The Worst Year For Politics Since Last Year

Yes, Really...

It’s funny how, as the years go by, the reputation of politics continues to decline. Year after year of disaster on top of another has that effect, I suppose.

But this year really did take the biscuit. The obvious thing has been the long-running expenses saga, which now threatens to become an annual event unless Parliamentarians really get to grips with the matter.

The problem about it this time is that it wasn’t the huge fiddles – like “flipping” the designation of your primary residence to avoid capital gains tax on taxpayer subsidised houses – that caught the imagination.

Unfortunately, it was the little ones. The hob nobs. The trouser presses. And yes, none other than the famous duck house.

All of this changed the way we view politics and political behaviour. We’re more cynical now than ever of the motives of anyone who wants to engage in the process. In many ways, it wasn’t the greed that did it. It was the fact that many of the headlines could never have been imagined in even the dreams of the most imaginative satirist. Allow me to illustrate.

“Politicians are corrupt, manipulative, lying bastards” – completely unshocking. Film at 11.

“Politicians are such grasping, cheating shits that they claim for poppy wreaths, 88p bath plugs, moats, bell towers, domestic servants, duck houses, packets of biscuits, presents for relatives, and even porn” – SHOCKER!!

You see? It’s the specificity that does it. Those little details are like the tiniest brushstrokes that mean nothing at close view, but there are so many of them, and once you step back you see they spell the words, “YOU’VE BEEN HAD”.

This extremely damaging bandwagon started with the merest snowflake and turned into an avalanche. Drip drip news is always more dangerous than the big exposé with no follow-up.

And the sad part is that this one still has a long way to go. 2009 will remain in the memory for a very long time for how it started the “cleansing” of the system. It will continue to reverberate into 2010 because of the impact of the forthcoming general election, which will provide a chance to the public to sweep this sorry lot under the carpet. Whether it carries on beyond that is down to the politicians themselves, but if it does, expect the negativity to sink to new, unrecoverable lows.

2009 simply has to be the worst year for politics ever. And there have been some bad ones lately.

Personally, I don’t think it can take any more. This has to be the last one. It has to be the absolute bottom of the trend, or we really will be calling on Simon Cowell to save the day.

Fingers crossed for a better 2010.

The Rise Of China

That's what a Chinese "recession" looks like. The rest of the world looks on in envy...

Events of the past few days have showed just how much China is enjoying its new status as world economic powerhouse.

I was watching an interview the other day with a guy known as the BBC’s China Editor. I’m not sure what that job involves, but either way, he seemed to know what he was talking about. He told the interviewer that the Chinese have an extraordinarily long memory regarding the British, and our legendary imperalism in the Far East.

One of the things they enjoy sticking to us the most is the ancient Opium Wars from the late 19th Century. That’s quite a grudge, one has to say, but it’s a free world.

And memories of the British continually smuggling opium into China in spite of it being illegal there are what lingered in the mind, according to this guy, when the Chinese decided to execute Akmal Shaikh for a similar crime.

To me, it just goes to show the futility of awarding the Olympic Games to China. Their human rights record was and continues to be a disgrace. Why should they have been awarded the Games in the hope that it would give them the impetus to sign up to our version of human rights? That’s a mad equation.

And yes, I appreciate I probably sit here in Chinese-made clothes, typing on a computer made of Chinese components, but that is the hypocrisy of Western existence, alas.

Either way, I get a sense that they really enjoyed our predicament. Fancy the old Imperial enemy coming to you and begging you to show leniency. Over a matter of life and death, which inexorably will end with you showing your brutal strength and killing them anyway. And, even better, you get to sit atop the high horse and enjoy a feeling of superiority.

It shows two things: the weakness of Britain on our own against the Chinese (yet another argument for being part of the EU) and the fact that we are now totally dependent on the power of China.

It’s going to lead to a very different world in the future, but the effects can already be seen now. The global economy is entirely centred on the ability of China to produce goods extremely cheaply. The American economy is utterly dependent on it.

The key problem above all else, though, is that it’s not in Britain’s interests to pursue this any further. There have been the usual diplomatic manoeuvres, summoning the Chinese ambassador, etc… but will we really hear any more about it after today?

