Politics and the Poppy…. November 8, 2009
Posted by darrellgoodliffe in Uncategorized.Tags: Afghanistan, Guardian, Independent On Sunday, Opinion, Politics, War
1 comment so far
Today’s Observer has a short, pithy and trite editorial arguing that;
There is, in that confluence of past and present, a danger that grief is itself politicised. The act of remembrance is easily subverted to patriotic pageantry or attacks on government policy.
It must be neither.
So, quite clearly a side-swipe at the Independent on Sunday which has chosen to mark the occasion by calling for a phased withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan. The Observer is totally wrong; war is a political act, initiated by politicians towards political ends. Thus, the notion that somehow political debate becomes ‘off-limits’ on an occasion like Remembrance Sunday is repugnant and antithetical to the very notion of democracy. Rather than blurring minds it should focus them on the very human cost of political decisions and provides politicians with immunity from the consequences of their decisions.
Nobody wishes to disparage the sacrifices made but it is denying debate which is the height of disparagement; it is denial of that democratic right under the veil of ‘respect’ that is most disrespectful to those remembered. We should remember and honour all those who gave their lives in World War I for example, and also remember that they did so to defend vested imperial interests and the freedom of one empire to squash another. We should remember that and say never again should lives be given away so cheaply and for so little.
So, turning to the situation in Afghanistan we have to ask this; who seriously in their right mind cannot see that once again lives are being chucked needlessly away ostensibly for ‘freedom’ or ’security’ but in reality in the service of another, quasi-imperial ideal, that we possess the divine right to order this world as we see fit. The arrogant belief that we can and should do this; and that somehow it will solve problems like Al-Quaeda when all the evidence points in the reverse direction. The public sees this quite clearly but in our democracy the Defence Secretary; the peoples representative tells them this doesn’t matter.
Representatives of the Liberal Democrats say that if the public was better informed they would fall in-line. However, the BBC poll on the subject says 52% say they are well-informed which doesn’t bode well for that line of argument. Tellingly, 52% say that the war is not worth fighting; they are right and they, not the Observer are the ones who have remembered and learnt….
A view from the other side…. November 5, 2009
Posted by darrellgoodliffe in Uncategorized.Tags: Bin Strike, Interview, Leeds
3 comments
I was lucky enough to be able to speak to one of the GMB’s Branch Secretary’s in Leeds, Steve Terrington, this morning regarding the ongoing dispute with the council between it and refuse collection workers. Firstly, Steve made a point that I would think is relevant to any industrial dispute; that nobody wants to go on strike and that the last thing that the strikers want is for the public to suffer due to the action;
“Nobody ever wants to strike. We are residents of Leeds and we all want Leeds clean and tidy. We don’t want people to get ill; that is not our intention.”
However, the strike was a last resort as people looked to defend their pay and living standards. Responding to the point that the current deal does not expire for 18 months Steve said that this issue needed to be resolved now as the proposed cut in wages was so drastic that it would mean people having to sell homes, cars etc. Also, for those coming-up to retirement it would effect their pensions.
I raised some specific points put by the council and opponents of the strike regarding productivity and sickness. Currently the council wants the bin men to achieve a target of 220 bins per hour (from the current 196) but the reason this was not felt practicable was that properties have side-avenues and different areas presented differing challenges (eg, terraced housing).
He challenged the council to produce the figures on which they based the claim that this was a standard efficiency level for the area. Other figures for major cities include; Bristol 200; Manchester 202; Liverpool 175; Sheffield 200 and Newcastle at 200. Speaking from first-hand experience I can attest to this because rubbish has no bin and has to be left down the side of my own house. At my last address I also had no bin and bins were frequently ’shared’ between households. So, it is certainly true that this issue is not as cut-and-dry as the council make it out to be; regarding the issue of bin men leaving early, ‘frequently before lunchtime’, Steve said this masks the fact that starts can be as early as 5.30 and regarding improper collection he urged anybody whose bin was left in the wrong place to report it but mentioned that this could be agency staff as they are “normally employed to cover sickness”.
Turning to the issue of sickness he pointed out that the 30-day figure bandied about was an average and that those with serious health problems would increase this average. At the end of the day, he argued this was management’s responsibility to manage and that this was not happening at the moment; for example, return to work interviews were not happening promptly. Furthermore, those who were long-term sick were not seen by management nor any issues causing this addressed.
Some people have claimed that the rank-and-file have been misled by the union leadership but, pointing to the recent overwhelming rejection of the councils last offer, Steve insisted things were very much the other way round. The rank-and-file is leading and the leadership is offering it’s full support. Similarly, while the Labour Party was supporting the strikers it was not in any way manipulating the rank-and-file. However, the strike has politicised those involved;
People realise the impact politics has on their day-to-day life.
