Is Compass pushing Labour into oblivion?
Sunny Hundal wrote in support of the Compass proposals to encourage tactical voting. Supporters of non-tribal politics seem to be flocking to support the idea which is understandable.
However, I think it is simplistic to see a hung Parliament as automatically leading to a Lib-Lab pact as some do; in fact, I think the likely outcome is that the Liberal Democrats will, in fact, support the Conservatives, not formally but in a ‘supply and confidence’ manner.
Let’s be quite clear that this is not just based upon personal experience or the fact that the Liberal Democrats are in coalition with the Conservatives in many areas.
It is based upon a reading of Nick Clegg’s character and policies especially and although it is totally fair to say that the leader is not the party let’s also be quite clear that were the Lib Dems to gain a vast amount of seats Clegg’s personal capital would carry him and his prospectives a long way.
Indeed, given recent events who honestly feels that the LD’s would really defy their leader?
So, what does Clegg think? Let’s look at The Liberal Moment published just last year. Clegg says of Labour:
“I believe Labour’s basic approach to governance – to social, political, economic and environmental progress is fundamentally flawed”.
He complains that ‘top-down, state-centred’ approachs to social problems are the wrong response; ironic, considering he wants to use the state to break-up the banks amoung other things.
Talking about the ‘suggestion’ that Liberal Democrats ‘fall in line to hold back the rise of the Conservatives’ Clegg says he would ‘never’ contemplate such a move. He talks about the problems with Labour in power like the Iraq War and the curtailment of civil liberties but crucially he says:
“even if none of these things had happened the Liberal Democrats would remain a very different party with a very different ideological core”
Clegg hardly sounds here like somebody spoiling for a ‘progressive Lab-Lib alliance’ does he? Instead, he argues that Labour is undergoing the same fate that befell the old Liberal Party and this is what gives the Liberal Democrats their opportunity.
Selectively he talks about Labour turning on the Lib Dems by entering coalition with the Conservatives to keep them from power. Anybody can tell this is a one-sided and biased account of a situation where Lib Dem’s ‘turning’ on Labour is just as likely.
Clegg feels that the chances of the Liberal Democrats replacing Labour as Britain’s leading progressive party are ‘high and growing’. Given that are people really naive enough to think he would prop Labour up?
If people want an end to tribal politics then casting their vote, even tactically, for Nick Clegg is not the way to achieve it…..before you cast your Compass vote take the time to read what Clegg really thinks.
Debating humanitarian interventions
I am debating Linda Polman, author of War Games: The Story of Aid and War in Modern Times at the Frontline club in London on Tuesday 11 May if anyone has energy left-over for political discussion after the election.
I have not read Linda’s book yet, but there is an interview with her here in the Observer conducted by Andrew Anthony.
I am no great fan of Anthony’s work and the political points come over as rather stale and outdated – as if someone has not really thought about the issue much since his days spent picking coffee in Nicaragua with the Sandinistas – but Polman’s prievious work is provocative and interesting.
She famously reported on how eighty Zambian UN Blue Helmets were forced to watch helplessly as thousands of Hutu refugess were murdered by government troops in Rwanda – a report which did much to shake the guilt-ridden complacent indulgency that much of the international community had previously displayed towards its President Paul Kagame.
Lest we forget, one of Tony Blair’s current consultancy positions is working to improve Kagame’s public image.
Paddy Ashdown dismisses a Libdem-Tory pact
Former Libdem leader Paddy Ashdown today dismissed the likelihood of a Libdem and Conservative pact if a Hung Parliament were to present itself.
Tory hopes of a pact with the Lib Dems were dashed last night when Paddy Ashdown told The People: “Nick Clegg cannot work with David Cameron.”
The former Lib Dem leader said: “We could not go into a coalition with the Tories, it wouldn’t work.”
…
But Lord Ashdown, 69, said: “A coalition is not an option for us. The parties are too far apart.”
That piece is referenced here by Nick Robinson at the BBC, who says the Libdems were interested in a coalition that would
focus on delivering their four election priorities – a fairer taxes, extra help for disadvantaged children at school, a green economy and a fairer political system.
The Conservatives are further away than Labour from the Libdems on those four pledges.