Of course not. Realpolitik is the name of the game on the international stage. There is too much at stake to jeopardise our relationship with China.

Perhaps the days of appeasement are on the way back…

KitKat Time

I'd be disappointed if I found one of these in my Christmas stocking. Damn Nestlé baby killers!

After scouring for political inspiration this morning, it has dawned upon me that the boredom of British politics is continuing. More stories about bonuses, expenses, Iraq and, of course, the mildly bad weather which has dominated the news cycle for days.

In fact, the last story has really pissed me off so much that I think it’s time that the rolling news channels invented a way of distinguishing levels of their favourite BREAKING NEWS.

After all, one day the BREAKING NEWS is going to be justified. It will be the death of the Queen. Or a major politician. Or some seriously big resignation, or critical court judgement. A Category 1 Breaking News Event, reserved for truly special once-in-a-blue-moon events; you know, the kind of things that used to result in a “We interrupt this programme to bring you…” news special. Only that would justify the serious RED colours used by both Sky and BBC News 24. And yes, it will always be News 24 to me.

Because, I’m afraid, a breaking news strap to tell me that Liverpool John Lennon Airport has closed due to snow just does not cut the mustard. Minor travel news, of interest to a handful of people, should get a Category 5, and a nice blue colour.

It makes perfect sense to me. But then, I am one of life’s organisers. I like putting things into order and making things as efficient as possible. I suspect a latent, undiagnosed form of autism.

But anyway, all this lack of anything new or interesting is a perfect moment for me to call a halt for the Christmas holidays. I suspect things won’t be much better on my return anyway, because most of the top political journalists (if you can call them that) are taking a much longer break. Like it or not, the vast majority of us bloggers are totally reliant on the media. Only the elite get to break their own news. And probably only the elite get to make money out of blogging. The bastards.

So, I think I’ll declare a cease-fire until early next week. The only thing that might bring me out of temporary retirement would be a Category 1. Or maybe a Category 2. Neither of these includes the current spoiler story about what the Queen’s Christmas Message is going to be, currently boring me to tears on News 24. Just how far have you fallen, Nicholas Witchell?

Happy Christmas to all my miniscule band of loyal readers. And the same too to all you crazy people who arrive on my blog looking for pictures of fireworks. Hint: you will find it here. By the way, it’s the worst thing I’ve ever written, and yet it’s the most read page every day. There’s no accounting for taste.

Until next time…

Newsfelch: 23/12/09 – The Futility Of Wisdom

Christmas approaches. Serious journalism, if it’s not already dead, disappears in a lather of mince pies and cooking sherry. The interns take over the office, desperate to impress their bosses as to their work ethic.

The world keeps turning…

• John Hutton warned us that Gordon Brown was going to be a “fucking disaster” after all. Only now he’s changed his mind. Film at 11. How very convenient for a man who is retiring as an MP and has gainful employment already lined up.
• Universities are going to bear a large swathe of the cuts in this country. This is only the first step. A politician’s mind: cut things to the people who a) don’t vote and b) no one else cares about. It’s a win-win situation!
• Will Cameron throw one of his largest donors to the lions?
• The Tories are getting excited about marriage again. I have a feeling we’re going to have one of those Back To The Future elections.
• Talking of the election, it sounds like it’s going to be held over two days. Great news for us politico geeks. Not so good for the people who have to cover it. I wonder what David Dimbleby’s drug of choice will be this time? Whatever gets you through the night. And the day.
• But we know for sure that Dimbleby, Boulton, Robinson et al won’t be using any of these…
• Meanwhile, back in Parliament, The Times’ Ann Treneman is moaning about John Bercow’s propensity to speak his mind on issues of reform. Christ. You pundits can’t have it both ways. Or maybe the media just wants more and more stories on MPs expenses. Yes, that’s it…
• From across the Pond, Larry Sabato tries to tell us that election debates are a waste of time. Tell that to the Obama team; in my humble opinion, and many others, they were what sealed the deal for him.
• A remarkably biased article. The headline tells us, in a sneering way, that public sector workers are expecting a wage rise of 2% next year. But why does it not mention that private sector workers are after a 3% rise?
• The Telegraph is most excited about the overprivileged, totally undeserving members of our idiotic Royal Family, and how marvellous it is that every now and then they grace us with their presence and learn how bad life is for some people. I find it hard to believe, though, that Prince William wasn’t under armed guard during his night “sleeping rough”. Imagine the uproar if something had gone wrong…

And finally, one for the road. Remember this piece of genius from Rory Bremner in 2005?

