Arts of Leadership: Part 1 - Shifting the Focus

Redirecting the focus of public anger is a big part of Public Relations. Here are just a few examples of this technique:

'Full marks to the Andy Coulson media operation [for timing announcements about child benefit cuts]... The Tory conference carries one message; the nation must pull together to get us out of the trouble Labour put us in.'
            (Pascoe-Watson, 2010)

'At first I was annoyed by the pope's disgraceful attack on atheists and secularists, but then I saw it as reassuring. It suggests that we have rattled them so much that they have to resort to insulting us, in a desperate attempt to divert attention from the child abuse scandal.'
            (Dawkins, 2010)

In his 'historic' speech in Britain last year, the Pope made studious use of this tactic in the face of overwhelming public outcry against the institutionalised abuse being admitted by Catholic leaders around the world (Traynor, 2010).

'Today, the United Kingdom strives to be a modern and multicultural society... In this challenging enterprise, may it always maintain its respect for those traditional values and cultural expressions that more aggressive forms of secularism no longer value or even tolerate.'
            (Benedict XVI, in Jones et al, 2010)

While in itself an admission of guilt, this technique is utilised to take advantage of the human love of all things comparative (an example here in comic form from XKCD).

A recent example is the Iranian Government's anger at being singled out for its sentence of death for a convicted woman. They deflected accusations by pointing to an American 'Double Standard' (Dehghan, 2010), as the United States at the time held a woman awaiting death for an arranged murder, who allegedly suffered mental health problems.

This case as the others above, leaves me astounded at the 'moral' positions our leaders adopt. We find ourselves in a system of morality justified by ranking your sins on a sliding scale, where it isn't so bad if everyone is doing it. This leads me to think:

+ How can we, in a rational world, allow leaders to so blatantly seek to sucker us with cheap vaudevillian misdirections? What can we do to hold these leaders to account?

+ Further, should it not be considered an honour by the church to be held to a higher standard? As with other nations and organisations that are singled out over issues, is it not a high compliment indeed to have better expected of you?

In the following few weeks, this blog is going to cover some more of the common misdirections, confuscations and slights-of-hand used by people in power to keep you distracted. It's one thing to demand that people always remain vigilant. It's a more practical one to give them some of the right tools.

==========
References:
==========
+ James Cowling's ''Full marks' to Tories' Andy Coulson for timing of child benefit announcement';

+ Richard Dawkins's 'Ratzinger is an enemy of humanity';

+ Ian Traynor's 'Belgian child abuse report exposes Catholic clergy';

+ Sam Jones, John Hooper & Tom Kington's 'Pope Benedict XVI goes to war with 'atheist extremism'';

+ Saeed Kamali Dehghan's 'Iran accuses US of double standards over woman's execution'

- For more reports from the Papal visit:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/20/papal-visit-religious-pope
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11317441

A New Year's Resolution

Thank you for your support the last few months, we'll be back with more observations and scrutiny from us in January.

In 2011 there will be more weekly articles, featuring:

+ A three-part series on leadership,
+ A look at the issues around the world such as identity and its implications in Europe,
+ ... and much more besides!

Have a great holiday season and we'll see you in the new year!

The Choice Between Two Lefts

In the forthcoming Oldham East & Saddleworth by-election, the decision for voters of the left is still between two parties. For those of you who feel the Liberal Democrats have sold out their place on the left, let me explain how I reach this conclusion.

Whoever stands in place of Woolas as Labour's candidate, and whoever stands as a Liberal Democrat; will have to face the fact that between them they still represent the anti-Tory vote in the UK. However, in a mid-term election such as this, especially during a fixed five-year term; they represent different kinds of anti-Tory votes.

A seat for the Liberal Democrats in Oldham represents a practical opposition to Tory plans. Regardless of the line that Lib Dem Ministers feel they have to toe (or want to?), the backbenchers are the ones who will suffer most from their decisions at the next general election. So it is they who are most feeling the protesters and unhappy voters breathing down their neck.

However they also have a small ace up their sleeve, in the form of a number of former party leaders. Sir Menzies Campbell & Mr Charles Kennedy represent a more 'Left' element to the party. This backbench element, with sufficient numbers, can represent a very big stumbling block to the balance of power between the coalition partners.

Both Mr Campbell and Mr Kennedy have both been making nuisances of themselves so far during this term (Kennedy, 2010; Campbell, 2010) and both were amongst the 21 Liberal Democrats to vote against a tuition fee rise, who along with the 8 abstainers, outnumber the Lib Dems who voted for the rise (Duffett, 2010).

A seat for Labour is useful to the opposition for different reasons. The seats in parliament currently sit at Coalition 363 to Labour 255. Practically speaking, one more Labour seat will make no difference to the voting in the commons at this juncture. However a vote for Labour has the potential to be a bit of a publicity coup for anti-Tory voters.

While in purely practical terms, that seat would not be able to make much parliamentary difference for Labour, it can certainly send a very clear and public message to the coalition government. At this stage a strong media campaign, capitalising on recent events, could be a very effective tool for opposing Tory policy wishes.

Both options, of course, do present concerns for left (or anti-right) voters.

The major concern for voters considering the Liberal Democrats is their stance towards tuition fees. While those who make up a part of the Coalition, the Cleggs, Alexanders & Cables, feel compelled to do what they see as the responsible thing, the 'Principled' thing, that is what is best for the treasury when the country is flat broke; the party as a whole seems intent upon a different path.

Their path is defiance. More in line with pre-election pledges, they set themselves to go against even the Coalition Agreement's get out clause for unhappy Liberal Democrats (abstaining from the vote), to go the whole way and vote against their own party leaders who sit in government. A Lib Dem seat in Oldham means another backbencher, another seat and a stronger position from which to wrangle their own leaders away from potentially destructive policies.

For a Labour voter the concerns are traditional ones. Will my vote count for anything? For those voters that fear can be assuaged. For once it is a choice between which party will best effect left ideas. The choice will be between voting for Labour's potential ally (the Lib Dem backbench) or to vote for a Labour Candidate and sending a less practical but a very public message to the Conservative Ministers.

In the end this seat should be decided by votes cast, I think, pragmatically. It is a choice between which party would most weaken, and there-in rein in, the Conservative Government and its potential excesses.

==========
References:
==========
+ The Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election will be held on 13 January;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12003985

+ Charles Kennedy opposing Tuition Fees in Parliament, 14th October 2010:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVJ-_T6C_zU
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/oct/14/kennedy-against-tuition-fee-rise

+ Sir Menzies Campbell tells BBC he opposes Tuition Fees, 13th October 2010:
 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11531247
 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1320338/Ming-Campbell-challenges-coalition-joins-Lib-Dem-tuition-fee-rebels.html
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/oct/13/menzies-cambell-joins-lib-dem-revolt-tuition-fees

+ Helen Duffett's 'Tuition fees: How Liberal Democrat MPs voted'; 9th December 2010;

+ Laura Kuenssberg's 'How Lib Dems are manoeuvring ahead of tuition fees vote';
 [Features a list of expected pledge-keeping Lib Dems]