The Tory Atlas, struggling to juggle human rights…
contribution by Lallands Peat Worrier
“To protect our freedoms from state encroachment and encourage greater social responsibility, we will replace the Human Rights Act with a UK Bill of Rights.”
That is the only reference in the 130-odd pages of the Conservative manifesto to their policy on the 1998 Act and its proposed replacement. It appears under a heading – I kid ye not – Restore Our Civil Liberties. Doesn’t it have a marvellous doublethink quality?
The two corners of the first clause do a tremendous feat. On one hand, the Tories are apparently suggesting that the Human Rights Act stands in the way of state encroachment, hence a British Bill would be a sturdier defence.
On the other, that sniffish aside about social responsibility is doing a lot of work, puffing away heavily on the dogwhistle appeal of abolishing the Act.
The levity of the deed is what strikes me most keenly.
This isn’t a painful policy reconciliation, taking the weight of the world on their collective Conservative shoulders. In this vision, the Tory Atlas Juggles the issues, the globe in his hands no longer an unwieldy object, but a dainty gewgaw flicked and spun with dazzling prestidigitation. Our Atlas winks at the audience too, the old lecher, making great play of his legerdemain.
In their Foreign policy section, the manifesto has the bare faced cheek to claim that it will be “based on liberal Conservative principles”.
Its tempting, terrifically tempting, to write all of this off as appalling Janus-faced rubbish, dishonest and pandering at home, patronising and pious abroad. But could a plausible account be reconstructed where the Tories could consistently hold both positions cited above?
One possibility which suggests itself is the argument that the Human Rights Act doesn’t really represent human rights. It has a misleading label, cooked up by sinister New Labour types, who wanted to hoodwink the goodly public by labelling their project in domination in a positive way. For human rights enthusiasts, it is a false friend. This leads to the quaint argumentative structure that abolishing the Human Rights Act is a way of realising human rights. Plausible? Not terrifically.
A hung parliament may settle their intentions for good, of course. But we can pose some of the questions they’ll have to face right now, if they want to abolish the legally binding standards based on the European Convention evenly across Britain.
I notice that Alan Miller, the Chairman of the Scottish Human Rights Commission has a piece over at the Guardian mentioning some of them.
Devolution poses an undeniable problem to the Tory policy. Its worth being precise about how this would work. The problem isn’t the Human Rights Act itself. Even if that were repealed – its the European Convention Rights and not the Human Rights Act simpliciter which is part of the Scotland Act. It constrains ministers, it constrains the legislature.
That being so, it seems that even if the Human Rights Act was done away with, these sections and their lawful effect would remain. So would the Tories also amend this out of the Scotland Act?
Herein the political difficulties rear their angelic heads. By trying to repeal the Act or tamper with this aspect of the devolved settlement, the Tories would prompt the Scottish Parliament’s considerable ire. Holyrood has a clear, even a resounding majority in support of the Convention rights and the Human Rights Act. What would the Tories in government do?
Ask Holyrood and abide by their wishes? Not ask Holyrood and legislate anyway? Is that the Respect agenda in action? Alternatively, it may be that the circumstances envisioned by Alan Miller come about.
The Human Rights Act is abolished – but Scotland retains its legislative provisions on the Convention. It’d be an interesting conclusion to the inevitable debate. Owing to an understandable but loose way of talking, I think folk believe that the Scotland Act merely contains the Human Rights Act – with the latter whole enactment being more or less easily repealed at a stroke.
Not so. If the Tories have convinced themselves that that is the case, they should disabuse themselves hastily. The angel is in the accidental detail.
————–
A longer version of this blog-post is here
Ignoring science in government policy is bad for all of us
contribution by Prateek Buch
In October last year, Professor David Nutt was dismissed as the Chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), following remarks he made in a lecture given in his capacity as an academic in the field of neuropsychopharmacology – substance abuse to you and I.
Dismissed is the operative word here – the Home Secretary, whom the ACMD advises regarding the classification of drugs, claimed at the time that in airing criticisms of Government policy in an academic lecture, Prof. Nutt was “stepping into the political field and campaigning against government decisions”.
“You can do one or the other. You can’t do both.”
Advising their government on matters of scientific fact, allowing the formulation of evidence-based policy, ought to be a most sought-after position amongst scientists. It is an honour accorded to those at the very zenith of their field of expertise.
