBC; 23 August 2014.

+ Steven Moffat's 'Doctor Who: Into the Dalek'; from Doctor Who Series 8; on the BBC; 30 August 2014.

The Strange and Self-Important World of Football

The 2014 FIFA World Cup hasn't been short on controversy, even while providing an exciting and dramatic event. But the oddest thing about those controversies is that they show football to be something that takes place within its own little universe, as an isolated bubble within our own.

FIFA's persistence in holding the tournament, largely for their own benefit (Oliver, 2014), in a country which has seen massive protests against hosting it, and Luis Suarez's astounding bite, give us a window on the extraordinary indifference, or lack awareness, of those within the football world for the world beyond.

2014 has shown us some of the best that football has to offer. The joyful play of the Colombian men's national team has epitomised it. From the sublime skill of James Rodriguez (BBC, 2014), to dancing as a team for a goal celebration (Greenberg, 2014), to bringing on Faryd Mondragon, their 43 year old veteran goalkeeper to sentimentally allow him to break a record. Even aside from Colombia there has been exciting play, with goalscoring records tumbling (Fottrell, 2014).

But it has also shown us some of football at its worst.

From the beginning, before a stadium was built or a ball kicked, there has been massive opposition in Brazil to lavishing money on a football tournament that is needed so much more sorely by various public services. Those protests have however been met with police suppression, that has been heavily criticised (T.Hughes, 2014).

Once the tournament was under way, many of the teams spent as much time fighting among themselves off the pitch as they did playing their opponents on it. Various teams suffered from threats of strikes and refusals to play unless financial bonuses were paid (I.Hughes, 2014).

And, of course, there was Luis Suarez. Brilliant and celebrated skill in one game and then the biting incident in the next (Rich, 2014).

It leaves you to wonder how these people - footballers, coaches and football administrators all - can do some of the things that they do, when they must know that they are under such scrutiny as they most certainly are. When there are fifty thousand people watching in the stadium, and a whole world beyond that, how can you bite someone?

Within the football world, people can find themselves in a bubble. Within that narrow, constructed context, isolated from wider contexts, they are fenced in. Such worlds are frequently self-justifying, and lack outside views and perspectives. They become too locked in to the celebration of the performance of function, and give too little concern for the benefits of concern for context.

It is those things that come from context, like perspective, that allow us to comprehend what is good and what is not, what is true and what is not, and how we might imagine a way to a better version of our world. Without context, our little worlds remain stable, structured, unchanging, but ultimately false, nothing more than a self-edifying illusion. And in such places, things like corruption and reckless lack of concern for the consequences of your actions are only too easy to get away with.

==========
References:
==========
+ John Oliver's 'FIFA and the World Cup'; on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO); 8 June 2014.

+ The BBC's 'World Cup 2014: James Rodriguez's six World Cup goals'; 29 June 2014.

+ Stephen Fottrell's 'World Cup 2014: Top five World Cup record breakers'; on the BBC; 1 July 2014.

+ Chris Greenberg's 'The Top of the World Cup Goal Celebration Standings (GIFs)'; in The Huffington Post; 19 June 2014.

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

+ Ian Hughes' 'World Cup 2014: Boateng and Muntari expelled by Ghana'; on the BBC; 26 June 2014.

+ Tim Rich 'Luis Suarez bite: Fifa charges Uruguay striker with biting Giorgio Chiellini during World Cup clash'; in The Independent; 25 June 2014.

Around the World

Having escaped with not much more than a 'they've learned their lesson' regarding treatment of the Roma Nation, Mr Sarkozy's Government has since been facing new troubles.

Students and unions have been out in force, carrying out protests in opposition to government austerity measures (Willshire, 2010). These protests have centred on the pension reforms undertaken by the French administration. Mass displays have, however, been unable to sway the government away from its set course.

Yet the actions in France have resonated with the riots occurring all around Europe, from the students in the UK to the unions in Greece and many places in between. The dissatisfaction blatant at the heart of these actions seems symptomatic of older problems reoccurring.

In England particularly, there are failed promises of abolishing boom & bust economics. In his talk 'Crises of Capitalism', David Harvey proffers the LSE explanation that suggests that 'Systemic Risk', that is the 'Internal Contradictions of Capital Accumulation' where exposed in this crisis.

And with it is exposed a decline of neo-liberalism, with the 'last desperate attempts to make capitalism work for socialism' (Zizek, 2010) and of social democracy (Taylor, 2010). The question is what is rising in its place? Zizek considers our current mode of capitalism, 'Cultural Capitalism', to be part of the response to the changing times and along with Harvey considers these current crises to be a sufficient explanation of the rerise of anti-capitalist & socialist movements; seeing them as a rational response to the times.

