Brown's New Cheerleader

After my last post, I've just listened to Question Time and, apparently, Piers Morgan is Brown's new cheerleader - so it's not all going well then

Whither now...?

I realise that it may be a little trite to blog about the fact that we now have a new Prime Minister - but I don't care.

One of the things that I did notice in the news was that Quentin Davis has left the conservatives to join the Brown camp, perhaps spurred on by the fact that Sean Woodward has finally been offered a cabinet position. This has recieved muted welcomes by the Labour camp, and comtrasts sharply to the rather blatant courting of a number of Liberal Democrat MPs by the Conservatives, which has rather failed in delivering any sort of success.

What I find hugely interesting is that a Conservative finds it easier to join Labour than a Liberal Democrat to join the Conservatives. Any why now? At the very least, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have a great deal in common. By-and-large they have the same objections to the current regime and come from a similar place. Whilst many people in general society have a rather tribalistic fear of the Tories, surely this does not extend to the halls of Westminster? And why has Gordon Brown become so attractive.

Since Brown became the only possible candidate for leader, Menzies has made several speeches with a lack of subtlety suggesting that Brown was someone 'with whom we can do business'. Likewise, Quentin Davis has decided to join the ranks of this veteral left-winger. Finally, Claire Short has hinted that she might like to take back the Labour whip (I'd refuse to give her it - she's more trouble than she's worth).

I am flabberghasted, and I think that this could mean some serious problems for the tories. This dour son of the manse has attracted more attention in the last few days than the fireworks of Cameron have throughout his reign. He clearly has a broad appeal, if such diverse figures as Claire Short and Quentin Davis are able to relate to him, and comes top in the polls in a number of desireable characteristics. Most of all, he is seen as strong, something very important to the British electorate - in the run up to the last election Tony Blair was behind in just about everything except 'person I would most like to be in charge during a national emergency' and stormed home. Finally, Tory policy was very much based on being the heir to Blair - particularly on things such as education. This was, perhaps, a little prematurely announced and Brown has squeezed them out of this by making a number of speeches in support of city academies which, if carried through, could prove to be a very successful move.

In the end, the Tory party problems are, I think, simple - they have no ideas. If they had ideas they couldn't release them now as they could be used and if they had ideas that were too right-wing for Brown's blood and so wouldn't be used, they would probably be unpalateable to the electorate anyway.

We appear to have developped a political consensus and, unfortunately, that appears to be Brown.

p.s. I'm sorry to see you leave Tony - for what it's worth, I think you did a pretty good job

Cameron and Rhetoric

When in opposition, it is very easy to become overly reliant on rhetoric. Naturally, when unable to influence the actual way in which the country is run, it is easy to relapse into the typical sit back and moan mentality and wait until the electorate becomes sufficiently disillusioned with the goverment and agree with you.

The problem with this is that it is very easy to get the rhetoric wrong. And then you look stupid. Nick Assinder has just pointed out that Cameron's "applying traditional values to new challenges" looks awfully similar to "traditional values in a modern setting" for someone who is most emphatically not the "heir to Blair". However, before Conservatives lose heart and begin to despair of getting anything different, let them take heart; it's nowhere near as bleak on that end of the spectrum as it is on the left.

Although currently (and, it has to be said, throughout the majority of our history), battle lines are largely drawn around a reasonably consensual centre, at least there is a reasonably coherent argument coming from the conservative right in order to counter the centrism that appears to be affecting the leadership.

This is nowhere near as prevalent on the left, who couldn't even get the number of votes needed to produce a credible candidate for the leadership (or, to be frank, the deputy leadership - the candidates may be trying to woo the grass-roots by talking left, but they all signed up to the New Labour project). Although Cameron can go so far with the New Labour project, the Conservative party are far less willing to sacrifice their ideals than the Labour party has been. Cameron is a popular leader, and the party uniting behind him would almost guarantee a victory at the next election, however, the grass roots are still fighting the good fight, using grammar schools as a good example in which ministers are prepared to resign their jobs over what is essentially a non-issue.