Contrary to the impression generated; levels of public support Steve claimed were high. He cited a recent collection near Meanwood Household Waste Sorting site for the strike fund which raised £4,000. Support came from people “from all walks of life”; 800-1000 cars pass through the area and Steve said that It was nice to see that; “the public was fully aware of the issues”. The level of public support was keeping moral high and the council have been;
“shocked by the determination of the strikers”
He said that he felt that other councils were watching the outcome of the dispute so he felt that the strike was also for other low-paid workers. Overall, I stand-by my sympathy and support for the Leeds bin strikes and continue to wish them well and I hope this piece has illuminated another side to the dispute.
A mixed-bag in America… November 4, 2009
Posted by darrellgoodliffe in Uncategorized.Tags: Barack Obama, Democrats, Opinion, Republicans, US politics
add a comment
Paul Walter has some good comment on the recent round of American elections which were billed as a verdict on President Obama; mostly it seems by self-interested parties, ignoring the fact that while local elections do sometimes reflect national trends this can be to a greater or lesser degree. How else would those proponents of the ‘damming verdict’ school of thought explain the New York result where the Democrats usurped the Republicans in a seat that the latter have held since the Civil War?
Also, as is pointed out in the New York Times;
Two state governorships, one competitive congressional district and a scattering of mayors’ races, referenda and judicial contests do not constitute a fair national sampling of opinion.
The same article goes onto cite voter apathy amoung Obama’s base; not widespread dissatisfaction as the real cause of the loses. This is naturally going to be a problem for Obama and any politician elected on a tidal-wave of popular enthusiasm from people who traditionally do not vote. Cohereing this kind of voter into a soild core base that will actually turn out and vote for your party on a metaphorical windswept winters night is an entirely different from them being swept up in a one-off movement; especially when the figurehead moves from opposition to incumbent.
Constant activity needs to be replaced with something more and it should worry the Democrats that already commentators are saying;
To cut into a Republican wave in the midterms, the Democrats need to provide a national narrative — a big idea that resonates with both progressives and independents, showing that the entire country is all in it together.
At the moment the Republicans have a strong (even if it is reactionary) narrative that will defiantly motivate their core vote and get it out to vote. The Democrat’s need to energise their support and a vigerous counter-blast against the anti health-care tirade may well be the way to do that….
Cameron locks the Conservatives into Euro-chaos…. November 4, 2009
Posted by darrellgoodliffe in Uncategorized.Tags: Conservatives, David Cameron, Europe, Lisbon Treaty, Opinion
add a comment
Much ado about David Cameron’s speech outlining the new Conservative position on Europe. Of course, the abandonment of a commitment to a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty had been well-trailed. His justification; that the Treaty is now European Law sits uneasily with the rest of his speech which is focused on grand-standing around ’sovereignty’ and ‘renegotiation’. Apparently, there was much cheering from Conservative MP’s when Cameron announced his position and indeed there were favourable tweets from the likes of Iain Dale but beneath the surface discontent is already brewing.
Within moments some of Cameron’s claims were unravelling; for example, William Hauge told the BBC’s Radio 4 that repatriating powers was ‘not an easy process’. Meanwhile, Tim Montgomerie on Conservative Home was far from convinced;
There were no meaningful threats to Europe if there is no serious willingness to renegotiate.
Just how does David Cameron intend to win the necessary agreement of all 27 member states for the repatriation of powers from the political fringes of his new political grouping? Cameron failed to explain all this; which is probably confirmation if any was needed that what this speech was really about was, as Montgomerie put it, an ‘attempt to kick Europe into the long grass’. If you look at the actual policies then they are mostly unworkable, impracticable and crucially, unlikely to ever manifest. For example, Cameron started his speech by saying the refrendum would not happen because;
We cannot hold a referendum and magically make those posts – or the Lisbon Treaty itself – disappear, any more than we could hold a referendum to stop the sun rising in the morning.
But later he says he is in favour of;
limiting the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over criminal law to its *pre-Lisbon level*, and ensuring that only British authorities can initiate criminal investigations in Britain (my emphasis).
So, David how exactly does that work out? For the moment Dave will carry the day but later on in the life of the next Conservative government, as the contradictions in Cameron’s policy unravel, the real rebellion will begin and then the Conservative government will inflict it’s own isolation on this country.
UPDATE: Seems like a minor rebellion has already begun with David Cameron’s bête noir, Daniel Hannan leading the rebels charge…and possibly putting himself in the frame for a future (post-election) leadership bid….
What is radical politics? November 4, 2009
Posted by darrellgoodliffe in Uncategorized.Tags: Labour, Opinion, Progressive politics, The Left
1 comment so far
Interesting piece on this on the Compass website written by John Pugh. It forms part of what will no doubt (as soon as Labour shuffle out of office) by wider soul-searching on the left; something that will usher in a very starkly right-wing Conservative government (perhaps more right-wing than its own leadership would like). Pugh survey’s thirty people on the ‘left’ and rather glibly concludes that things are ‘up-for-grabs’ in the current atmosphere of financial and certainly in Britain established political crisis.