In other international news there is of course the 'Wikileaks', an issue that has devolved into politicising the Nobel Peace Prize (Harding, 2010). That issue is at heart one of a language, information and social revolution, as the Russian publication Pravda shrewdly pointed out (Santayana, 2010).

While it is an issue unaffiliated to the austerity protests, it is still connected to the core of the issue. With protests against governments penalising citizens for business indiscipline and unions beginning to mobilise in support, it does not feel far fetched to suggest that an anti-governmental secrecy movement could become affiliated to an organised anti-corruption movement.

If the radical spirit and momentum of 2010 is maintained in conjunction with organised Union action, 2011 could be a very tricky year for the globalised finance industry.

And if things are to get tricky for multi-national finance, governments must have a multi-national mandate to act. In a globalised world, uni-lateral action will be responded to punitively by business simply shifting its money elsewhere.

With a European response rather than just a French or British, with a Latin American response rather than just a Bolivian or Venezuelan, conditions are created whereby business cannot just sidestep everything from taxation to responsibility.

==========
References:
==========
+ Kim Willshire's 'Nicolas Sarkozy in warning to pension reform protesters';

+ Kim Willshire's 'French pension reform vote passed by parliament';

+ Slavoj Zizek's 'First as Tragedy, then as Farce'; November 2009;

+ Robert Taylor's 'Does European Social Democracy have a Future?'; Summer 2008;

+ Luke Harding's 'Julian Assange should be awarded Nobel peace prize, suggests Russia';

+ Mauro Santayana's 'Society and the world, after Julian Assange';

Recognition: The People's Filibuster

I hope that many of you were fortunate enough to witness Independent US Senator, and self-avowed Socialist, Bernie Sanders' filibuster on Friday evening (GMT). While the attempts of Mr Sanders, a staggering 8 hours and 34 minutes on the floor at the age of 69; in the end were unable to derail the bi-partisan tax cut extension plans of the US Government and Republicans in the house, he has most certainly earned himself much respect and probably a fervent following.

Mr Sanders demonstrated great fortitude in embarking on what he knew would be a doomed venture. It is a testament to how much he cares about the wellbeing of his Vermont constituents, and all Americans, that he would make this stand.

I feel that protesters in this country could learn something from this stand. So far each subsequent protest has been mired by violence perpetuated by some minority groups that have infiltrated the larger peaceful protests. It comes to mind that maybe those organising such marches in future need to think very hard before continuing with protesting tactics that are allowing their ranks to be so easily infiltrated by violent troublemakers.

Mr Sanders has set a very good example. Oratory still has the power to move, especially when you speak so passionately for almost 9 hours uninterrupted. If protests are to continue in Westminster, why not set up a small podium and see if you can talk for near 9 hours in support of University fee reform.

Better yet, why not gather together every book, academic paper and speech made in Parliament in favour of truly progressive University reform; every willing speaker you can find; every leader, academic and personality who is able; and see how long you can keep a people's filibuster going.

While people are talking and everyone is listening, it makes it much harder for infiltrators to stir up violence without being more conspicuous than they have so far been brave enough to be. I think it would be a far more civilised and resonant way to make your elected members understand your feelings than smashing up things that the Taxpayer has to pay to repair.

==========
References:
==========
+ The Beginning of Mr Sanders' nine hour filibuster speech;

+ Michael Tomasky's 'The significance of Bernie Sanders' filibuster';

+ James Rainey's 'Why Sen. Bernie Sanders can single-handedly filibuster tax cuts for rich';

+ Craig Howie's 'Bernie Sanders filibuster turns Twitter-buster';

- For more from Mr Sanders:
Bernie Sanders' Wikipedia Profile;
http://twitter.com/senatorsanders
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5OtB298fHY; December 1st 2010;

The Man Who Would Be Disraeli

Earlier this month I wrote what might be interpreted as a criticism of Mr Cameron. Well today I feel I should adopt a pose more suitable to any self-respecting rational gentleman. So here is a more different stance from which to consider the enigmatic Mr Cameron; and to also consider how well he is to be trusted with the faith put in him by some voters (and the voters who put their trust in someone else and still got Mr Cameron).

Benjamin Disraeli, was born in 1804 and was in office as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom first in 1868 and again between 1874 and 1880. His methods for successful conservatives are described quite succinctly by The Times (2010), in his own words, as 'Tory men and Whig measures'. During his term in office his most memorable act for many in the north - such as Ormskirk, which is graced with a statue of him - was his policy of enfranchisement (Reform Act, 1867).