For those of you that despair of the right wing losing it's teeth, never fear. They are not, as yet, showing any signs of rolling over as easily as the labour left.

Barrosso vs the British Public

I'm not one for an anti-European rant usually, but I thought that I'd make an exception in this case. My problem is with a recently quoted remark from Barrosso saying of the constitution that leaders must "stand up to popularism" i.e endorse the idea of a constitution even though nobody wants it.

This is a rather interesting dichotomy in the politics of EU member states. By and large, politicians' interests are linked to those of their constituents as, should they fail to act in their interests they will, in theory, be booted out. However, should one 'stand up to popularism' and act against the interests of one's constituents in favour of the EU, then even if one is booted out, the option is available to transfer to a more highly paid job doing sweet FA. This somewhat makes a mockery of the democracy of any one state, and undermines the convergence of interests between citizens and those that represent them.

Many politicians make faith calls. This was recently demonstrated by Tony Blair in the war against Iraq, in which he said to the public 'if you don't like it, don't vote for me next time'. Politicians do this in the hope that posterity will (hopefully before the next general election) prove them right. Whilst I am not entirely comfortable with this, it is a completely different and less iniquitous thing than it's European incarnation 'if you don't like it, transefer me to a cushier job'.

I'm sure that many of us share the ideal of having a Europe that co-operates on many issues and meets to show solidarity where possible. However, many of us are uncomfortable about doing anything that looks like diminishing national sovereignty and european politicians should be aware of this. If provocative statements to ignore the will of the people are too forthcoming, then there will be less good-will on which Europe can unite, and Europe and all the individual states within it will be all the poorer.

Something Else Can Be Learned from the Private Sector

Ah, the wonders of the private sector, will they never cease. As Tony Blair gazes into his corporate crystal ball; farming out services such as schools and hospitals to inappropriate corporate services and donors and spending millions of tax-payers' pounds on corporate consultants - not to mention getting up-to-the-minute marketing consultants to design hazardous logos - let us hope that he takes a leaf out of BAE's book.

Following the fall-out from the Saudi arms deal - in which everything was done absolutely correctly, and there is absolutely no need for an enquiry so please stop trying to get one - BAE is setting up an independent ethical watchdog to monitor its dealings (as reported in today's independant). Whilst one may doubt the motives behind this, there is absolutely no doubt that having an independant committee to monitor the ethical implications of decisions is eminently sensible and aids the perception of transparency. Surely the government could have something akin to this to keep its wandering feet on the straight-and-narrow? Ah, I hear you say, but govenrnment has the attourney general. You're quite right - I almost forgot.

Britishness & All That

I think that Britain is a great idea. It's a lovely place full of sane, liberal people who don't, by-and-large, get too het up about what it means to be British and why foreigners are coming in and spoiling it, and it doesn't really care that much about it's culture.

If I could just qualify that last point, Britain has never self-consciously tried to change it's own culture; we simply evolve in the way that society wants to go. Unlike the social engineers of the Elysees palace who spend 25% of the tax burden on 'culture', we have always believed that people will like what they like and if that's watching sweaty people kicking a bag of air around whilst abusing eachother and the officials, then so be it.

This is why I am rather uncomfortable with the likes of 'British day' or whatever it is that they want to call it. I think one of the greatest symbols of British culture is that we do not have a British day and have never felt the need for one. In the end, we are a diverse bunch of people who will go around doing whatever it is that we like doing and vaguely occupying the same area as eachother. This changes marginally during the world cup and other footballing events, during which everyone gets whipped up into a nationalistic fervour, but at least it is directed at something; our footballing success - or lack of it (blame the philandering Swede ( a phrase that must look strange out of context)).

I think that one of the reasons that we are attractive to skilled migrants is that they need not feel out of place in a country full of patriotic rednecks. We are a very laid-back and accepting culture, and I think that that is how I would rather it stay.