Back tomorrow with more fun and games. If you can stand it…

Back In The US(S)A

Death panels? Sounds like something you get from IKEA...

Because British politics is boring me again – I’ll believe the leaders debate when I see it – it’s time to look at what’s going on in the States…

Recent developments have resulted in the Senate’s leadership managing to give just enough bribes and throw enough of the progressive parts of the legislation into the fire to assure themselves of passage. Having greased the wheels with pork fat, the Democrats now have the 60 votes necessary to break the endless Republican filibuster.

This is good news. While the legislation is an utter dog’s breakfast, it is a step in the right direction. The legislative sausage-making process usually highlights the extreme division between incrementalists and revolutionists. I generally count myself in the latter camp – incremental change is invariably used as an excuse to never reach the goal – but as far as the USA is concerned, there is no such thing as revolution in legislative terms.

The main reason being, of course, the nature of the US Constitution. A constitution I’m a big fan of, except for the obvious bits us lefties hate. Damn you, Second Amendment!

The whole point of the American system is to slow change to an utterly glacial level. Some argue the most radical reforms have come as a result of judicial decisions, and that would be fair comment. And in recent years, the pace has slowed even further due to the extreme lengths Republicans in the minority in the Senate are using the power of the filibuster. The filibuster, which is of debatable constitutionality, and is now the normal order of business, even though that was never its intended purpose.

So getting anything through Congress, in the face of Republican opposition which has sullied the level of the debate to new lows: socialism, death panels, enormous deficits (despite them being created by Bush), is a major achievement. A Republican opposition which chose from the outset to do its best to destroy the healthcare reform agenda rather than engage in a debate the country desperately needs to have.

The worry to liberals like me, however, is that this is probably as good as it’s going to get. And this is why Obama should have engaged harder in this process. He has to appreciate that this is very likely to be his high water mark in terms of the support he’s going to get from Congress. It’s all downhill from here, and by the end of his second term (let’s stay hopeful) he’ll very likely be dealing with a Republican Congress, more right-wing than ever.

What next, then? Well, the hope of progressives has always been that the Senate and the House would come to a compromise between their bills, one very centrist, the other a bit more radical, though still very mild. That isn’t going to happen. The Senate will not accept more than a minor tinker to their version. And the Progressive caucus in the House will give up their pretend opposition to more gifts to the insurance industry, as they always do.

So America will get some healthcare reform. This is very good progress. But there will be no appetite for reopening the issue any time soon.

And meanwhile, other issues will return. Climate change. More stimulus. Immigration reform. More opportunities for the Senate to delay and destroy the only chance America has for genuine reform in the next decade.

Methinks Obama really missed the boat here…

Rating Public Services: Who Benefits?

Now this is the kind of report card I can believe in!

There is something about every aspect of life these days that makes me wanna tell the world what I think about it.

It’s hard to escape it. I wouldn’t be a blogger otherwise. It is the very motivation for thinking people want to hear my tedious opinions.

All around us are constant requests for our feedback and our reviews. Most e-commerce websites would be lost without them. Who hasn’t bought a certain product over another on the strength of a better star rating, or a more favourable set of reviews? And who hasn’t experienced the trepidation of being the first one to buy a product that has the ever-worrying “no rating”?

To join in with this circus of opining, the government has its own collection of report cards, including councils, schools and hospitals.

Only, there is an important difference.

Capitalism is all about choice. In the perfect market, the consumer has complete, accurate information on all available products, and all competing products are doing so on a fair basis, allowing new entrants to join in the party with no barriers.