It seems to be this focus upon the working class that best represents the reformist spirit that Cameron is seeking to emulate as he edges the Conservatives towards the moderate middle. Cameron also seems to fancy the rebel in Disraeli, as he has also drawn criticism from his own side for his 'radical' positions (Kenneth Clarke, 2009).

David Marquand went further with his assessment comparing Mr Cameron to a 19th Century 'Whig Imperialist':

'We can't know if Cameron will become a second Baldwin, Butler or Macmillan, but there is not much doubt that he would like to. Of course, he will not be a clone of his Whig imperialist predecessors. He aspires to govern a different country, with a different class system and economic structure; and he has learned a great deal from that magician of ambiguous populism, Tony Blair.'

Critique of Disraeli's approach (and motives) to pass the reform acts seem to be aimed at who he really wished to enfranchise, the people or the party. But whatever Disraeli's motive, his Reform Act is still the basis of the electoral system we use today, 143 years later, though much amended by subsequent Representation of the People Acts.

Cameron has come under similar criticism. This leads me to ask if it matters about ulterior motives when reform is on the cards.

+ First, whether a reformist approach, when ultimately for personal or affiliate interest will have a lasting impact upon the political process.

+ And secondly, if the individualist approaches suggested above are able to effect positive societal changes, does this signal that trickle down approaches really offer society viable & consistent affluence on all levels?

For me, motives matter. However, when results are achieved it is harder to get serious criticisms and anxieties taken seriously. Just look at the Labour years. Not until the sun began to set on 'New Labour' did we see the knives and old grievances coming out. When you're winning, few seem to care how you're winning.

==========
References:
==========
+ Reform Act, 1867; formally titled as: Representation of the People Act 1867

+ Dominic Lawson's 'Cameron, the Whig in Tory clothing';

+ David Marquand's 'Labour has got Cameron wrong: this is no crypto-Thatcherite but a Whig';

+ Laura Miller's 'Ken Clarke calls Cameron's marriage policy "social engineering";

At Liberty to Object

As we remember today all those who have given their lives in the name of freedom and peace, let us not forget those who risked their lives by refusing utterly the order to kill.

As we remember the unequivocal resolve of the Partisan Guerrilla Fighters of Spain during the Napoleonic Invasion or the French Maquis & Polish Post Office Workers in the face of the Nazi occupation; or the many lives of people of all nationalities of all wars who fought in defence of their homes and their freedom, let us not forget the powerful volitions of the conscientious objectors, who chose a hard path in the face anger, fear and accusations of cowardice.

As we remember those who choose to give their lives for our safety, liberty and peace, let us not forget that still in this world their are men, women and children who still do not have a choice.

In this world there still exists conscription, national service and groups putting guns into the hands of children.

In this world there still exists tribunals to whom you must justify your unwillingness to kill.

In this world there still exists punishments for soldiers who hold conscientious objections to wars their nations wage.

In this world, are we still not past Kennedy's 'What you can do for your country' speech? Are we yet mere peasant subjects, commodities to be traded by medieval institutions? It certainly seemed to be a sentiment John Lennon believed.

In a decade when there are serious moves towards multi-lateral nuclear disarmament; with no more cold war; when the death of soldiers on foreign soil is front-page tabloid scandal; with no great war to fight; the human right not to kill has never been more relevant to the world stage.

I believe society can only reach its individual & collective potential through cooperation. But for that to happen, we need new kinds of sense and some old kinds of courage.

'There is one thing that nobody can deny them: and that is courage. The most difficult form of courage in the world. The courage of the individual against the crowd.'
(Capt Stephen Gwynn MP, on Conscientious Objectors)

==========
References:
==========
+Ian Hislop's 'Not Forgotten: The Men who Wouldn't Fight';

When is a Tory not a Tory?

The deal was done and the coalition was formed. I must admit that being on the left, the deal upset me somewhat. That said, if this was a deal done by any other Tory I would have to be impressed by how they sacrificed so much of what they stand for to get Liberal backing. But I'm not so sure there has been that much sacrifice.

You see Mr Cameron has never been a Tory. Yes he represents the party, yes he now represents the country (although Scotland, Wales and the North might disagree), but throughout his leadership he has had no shortage of critics from within his own party. They have never really felt he was singing from the right (wing) hymn sheet.

I would say that this extraordinary compromise deal would confirm those doubts within his own party. But if he isn't a Conservative, what on earth does Mr Cameron stand for?