This is my main objection to British day. Rather than celebrating British culture, I think that it would diminish it irrevocably, and that would be an incredibly sad thing.

Oh for the dignity of a coronation

There was a time in the Conservative party (not so long ago) when a new leader was elected by an inner cabal, and was then feted by the rest of the party as being the best thing since sliced bread and exactly the sort of person that they would have voted for should they have had the opportunity. Now, of course this was wrong and exceptionally undemocratic; but it was at least very dignified and, having watched the contrast between the labour leadership and deputy leadership elections, I sometimes do wonder if there isn't something in that.

Think what you like about Gordon Brown (and it probably isn't a lot worse than what I think), but he has managed to sail through these last few months with dignity and aplomb. Throughout the last few months he has given nothing but the impression of an incredibly serious and able leader; maybe not the sort of person who would play with your children, but certainly the sort of person whom you would trust with your savings.

Contrast this with the deputy leadership contest and the grubby and undignified way in which they have conducted themselves - lynching Margaret Hodge for example, in her attempts to start a discussion (albeit a rather ill-conceived one), and I begin to wonder whether a coronation is so bad after all.

I have no idea if Newsnight did this on purpose (I do think that Newsnight is sometimes rather too enamoured with its kingmaking powers), but the style in which it was conducted reminded me of a bunch of straight-A students trying to get the headmaster to give them the school prize. As there was little difference between the candidates: they are of similar opinions and are broadly high-flyers in the party, it was left for them to make po-faced endorsements of eachother whilst making innuendos behind eachothers' backs and trying to make the boldest-sounding assertions on what are essentially rather banal and mainstream ideas ("we need to re-build trust", "people in this country want to get on with their lives"). Bring back Tony Ben, at least he sang a different tune.

Foetal Alcohol Syndrome

I have recently read an article in the Times by Minnette Mirin bewailing the fact that the government has issued new guidelines saying that you shouldn't drink during pregnancy. Now, I suppose that, as right-wingers, it is reasonable to suppose that such nanny-state announcements have rubbed her up the wrong way.

But why?

I am, of course, against banning things when it is un-necessary; but I hardly think that the issuing of guidelines against something that could very easily harm a defenseless foetus are in this league.

Whilst it is true that a small amount of alcohol is unlikely to harm a foetus, as she herself points out, there is far from scientific consensus on the issue of what amount is safe - and I have recently been told be a teratologist that as little as 3oz on one day in the 'danger zone' of 3-8 weeks could cause the dreaded foetal alcohol syndrome. Is it so important for pregnant women to have a glass of wine, that they are willing to put their child at risk?

Also, this dreadful woman bemoans the fact that we are being 'treated like ninnies' in a state that is issuing 'one rule for all' as a precaution against those who unknowingly break the limit. This point is one that I'm afraid I do not understand. If we are not all 'ninnies' - and therefore, presumably, savvy enough to interpret the evidence and come to reasonable conclusions - then there is no obligation for us to obey the advice. If they are not, and listening to government advice is the way in which they are able to interpret the scientific world as applied to us, then I fear that we will necessarily recieve advice on things that are far from straight-forward being simplified for our purposes.

Whilst I often have very little sympathy for the government, it does seem hideously unfair that advice intended to ensure our health is being interpreted as the grossest assault on our liberties. Perhaps the government should say nothing and leave it for us to work out by ourselves.

Anyhow, I doubt there will be much harm done. If we are all such worldly-wise and functional human beings as Ms. Mirrin, then I'm sure the advice will fall on happily deaf ears anyway.

Are Tories anti-Grammar School?

David Cameron has taken something of a knock over the past week for his stance on Grammar schools and, to some extent, rightly so. There is a great deal of confusion over the attitudes that he actually represents and the idea of social mobility that the conservatives have traditionally stood for.

Tories are rightly wedded to the idea that a good standard of education is the key to social mobility and the environment that the grammar school provides is an excellent vehicle for this. However, I do not think that it is these that the new Cameron tories are against.