No market is perfect, of course, but we do our best, and review systems, enhanced by the power of the internet, are a useful tool for allowing the consumer to make an informed choice. By and large, they work. Of course, they can be manipulated by savvy PR activity, but for our purposes, they help more than they hinder.

Public services, however, are not about choice. It is not possible to subscribe to a different council for their services. For the most part, nobody really cares about which hospital they’re going to when they’re having a heart attack. And even for less urgent treatment, people want their nearest hospital; and in any event, competition in public services leads to needless, expensive duplication.

The public service ethic is not about competition. But that has been the goal of successive governments for decades. The hope being that making schools and hospitals battle for “customers” (you’ve got to laugh) will encourage them to work harder and provide a better service to people.

To try to complete this market, the government has done its best to tell us how likely you are to die if you visit a certain hospital. Or how likely we are to get MRSA or whatever nasty bug is in vogue this year. Some of these initiatives have worked in the sense that they shame services into improving. But that’s not the same as competition.

None of these exercises are of any real value to the taxpayer.

So it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the Labour government is going to do some more…

We’re now going to be told, by government assessment, whether our area has a good rating for “civic activism”. And if we really do like our neighbours around here.

Absolute nonsense, of course, but you can already hear estate agents throughout the land winding up their bullshit machines. This desirable three-bedroomed semi-detached house has a superb sense of neighbourly belonging, with a 76% recycling rate and zero hypodermic syringes per average square hectare.

Hmm. As with all “choice” in public services, who do you think really benefits?

The poor? The ones who need it most?

Or the affluent middle-class?

Hold on, I’m hearing some breaking news about an incident involving a bear in a woods. Back tomorrow…

Fairy Tale Of Copenhagen

No We Can't

Last night’s so-called deal at the climate change summit has, unsurprisingly, kicked cynics like me into action.

Because, yes… the hot air of the past two weeks seems to have been a phenomenal waste of time. At the end of it, we have a silly little piece of paper, with no legally-binding agreement, and mere platitudes about what we would like to do.

It’s very easy to say we are all committed to stopping climate change. I’m also committed to personally delivering peace in the Middle East.

Of course, neither of these are going to happen, unless I suddenly discover a hidden talent for Hebrew and Arabic.

Every time these crunch meetings come around, we get nothing more than words, most of which are merely an agreement to keep on talking. The agreement assures us that there will be more talks in 2010, and so the date before we get real action gets pushed further back.

That is another year wasted. Another year in which nobody does anything. Just like the concept of mutually assured destruction, arms races inevitably are all about who blinks first. We are witnessing the usual problem of collective action: everybody waits for everyone else to do act, the result being nobody acts at all.

Nobody wants to be the first country to say that they will unilaterally “disarm” themselves of carbon-producing industries. That is tantamount to economic suicide. Green growth will only occur if there is the demand for it, and that will only happen if everyone makes the switch together.

But the fact of the matter is that we find ourselves totally unable to wean ourselves off our addiction to fossil fuels and CO2 producing activities. We have all got lazy as we’ve got older. Convenience comes at a cost in CO2. Even if, by some miracle, the world’s nations did manage to agree drastic, legally binding cuts in CO2, it will take many more decades to change behaviour gradually – which is arguably the only method that will work.

We don’t have decades. We could pass laws tomorrow limiting car use to one hour per day. We could stop all flights. We could phase out all food imports coming from afar.

The problem with such overnight changes is that they’re totally unacceptable, both politically and practically. They will never be sold to the public. And yet, because we’ve left this all too late, and because change to bring emissions down is so slow, radical actions are all we’re going to be able to do if we’re to avert this disaster.

This is why the whole Copenhagen outcome is a fairy tale. There is no solution any more. If we were doing this 30 years ago, then maybe a glacial pace of change would be acceptable. But it isn’t.

But we have to do something. Chances are we are going to bequeath an environmental disaster to future generations, but if we manage to reduce it, even by a tiny fraction, that has to be some progress. They’ll still hate our guts, but maybe not quite so much. Still, we’ll be deep in the cold, cold ground by then.