'Being under the rule of David Cameron is like being in an abusive relationship.'
        ('A Backbench MP'; Metro, 2010)

'I really don't think it's anything to do with politicians whether you [get married]... My view of Conservatism is that it's not for us to tell you [what to do through] the tax system ... This is social engineering for God's sake and when I joined the party we weren't in favour of it.'
        (Kenneth Clarke, 2009)

As far as I have ever seen, Mr Cameron has only ever stood for whatever position opposes Labour. Time and again he takes stances on behalf of 'his' party which most of his own ministers find utterly abhorrent. This deal suggests to me that Mr Cameron is a man far less concerned with political stances than with the pursuit of power. In doing so he has increasingly taken on all the characteristics of Mr Blair's type of leadership: populism.

So what do I mean by that? Well from theoretical perspectives leadership can be interpreted as a two-way relationship, counting on a constant circle of feedback to clarify, reinforce and define a unified message. Such a relationship is designed to manage the identity of a group towards in-group members, out-group members and the obstacles faced in achieving goals (House, 1996).

When talking about a populist, I speak of a leader who makes their sole concern the managing of their relationship with followers. As I see it this corrupts the reasons for leading a group of people in the first place; by inverting the nature of the factors to produce an effect where future paths and goals are mapped to manage a fluctuating follower landscape. It is in this that I find a difference between Populist Movements and Social Movements, in forcing activities to become focussed purely upon the maintenance of the group's by-product: power.

When combined with the out-group negativity that, certainly the right-wing press at least has adopted, it breeds a loop of scaremongering and press stunts designed towards managing the dynamics of power, not the achievement of goals. It is the shifting stance that became very familiar with Mr Blair and Mr Cameron is swiftly becoming very adept at tugging at the public's sensitive strings.

 'There is nothing to him. He is like a hollow Easter egg with no bag of sweets inside. Cameron will say absolutely anything if he thinks it might get him elected.'
        (Charlie Brooker, 2007)

These then are my concerns:

+ First that the new Prime Minister commands with far too great an emphasis upon how best to ensure & insure power and not nearly enough on what the purpose of attaining such power would be.

+ Secondly, considering my first concern, should a Conservative administration subsequently become strong enough to govern in a manner unfettered by Liberal Democrats, what affect this could have on British politics. My fear is that a leader with such an amorphous stance before public opinion, backed by a heavily right-wing & reactionary party could blind the public to the realities of serious situations.

While I may be just be another whining lefty, I nonetheless have serious concerns about the serious objectives of this new administration. This is something to be watched with open eyes in the future.

==========
References:
==========
+ Robert J. House's 'Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy and a reformulated theory'; Leadership Quarterly 7 (3): 323–352; 1996.

- For more on Leadership:
Colin Barker, Alan Johnson and Michael Lavalette's: 'Leadership and social movements'; Manchester University Press, 2001.
Dan van Knippenberg & Michael A. Hogg's 'Leadership and Power: Identity processes in groups and organisations'; Sage, 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership

+ John Higginson's 'Bull-boy Cameron stands accused of abusing power';

- For more about David Cameron:
Tories call on David Cameron to quit
Tory MPs react to David Camerons Surprise 1922 committee vote
1922 Committee: David Cameron wins vote on rule change

+ Laura Miller's 'Ken Clarke calls Cameron's marriage policy "social engineering";

- For more angry Ken Clarke:
Ken Clarke clashes with David Cameron over cash crisis
Clarke in 2003: Supremacy Act “fundamentally incompatible” with EU membership
Ken Clarke brands Cameron plan for Bill of Rights as 'xenophobic'
Clarke slams Cameron rights plan

+ Charlie Brooker's 'David Cameron is like a hollow Easter egg, with no bag of sweets inside. He's nothing. He's no one';

Constitutional Niceties

It's now past 100 days of the Coalition government. So far it has survived its fair share of scandals and reached the traditional time to review the early days. Here I wish to point out something that occurred to me following the post-election negotiations.

Constitutionally, Mr. Brown & Labour won the election. That fact appears indisputable. Our constitutional 'tradition' posits that if no other leader is able to muster a parliamentary majority at an election, then the sitting Prime Minister 'wins' (BBC, 2010; Blick, 2010). By that, of course, I mean he remains Prime Minister as a constitutionally appointed duty. It is also then his responsibility to form a workable government.

So when Mr.Clegg chose to disregard constitutional precedent in favour of the moral authority of 32% of the population (52% of a 65% turnout), what he in fact did was set in motion a coup d'état.

Now let me clarify that a little bit before I start a mass panic. Our constitution is often referred to as being 'unwritten'. That is not necessarily the case. It is more that it is not contained on any one piece of paper. We have one, it is however the sum of a number of separate laws and traditions.