What this stance signals is not a lack of faith in grammar schools, it is a lack of faith in secondary moderns. The idea that, at the age of 11, the child can irrevokably decide the class into which they will fall - those of the labouring (all-be-it skilled labour) classes and those of the intelligensia - is intolerable. Secondary moderns have always been a repository for people in whom society no longer takes an interest, and on whom intellectual resources need no longer be spent. This is not the way in which a modern society should treat its children, who should recieve a decent standard of education as long as they require it.

The grammar system is not one that allows a greater deal of social mobility - if it is social mobility that is a problem, then an increase in the standard of education of our children is in order. The grammar school system mainly entrenches a two-tier class system.

The key to social mobility is aspiration and if we encourage children to know their place, rather than to aspire, then we condemn generations into not realising their potential.

I know that this is a rather hard policy to swallow to the right wing who, quite correctly, would like to encourage intelligent people from poorer backgrounds to realise their potential, however times change. We are now in a position where we should be able to give every child a decent education. If we do not do this, then we are failing half of our society. It does not necessarily require a change of attitudes to take a change of policy. Sometimes times just change, and talismans should not be held to just because of what they represent - but should be evaluated in relation to what they actually do.

Let's Hope Selling Peerages is Not Too Heinous

Apparently, the arch-twit of the Labour cabinet (a competitive title, but well-deserved), Lord Falconer, has said that there are some people who should die behind bars because 'people expect that'.

This sort of thing infuriates me. Why do we bother having a professional judiciary if people are going to be sentenced by calumny in the media! Why do we bother employing Lord Wolff and others if Rupert Murdoch is going to decide how long our prisoners are going to stay in jail. The fact is that if we did what the majority of people 'expect' then this country would have gone to the dogs a long time ago.

The laws of this country are far too complex and well thought out to be subject to mob rule and the manipulation of the press who, let's face it, have something of their own agenda. People are far too easily whipped-up into a self-richeous frenzy to be allowed to decide something so important. Has anyone watched the scenes outside an American jail as a prisoner is about to be executed? The sight is absolutely chilling. The problem is that it is those who have sinned who are particularly fond of casting stones.

I realise that there are people out there who have done horrible things and that people would like to see them punished, but even criminals are humans and are subject to human rights and the laws of the land. The fact is that people are the product of the society in which they are brought up, and these demonstrations of public outrage are nothing more than humiliating displays of self-flagellation in a society that has failed itself.

And if we should allow this new form of public trial, I would imagine that Lord Falconer would hope that selling peerages is not the next crime to capture public outrage

Also, I'm pleased to note that Gordon is increasing the scope of his foreign policy credentials, after this apparent visit to Lilliput.

Stop Treating Children Like Adults

Apparently, a commons selcet committee has ruled that each school should have a school council. Here I agree - the school management does not always understand the consequences of their decisions and it is important that pupils can get their views across. Also, it is important for the self-esteem of children to feel enfranchised in the decision-making process.

However, in my experience of leading school councils, the people elected to them, whilst representative of the school body ( the 'cool kids'), were very rarely articulate enough to get their point across effectively, or introspective enough to know what it was about a proposition that instinctively made them dislike it.

I certainly don't agree with the idea that pupils should have a say on the appointment of staff and the running of the school, as was suggested by the committee.

Our school was one of those awful 'progressive' ones, and a few pupils were allowed to interview prospective headmasters. I vehemently disagreed with the rest of the student panel, whose only criterion for a good head was that they would promise them the world. Many of these things, if they are honest, they have no right to promise and have never been implemented, because they were highly impractical.

I agree that children need to be given some responsability for them to get used to the idea of making decisions for themselves and other people. However, they are not yet mature enough to make decisions of that magnitude, and are often unaware of the vital context of the adult world.

Treating children as equals means that we should respect their opinions as fellow human beings, but accept that they are made within the context of someone who has never had to care for themselves in the real world. This isn't patronising, it's just sensible.

LePen for Presidential Candidate!