It’s all a question, therefore, if we care enough about things that arguably don’t matter to us personally, and whether we’re prepared to take the hit now for people in the future, who don’t yet exist, and may never exist.

That’s a pretty abstract argument. But it’s half the problem why we’re making no progress on solving the climate change problem. It’s impossible to make this into something relevant and pressing on everyone’s individual lives in the here and now.

And frankly, I don’t think enough people care.

Selling Counter-culture; The Revolution Will Be Televised

Make Your Own Counter-Cultural Kid, by Freya Harrison

Forgive me a moment, while I don my Victor Meldrew cap.

If there’s anything about modern society that fascinates me, it is the power of commerce, branding and identity-based values to sell the counter-culture. I was about to make some crass remark about it all starting with the punk movement in the 70s, but who knows it may be older than that…

It is remarkable how susceptible we humans are to uncritical thinking. And I don’t exclude myself from this. There are many of us who believe we are swimming against the flow. That we are independent, and stand out from the crowd.

Witness the glory that is the branding of Apple. Once a failing company, with shit computers no one used, now global empire worth billions of dollars, shifting vast numbers of its cool merchandise. Apple used to be the domain of the geeks alone. Now it is the brand of the decade. Hip, up-to-date, professional, sleek. And best of all, you pay way over the odds for the same product you can get anywhere else just to be part of it!

So far so boring. That is (allegedly) free will, and so what is the problem?

The problem is that many people believe that in buying into this, they are staking a claim for their independence; that suddenly they are no longer buying the crap in the mass market. This is certainly true for Apple’s, “Get a Mac” campaign, which is sneering, pretentious and utterly up its own arse. Hey you, stand out from the crowd and not line Bill Gates pockets any more! Just line ours instead!

To me, it would work if it wasn’t mega corporations pushing it. If it was a tiny little computer shop (hint hint), pushing its own distinctive products, then yeah, a little more convincing. But even so, every business/organisation attempts the same thing with marketing: to try to go straight past the thinking part of your brain and access your emotions, where totally irrational connections and decisions are made.

And so, we now turn to today.

This week there has been a major campaign to stop the X Factor from taking the Christmas Number 1 spot again. The campaign has mostly revolved around several Facebook groups, with many hundreds of thousands of members, pledging to buy what is probably one of the world’s worst songs, Killing In The Name.

Good for them. Except…

Killing In The Name is by a band called Rage Against The Machine. Isn’t it obvious where this is going?

Rage Against The Machine. Signed to Epic Records. Owned by… Sony Music Entertainment.

Guess what else Sony Music Entertainment has an interest in. Would you credit it, it’s only Syco Music, run by none other than Mr Simon “X Factor” Cowell himself.

A counter-culture band, with a name that is so obviously fraudulent, sold by a mega corporation. Meanwhile, a TV show and record label, run by the same people. In a major battle on the airwaves and in the newsprint. Only one winner there.

The cynical side of me starts to wonder: why was Killing In The Name chosen? Could this whole campaign have actually been orchestrated by Sony itself?

And so there you have it. Hundreds of thousands of people thinking they’re doing something to put one over their masters and overlords. A people’s revolution!

Only it isn’t. At best, the fools went to battle using guns made by the very people they’re fighting. At worst, they have all been suckered into one of the biggest PR exercises the country has ever seen.

This triumph of capitalism can be summed up in one sentence: corporations have you whether you’re with them or against them: you either sell out to them, or sell out to them without realising it, and revel in your mass-produced individuality.

Which is worse?

Beaten By Mugabe? Oxford East Lib Dems Celebrate!

Peter Tatchell after Mugabe's thugs had their say...

Now that’s such a mean title…

But the last part is definitely true.

The news yesterday that Peter Tatchell will not be standing for the Greens at the next election in the seat of Oxford East will, I’m sure, have raised a wee cheer at Lib Dem Towers in Cowley Street.

Tatchell says his reasons for not standing are related to a beating he was given by Mugabe’s thugs several years ago, which has left him with long-term effects. That is very sad, of course, and I wish him all the best.