Yet following a breakdown in the relationship between government and the research community the position of Government Advisor represents something of a poisoned chalice.
Many now see the way in which advisory committees are regarded as being symptomatic of the fractured relationship between government and science.
Principles
Professor Nutt’s dismissal brough fury at the ACMD – two members resigned immediately and several more followed – and Parliament’s Science and Technology Select Committee published a report asking the Government to issue a clear Statement of Principles as to how it would handle scientific advice in the future.
The Government did indeed draft such a statement, and yet Lord Drayson’s Principles fell some way short of what leading scientists, and indeed the Select Committee, had hoped for.
Of greatest concern to many was the inclusion in the draft Principles of statements such as this: “The Government and its scientific advisors should work together to reach a shared position, and neither should act to undermine mutual trust.”
This clause would appear to put consensus ahead of objectivity, not-rocking-the-boat ahead of holding policy-makers to account, cart ahead of horse.
Not to worry, we were told, as the Principles were just a draft, to be consulted upon. Indeed, Lord Drayson indicated in an interview with the journal Nature that some of the more controversial elements wouldn’t be in the much-anticipated final published Principles.
But the finalised principles retain much of what was objected to in the original draft – lines such as “Scientific advisers should recognise that science is only part of the evidence that Government must consider in developing policy” and “Government and its scientific advisers should not act to undermine mutual trust.”
The finalised Principles precipitated yet another high-profile resignation from the ACMD panel, and appear to entrench the view that this government has of scientific advice and its role in evidence-based policy making.
Implications
It’s not just the details in this story that make for disturbing reading – viz the ban on the currently-legal drug mephedrone, likely to be rushed out despite the lack of any concrete evidence as to its harm – it’s the implications for how all public policy will be made in the future that are more worrying.
In an age when scientific data underpins so much public policy – whether regarding genetically modified crops or strategies to combat climate change and everything in between – it is crucial that government receives the best advice on said data before committing the nation to a course of action.
If it continues to undermine scientists and treat their advice as subsidiary to political goals, who will have the confidence to stand up and be counted amongst those who advise the government on anything?
Did YouGov’s polls close just after Clegg’s speech?
Not long after the second Leaders Debate finished, a poll by Sky News showed Cameron had narrowly won the debate.
Many twitter users cried foul and conspiracy. I think that’s slightly unfair (there’s more problems with how newspaper report polls than the actual polls themselves). But there’s now a new twist to the tail.
Michael Crick of the BBC writes on his blog:
Yougov say their internet poll on the debate last night was conducted between 9.27pm and 9.31pm.
This may explain why Yougov gave David Cameron a better rating than the other post-debate polls did last night. For Nick Clegg ended the debate with a very powerful closing speech, probably the best of the evening. According to the BBC video system Clegg didn’t start speaking until 9:29:18 and finished at 9:30:47? .
So many of those polled by Yougov last night must have voted without seeing his final speech.
How many did vote before seeing that final speech? (via Craig Murray)
This point was put to Peter Kellner of YouGov by research mag:
We put this to YouGov’s Peter Kellner, who admitted that yes, the poll did open up while the party leaders were delivering their closing remarks. This, he said, was to ensure that the weblink would be working correctly as soon as the debate ended.
Kellner said a “handful” of people completed the survey before the debate went off air – though he wouldn’t say exactly how many. “There will be some people who had nothing better to do than click the link until the survey opened up,” he said.
The question is, what effect did these people have on the overall result of YouGov’s poll? Kellner is adamant they didn’t have any effect. He said the agency compared results from the first 1,000 people who took part in the poll within the first few minutes of it going live with results from a second batch of 1,000 people who took part in the minutes that followed (but weren’t part of the published poll) and that no discrepancies were found.
(via LibdemVoice).
But if Michael Crick is right, the poll was open a majority of the time before Clegg even started his speech (which was thought to be quite good).
Are YouGov saying the majority of the people who finished their poll between 9:30:47? and, er, 9:31pm? I can’t see how most people will have finished the poll after watching Clegg’s speech.
Am going to email Peter Kellner of YouGov to ask.
Should Labour be forgiven for the Iraq war?
Here’s Gordon Brown, on the MPs expenses scandal: “No punishment is too great” for MPs found to have defrauded the taxpayer, raising the entertaining prospect of parliamentarians being impaled on spikes or drowned in molten sewage.