Before you read the title and hit me, let me explain what I mean....

I do not think that Jean-Marie LePen would be a good, or even adequate president. Blaming France's problems on immigration is like blaming global warming on the flatulence of cows - maybe it has an effect, but are you seriously going to cull them all? The fact is that France is in decline because of restrictive employment laws and all the red tape that comes with the French's preferred style of government (and Europe). Immigration is a cheap and easy excuse, and it is all too easy to stir up that sort of racial hatred.

However, it is absolutely appauling that a man who can get into the second round of a presidential election, can fail to be allowed into the next race because of a democratic nicety. French officials are, in effect, by-passing democracy by failing to give people the chance to vote for LePen.

I hope that these officials will look hard at themselves and ask whether their judgement is really better than that of the voters and, if not, will sign the bloody piece of paper. Then, and only then, will Jean-Marie get the kicking he deserves and we can put the spectre of racism firmly in France's past.

Making martyrs solves nothing

Family Values

There are times when I feel very embarassed about being a Tory. Unfortunately, as I sit here listening to the tax breaks for married couples debate on Question Time, this is one of them.

It's not that there's anything wrong with the Tory policy. I think that the family is one of the cornerstones of society. Thus, whilst we believe in treating every individual person equally and fairly, there is no reason why we cannot support institutions that contribute positively towards society and to the bringing up of children. Let us not forget that these children cannot take care of themselves and that the state has far more forceful ways of defending their welfare.

However, as sensible as this policy is, the only sensible people that seem to support it are the politicians. Everyone else is a nutter! Watching the debate on Question Time, I can see all the supporters of the policy actually foaming at the mouth! If the Conservative Party aren't careful, the only people who will support us are religious fundamentalists and those in their dotage.

I am continually surprised about how the Liberal agenda seems to have the monopoly of the national morality. Why is it that we can either believe that the state can provide for all our material wants or that it has absolutely no business interfering in anything that we do and nothing in-between.

Of course, the government has to be very careful before it assumes the role of 'society', of which it is only distantly representative and which shouldn't really be dictating to individuals anyway. However, part of this role is surely protecting children from instability and protecting the rest of us from crime and social disorder. These are almost certainly symptoms of the breakdown of local, people-sized society, of which the family is an inherent (although not the only) part.

Whilst I have some sympathy with the argument that we should not be dictating to people how to live their lives, I do hope that a few more normal people outside the religious establishment will actually get that the Conservatives aren't actually trying to marry us all off - they are just trying to encourage social responsability.

The Liberal Democrats

Has anyone noticed how the Liberal Democrats only ever talk about how they are going to win the next election?

This seems strange to me, as they are the only major party that stands no chance of winning the next general election.

Ming has marked the first anniversary of his becoming leader of the Liberal Democrats by defending his record thus far which, to be honest, indicates a pretty inauspicious reign. But, to anyone who remembers his acceptance speech, it will sound especially tired.

Ming swept to victory last year in an election in which one of the candidates suffered aligations about his private life, one was completely unheard-of and the majority of votes were returned before any of the speeches had been given anyway.

In his acceptance speech, Ming then proceded to tell us how the Liberal Democrats needed policies fit for government (in an eerie echo from his parties history). Since then, the only thing that we ever hear from him is how labour is failing, the Tories are and ideas vacuum and how he is not just a safe pair of hands (although how he manages to square this with the fact that, by his own admission, he has spent the last year "steadying the ship" is anyone's guess).

"Judge not, lest ye be judged" says the bible, apparently, and the Lib Dem mud-slinging is fooling no-one and making them look silly. They would be far better off unveiling policies.

Chinese Re-Education"

And so, I see, China is finally dragging itself into the middle ages. Next week, the people's congress will be discussing whether it is right to detain people in labour camps without trial because the police suspect them of something. If the bill passes, the period of this detention could be limited to less than 18 months.

Apparently, this has been well received by the Chinese media, which sees the law as "increasingly out of step with the country's progress in protecting human rights".