But, wearing my partisan hat, I believe this is good news for the Lib Dems. Oxford East is a squeaky Labour-Lib Dem marginal, which Labour just about kept hold of last time with a majority of of just 963. Boundary changes since then have, according to Anthony Wells of UK Polling Report, made this even more favourable to the Yellow Peril.

There is, in my mind, no doubt that a strong Green campaign in this seat would have affected the result next time. After all, in 2005 the Green candidate got 1,813 votes – twice the majority. It’s not a huge leap of imagination to suggest that if those 1,813 people were asked to recast their ballot in mind of what the result was going to be that many of them may have shifted over to the Lib Dems, particularly given the position of the parties on Iraq and top-up fees, which were massive issues in seats like this one.

Next time, Peter Tatchell’s mere presence, never mind his formidable campaigning skills, would have given the Greens a bigger profile. Maybe he was even standing as a spoiler to the Lib Dems chances. After all, he’ll probably never forget that by-election in a hurry.

But now he’s gone. And this, if you’ll pardon the historical pun, will be yet another straight choice for the people of Oxford East.

In the balance of things, it is a seat that the Lib Dems should obviously win against a failing Labour government. Nick Clegg will surely visit the constituency. He probably hopes all of the marginal battles were like this one. And it should be enough. If they cannot win a seat like this, then it will be an extremely bad night: and a seat total of 30-40 would be expected.

Winning this seat, and seats like it, are part of the calculation for the Lib Dems to make up the ground that may well be lost in LD-Con marginals, where the temptation of voting for David Cameron will just be too great for the locals, fools that they are.

The only unknown. Will Labour take my advice and try to rally the core vote?

If they did, this is the kind of seat (believe it or not) where it might just work…

What Price Democracy?

Well, it inspires me...

The news this morning that Zac Goldsmith has spent £260,000 of his own fortune on the battle to become the MP for Richmond makes me feel a little uneasy.

We have never had a serious issue with money dominating British politics. Central party financing of campaigns, and spending limits during the election have always made sure that no one individual has been required to raise vast sums of money personally to fund a campaign. That’s in direct contrast to the USA, where it really helps to be vastly wealthy to fund your own election; or get serious cash from lobbyists.

But now, with common sense out the window, it seems everyone will do anything if it isn’t illegal. And even then it’s worth testing out the limits of the law. See Tony Blair and peerages. Oh, and MPs and their expenses.

Democracy isn’t cheap. Everyone knows that. It costs money to get your message across, though savvy campaigns are extremely good at using their contacts and letter-writing skills to create an astroturfed campaign in the letters section of the local paper.

But £260,000?

It’s clear the spirit of the law is being broken. The £12,000 limit only applies when the election has been called. So why bother having such a limit at all when it’s clear you can actually spend whatever the hell you like?

As in most cases, Something Must Be Done. Overall spending limits are sensible, both on a country-wide and constituency basis; maxima that can be spent per calendar year. Fixed term parliaments would help too, as they would enable us to lock down those tighter spending rules much more reliably before an election.

I also like the idea of serious limits on donations, both from individuals and companies. This would choke Labour’s union funding, but it would also curb Lord Ashcroft. And if there are any new Michael Brown’s out there waiting to pour millions into the Lib Dem warchest, well it would just be tough luck.

These would all be good things. Money distorts values and priorities. That much is a given. Michael Brown made it clear that he thought donating money to the Lib Dems would buy him some friends and they would help him through his legal minefield. And, much as the Trade Unions like to moan, they haven’t do too badly out of a Labour government.

Chances are such limits would encourage the growth of “soft money” like in the USA. That would mean pressure groups would also need to be regulated. And we can do this freely, because we don’t have, in this case, the burden of a First Amendment equivalent. Sorry, but this is one “freedom” that gets seriously abused in the name of sham democracy in the USA…

The trade off from all this? It has to be an increased and fairer level of state funding (which, don’t forget, already exists). The current system of “short money” is not great, however, so it should be replaced. A much better idea is allowing each voter to specify, annually, which party they support, who will then receive a fixed amount per registered supporter.

Creeping up around us in British politics is a taint we’re not used to. Money talks, and its influence is becoming more and more noticeable. It’s time we got serious about tackling it.