Here’s David Miliband, on the invasion, occupation and substantial destruction of Iraq: “I said to him, ‘Look, you’ve punished us enough about Iraq, all right?”
The British Government, ladies and gentlemen – grovellingly apologetic for charging a few flatscreen TVs to the public purse.
But perpetually petulant with endless butthurt that people won’t stop going on and on about the catastrophic, mega-billion pound military bloodbath.
That sound you can hear is a thousand Labour spin doctors banging their heads against walls.
Too be fair to Miliband, he means “Are you so pissed off about the war that you’re willing to risk a Tory election victory?”, which is an interesting gambit.
Call me mental if you will, but if Labour’s vast unpopularity translates into a thumping electoral defeat, I’d consider that to be Labour’s fault rather than the electorate’s, but hey ho.
Rethinking democracy, more fundamentally
contribution by Josh Mostafa
The leaders’ debates are great spectacle: Cameron’s bemused, Bertie Wooster-like frown, Brown’s inopportune troll-like chuckling, and Clegg’s unnerving resemblance to an earnest Legoman. But they aren’t democracy.
I wouldn’t even call them political theatre; they are entertainment in place of politics, a theatrical diversion to disguise the fact that three parties’ big ideas are small, plagiarised and diluted: fiddling with the shrinking set of parameters left to the realm of politics by the demands of capital. As Alain Badiou puts it:
If we posit a definition of politics as ‘collective action, organised by certain principles, that aims to unfold the consequences of a new possibility which is currently repressed by the dominant order’, then we would have to conclude that the electoral mechanism is an essentially apolitical procedure.
I was struck also by the role of the audience: a roomful of people selected as proxies for us, the voters. Every question had a certain plaintiveness to it. I don’t mean the individuals themselves were whining; but the role they were allotted in the occasion shaped their utterances into one of the following: complaint, request for assurance, challenge, protest.
Voters are infantilised by our political system: they cry for help, to be heard, and the politicians show phoney empathy and pass down solutions from on high.
People are not apathetic, they are disillusioned: they see through the charade, and they feel powerless and angry. It’s not because politicians are ‘not listening’, but because our input as citizens is limited to a choice. Like consumers, the only ‘power’ we have is to choose different brands of basically the same product.
The standard narrative we hear from the media and the political classes-isn’t it awful how apathetic people are about the elections-misses the point. For real democracy, people need power over their own lives, not just a largely symbolic drop-in-a-bucket choice of who gets to call the shots-and that’s if you’re lucky enough to live in a marginal seat.
The most radical ideological current in Cameron’s big tent, so-called ‘Red Tories’, is full of deliberately obfuscated, incoherent nonsense. A Cameron government would put more power into the hands of private capital, leave the needy at the mercy of charity, and make Britain more like Belize.
Nor am I suggesting PR as a silver bullet. The problem, as I see it, is much deeper: the extremely narrow definition of democracy, of participation in politics, as merely the election every few years of an MP. The consumer-choice model of democracy tends to encourage the same behaviour from political parties as from corporations: marketing, branding, advertising and other forms of mendacity, which in turn generate cynicism and a distaste for the political system – a deserved distaste.
Honesty and principle are punished; the scum rise to the top. The expenses scandal was just the straw that broke the camel’s back. Ordinary people don’t like politicians, don’t trust them, don’t respect them. Nor should they. It is no wonder the Tories are led by a PR man.
To get closer to real democracy, we need a radical rethinking of our democratic systems. Devolution of decision-making to the lowest possible level is a prerequisite of real democracy. But in a large, complex society like ours, constant plebiscites would be impractical, so we still need some kind of representation.
The problem is election itself. Perhaps surprisingly, elections were not originally a central feature of democracy.
In ancient Athens, most positions were filled by random selection, the drawing of lots, like jury duty today: if selected, it would be a citizen’s duty to take on that role for a standard length of time.
Stephen Shalom goes into some detail on possible mechanisms in his contribution to a larger discussion on participatory society at the Reimagining Society Project; it’s well worth reading.
Of course, these kind of changes would mean a complete reinvention of the idea of what it means to be a citizen: a much greater responsibility, a demand on our time. But democracy requires active citizens, and a culture that fosters such citizenry.