Interesting question - the state has the capacity to do us great harm. By failing to do that harm, is it actually "protecting" our human rights? Perhaps we should be grateful that our beneficient state has not chosen to lock us all in hard labour camps producing things for the state.

It is interesting that wherever the state is powerful, it is through its own self-aggrandisement. The fact that the Chinese government considers itself the arbiter of human rights is the reason that it is so easily able to flout them.

Whilst we can criticise the Chinese government for its appauling atrocities against its people, I think it is only fair to point out that this is the inevietable outcome when people are willing to cede their consciences to a higher body, never thinking that that body may have an agenda itself.

Let us make sure that we are never in a position to allow the state to "protect" our human rights

The Political Bubble

Alright, we all know that certain people aren't engaged by politics. Standard responses to questions as to why they don't care are:

"It doesn't affect my life"

"Nothing ever changes"

and "It's all just about personal vendettas and dramas"

Interestingly, all these accusations could be levelled at Soap Operas which, apparently, these people are very switched on to. So much so that Leeds University believes that political discussion in soaps is the answer to our current disaffection.

New research from this august institution has indicated that what we need is more politics discussed in soap operas, which will allow people of all ages to become engaged and switched on to politics.

You will excuse me if I find this somewhat incredible. The fact is that we already have a number of ways of discussing politics in a meaninglessly populist fashion in (for example) the Sun which manages to fit trite political commentary in between pictures of women having sex with eachother. If this is not designed to appeal to the sort of people that modern politics is turning off, I don't know what is.

The fact is, there are any number of people down the pub that are willing to tell you that Tony Blair is a liar, that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq and that no-one cares about the little guy any more. Insofar as this goes, therefore, it could be considered that the majority of people are turned on to politics - merely not enough to vote.

To be frank, if people think that it doesn't matter who runs the country (although presumably not the liar Tony Blair), I can't see any reason for them to vote. If people are unaffected by the infringement on our liberties, vast public expenditure wastage and chronically bad services, I cannot see what would motivate them to vote, and what it is that that vote would indicate when it was cast.

Yes, I agree that politics should be made accessible to everyone, no matter how illiterate. However, as long as political parties do their best to allow their message to be understood, I hardly think that dumbing down is the answer. The process is currently highly self-selecting. If you don't care, you don't vote, you can't complain. If people are dumb enough to allow their wants to be subborned by the state, they deserve to have it so.

Flyers and the Free Market

I have just been out to lunch on Northumbria Street (it was very nice, thank you for asking) and have returned with an armful of flyers for bars, clubs, strip joints, bake sales… You name it – it has a flyer.

You would not believe how incredibly mad this makes me. Not only does it completely invade my personal space and interrupt my significant thoughts, it also inevitably leaves a trail of flyers on the ground to choke pigeons and hinder snails.

When, when will these people realise that their inane advertising gumf will never induce me to attend their bar/club/strip joint/bake sale. In fact, should I be looking for a drink/dance/cheap thrill/doily I would walk half way round the toon (as we call it) in order to find a different establishment from which to obtain them.

The simple answer is ‘never’. Of course, economic liberals will tell you that market forces will sort this sort of thing out and that all we need to do is vote with our feet and supply will inevitably follow demand. Let me tell you, economic liberals are living as much in cloud cuckoo land as socialists and people waiting for flairs to come back in.

The fact is that these big fat-cat club owners are lazy. Spaces in the town centre are limited and there aren’t enough venues to satisfy the alcoholics/ thrill-seekers/ sugar junkies of Newcastle. Therefore, all club owners really want from their managers are to see them doing something: so they trawl their meagre intellects, trying to find something original to do, can’t find anything and so plump for flyers.

Will I ever vote with my feet?

Possibly (although most likely not)

Will it make a blind bit of difference?

No, of course not. The fact is, these places are so full, they have no possible way of distinguishing increased demand and little incentive to try.

Oh, when will you liberals learn, monopolies are like civil services except less pretentious.