These traditions are what we have to thank for Mr.Clegg's actions not sparking civil panic. They are what allows the press (Telegraph, 2010) to call for a candidate who has not strictly won, to have a chance to construct a majority. Some however see this not so much as one of the positives of a flexible system, but the result of an impenetrable and convoluted collection of constitutional traditions that leaves us manipulated in the dark (Blick & Wilks-Heeg, 2010).

Now, the Conservative Party, being broadly supportive of traditionalist stances, which includes the maintenance our current governing system; have taken power by that system. However the supporters of a republican style written constitution, more broadly to be found on the Labour left, did not implement that form of constitution while in power. Had it been introduced by the party for the 2010 UK General Election, it would have solidified the sitting Prime Minister's position, giving Labour the firm backing to declare victory.

This is the particular point I wish to address. With the sitting Prime Minister's constitutional role enshrined on paper, would there have been an outcry against Mr Brown remaining in Downing Street when no other majority could be found? Would we now be under a Lib-Lab or Progressive Coalition?

This I think exposes the strengths and weaknesses of our constitutional system compared to a written model:

+ The 'unwritten' model allows room for negotiation and flexibility in situations requiring adaptability.

+ However they can also create 'constitutional crises' in the event of differing or competing interpretations.

+ The written model provides a stable and accountable document demonstrating the divisions of power and constitutional roles.

+ Some written constitutions have been criticised for a perceived inflexibility and the potential for highly subjective stances to be enshrined. Arguments suggest these might be exploited as much as 'unwritten' documents, yet be harder to counter, eg. The Weimar Constitution of 1919.

The questions seems almost to come down to one of preferences. A question of comparison between a looser set of traditions & precedents, adaptable to the realities of the political situation, against a set of inflexible rules that are laid out and cover the chain of political power and everybody's roles, rights and liberties.

For me the jury is still out. However, it is nonetheless comforting (as someone who can safely be described as a NON-TORY) to know that, from a certain point of view, David Cameron is Prime Minister courtesy of a anti-constitutional coup d'état.

==========
References:
==========
+ The BBC's 'Election 2010: First hung parliament in UK for decades'; 7 May 2010

+ Andrew Blick's 'Changing the Rules by Stealth: the UK's Constitution is being written as the public follows the election'; 28 April 2010

+ Andrew Blick & Stuart Wilks-Heeg's 'Governing without majorities - coming to terms with balanced Parliaments in UK Politics'; 16 April 2010

+ The Telegraph's 'General election 2010: Labour has lost and the Conservatives deserve a chance to govern'

+ Anthony King's 'ANALYSIS: So why didn't the Tories reach the summit?';

+ The Weimar Constitution of 1919

Condemnation & Recognition

This is not the article I wished to begin with. I find it, however, to be unavoidable. So I will use my first post here to roundly condemn Mr Nicolas Sarkozy, the 23rd President of the French Republic, for his 'ethnic' policies towards the Roma people.

These policies, as reported last month, involved orders to target the ethnic Roma people for eviction and expulsion from France. Investigations are already under way to determine whether it is in violation of International Human Rights. It is most certainly in violation of all decent morality, not to mention European Union Freedom of Movement laws.

This kind of cynical abuse of a minority in order to bolster flagging political support, as is the accusation levelled at Mr Sarkozy by his critics, is outrageous.

The only light that can be found in the murky depths of this issue is the bravery of the EU Justice Commissioner in standing up to the French State on this issue. Ms Viviane Reding's actions have been nothing short of admirable and gives hope I think both for the future of the EU and for the peaceful and satisfactory resolution of this issue.

==========
References:
==========
For more on these serious events:
- Nicolas Sarkozy rounds on critics and vows to keep dismantling Roma camps (The Guardian, Sept 16 2010)
- Orders to police on Roma expulsions from France leaked (The Guardian, Sept 13 2010)
- Nicolas Sarkozy tells Luxembourg to take in Roma (The Guardian, Sept 15 2010)
- Germany contradicts French statement on Roma camps (BBC News, Sept 16 2010)
- Reding did not mean the Holocaust, but the 'Great Devouring,' Andor says (EU Observer, 17 Sept 2010)
- European Commissioner likens France's deportations of Roma to Nazi genocide (Telegraph Blogs, 18 Sept 2010)
- Angry Nicolas Sarkozy pledges to deport more gypsies (The Metro, Set 16 2010)

For more on International Human Rights:
- http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Introduction.aspx
- http://www.amnesty.org/
- http://tinyurl.com/2vze6cm