I can’t help but look back with admiration on a society that-for all its faults-coined the word ‘idiot’ to mean someone who does not participate. Unlike us: we leave our politics to a bunch of idiots.
Compass polls members on Hung Parliament and tactical voting
The left-wing campaign group Compass has tonight sent out an email to its members polling them on whether the organisation should endorse tactical voting in the election.
This move, the first for a left-wing campaign group that was very aligned with Labour, should be applauded.
Firstly, because it is an explicit recognition that New Labour isn’t the only party that can represent progressives.
Secondly, it is in recognition that the political landscape has changed and the Labour party isn’t the only vehicle for change in this country for lefties.
Let’s be clear: Compass are not abandoning the Labour party. But, like the New Statesman, this is an acceptance that right now seeing real-change in our country is more likely to come via a Hung Parliament than simply praying for a Labour victory.
In my view the chances of seeing an outright electoral victory is, according to the polls, now looking impossible. We must start looking at other options.
As a Compass member I’m fully behind this initiative.
The email send to members
Dear Compass member
The Management Committee has decided to ballot the Compass membership on whether or not the organisation should devise a short statement in support of tactical voting in the upcoming general election in order to help stop the Tories from winning. Please vote in this important ballot.
Something seismic could be happening in British politics which reflects the Compass view of a more pluralistic and tolerant progressive democracy. However, while Compass is not affiliated to the Labour Party many Compass members are also members and supporters of Labour.
So should Compass actively promote this new politics by arguing for tactical voting – and calling on people to back the best placed progressive candidate to stop the Conservative candidate and deprive the Conservatives of victory at the general election?
We believe on such a fundamental decision that ultimately it must be you who decides whether or not as an organisation we back tactical voting. Those that preach a new politics must practice a new politics – that’s why your involvement in this decision is so important.
Please find attached a ballot form with the question asking you whether or not Compass should issue a statement endorsing and giving support to tactical voting. If the membership vote ‘yes’ in the ballot, the committee will then devise and issue a short statement that outlines the case for full-scale tactical voting in the forthcoming general election.
In addition we will provide members, supporters and others with a range of information to help them decide how to use their vote to greatest effect. However whilst we will provide information, we will not be specifying how people should vote in certain seats.
As the UK’s most influential centre-left pressure group, with over 30,000 members and supporters across the country, we believe it is absolutely crucial we use all of our influence, to do all we can to stop David Cameron’s same old Tories from winning this general election.
One key factor that would potentially ensure he is not elected Prime Minister is if we can encourage widespread and effective tactical voting. That is why this issue is so important for the future of progressive politics and why we are asking the question.
I urge you to vote now in this ballot and have your say. Whatever the outcome we will respect your wishes – it is ultimately your choice and we will not tell you how you should vote.
Please spend less than 5 minutes of your time to take part. Thank you for your valuable time and involvement.
Watch: A BBC out-take on David Camewrong
Another spoof doingt the rounds… enjoy!
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or RSS feed. You can also get them by email and through our Facebook group.
» The real agenda behind Telegraph’s abortion investigation
» How Scotland Yard monitors prying bloggers and journalists
» When disabled people want to work – employers can hold the back
» Revealed: the reality behind Workfare and why it doesn’t work
» Job snob? No, I’ve got the T-shirt
» Why country-by-country reporting matters to our wellbeing
» If Unions want to become stronger, they need to modernise
» Why work “reforms” in Spain are a warning for workers across Europe
» Five things you need to know about the NHS bill
» Bigger. Fatter. Gypsier. More Racist.
» Laziness levels in Britain getting lazier, wails government
|
62 Comments 15 Comments 23 Comments 8 Comments 24 Comments 16 Comments 16 Comments 83 Comments 203 Comments 85 Comments |
|
LATEST COMMENTS » Shatterface posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Cylux posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » pagar posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » pjt posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » nothingspecial posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? » Chaise Guevara posted on How Scotland Yard monitors prying bloggers and journalists » Patron Press - #P2 posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? » karl meyer posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? » BevR posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? » bob woods posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? » Alex Young posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? » malcolm posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? » BevR posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? » pjt posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » thesmallwhitebear posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? |