Some of his contributors argued that part of the problem was that ‘radical politics’ was far to diffuse a term; too fragmented, as if this has not always been the case for most of history. It is certainly always been the case that the flag of ‘progressive’ and radical critiques of politics and society has always been one whose ownership is hotly disputed. I think I can agree with;
some contributors think radical politics today does not have support from broad sections of society.
and feel that it contributes to the aforementioned fragmentation which all flows from;
most solutions to the present crisis coming from society will push us further into debt, since they generally rely on returning to the status quo, guaranteeing the availability of limitless credit. Yet as some point out, radicals on the Left have not developed a grand counter-vision to this. A truly radical politics – which curtails exploitative attitudes – is lacking.
It was right to save the current system and avoid the wide scale social misery the complete collapse of the banking sector would have caused. However, the challenge is now to move beyond that and not return to the ‘good times’ because as we know full-well they will end; the system is fundamentally flawed. Weak radical politics is actually bad for politics as a whole and it leads to apathy and politics becoming ‘boring’ in the eyes of some.
Some in Pugh’s survey argue that this fragmentation is a source of strength but in terms of the impact the diffuse movements he cites make it is clear that lacking a unifying vision limits that impact. He talks of the need for a wider dialogue between the diffuse movements;
Some think that today’s radicals do not work hard enough at reaching out to different parts of society, at bridging the gaps; that they are not seriously committed to their radical causes. The modern protest – such as Live8 and Make Poverty History – is sometimes seen as illustrating this. At these protests people meet up with their friends for the day, listen to Bob Geldof or Bono talk about poverty, and express their personal outrage at the world. But when it comes to actually working collectively for instrumental change, rolling up their sleeves, some contributors to the survey argue that these protestors are much less interested. They are more worried about being seen at the right protest, wearing the right coloured bracelet.
However this leads to a tension;
some contributors note that the stakes of radical politics have changed post-crisis, arguing that radicals on the Left need to seriously re-engage with representational politics, in order to challenge the rising power of the Right and capture the institutions that matter most at this time.
Labour’s spell in opposition and the splitting of what would be considered those committed to progressive/leftist/radical politics party political lines however mirrors the wider fragmentation which leads to the salient observation;
Despite a global crisis, there is no obvious alternative to neo-liberalism for people to mobilise around.
It maybe the ‘lefts time to shine’ but whether it will or not remains an open question.
Labour schism’s over Afghanistan…. November 4, 2009
Posted by darrellgoodliffe in Uncategorized.Tags: Afghanistan, David Cameron, Labour, Nick Clegg, Opinion, PMQ's
2 comments
Congratulations to Kim Howells who has used a piece in The Guardian to argue;
It would be better to bring home the great majority of our fighting men and women and concentrate, instead, on using the money saved to secure our own borders, gather intelligence on terrorist activities inside Britain.
Eric Joyce has quickly followed suit, supporting Howells. Both debunk the myth that our own security is best protected by our continued presence. Meanwhile, David Cameron used his PMQ’s questions about the corruption of Afghan police; not to mention the government which Cameron conspicuously failed to mention. Meanwhile, Nick Clegg has continued to put forward the rather bankrupt idea of a ‘government of national unity’; an idea that does nothing to address corruption (something he has in common with Hamid Karzai) no more fundamental issues as Caron Lindsay rightly points out. Nothing shows the failure of liberal interventionism more than the fact that it has patently failed to deliver anything like a liberal democracy. Karzai himself has pledged to fight corruption in a rather novel way; by not sacking corrupt ministers.
It is dismaying to see opposition begin to emerge with the Labour Party as serious questions are asked (not before time) about this failed intervention. Clegg has failed as an opposition leader in this regard and failed to take heed of public opinion which is being shown time after time to be for withdrawal. He recognised the lack of legitimacy of the Afghan government but not once mentioned more fundamental issues; pretending everything would be ok if the government was more ‘ethnically inclusive’; in doing so he is blinked. In a month when the human cost of war is more in focus than others it is perhaps time that across the parties people started clamouring and pressuring their leaderships to withdraw because the price we pay in Afghanistan is no longer worth paying.
Conservatives and Lisbon; another fine policy mess? November 3, 2009
Posted by darrellgoodliffe in Uncategorized.Tags: Conservatives, David Cameron, Europe, Lisbon Treaty, Opinion
2 comments
It is hardly unexpected that William Hauge has confirmed that David Cameron will tomorrow announce that the Conservatives will not be holding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. No doubt UKIP will be delighted as they hover over all those voters in key Conservative marginal. Cameron will at least be pleased there will no official insurgency from the likes of Conservative Home whose commentary is glowing in its endorsement:
At the end of the day, the manifesto on which David Cameron stands and – I hope – wins the general election next year will quite simply trump anything that a referendum on Lisbon a few weeks later would conclude.
However, few Conservative MP’s (for ideological reasons) and PPC’s (for ideological and practical reasons) are likely to rush to endorse Cameron’s position. Already, Bill Cash has signalled his non-compliance;
Mr Cash said David Cameron has been “very badly advised” in his decision to rule out a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, and added that the reasons given for the decision “just don’t stack up”.
While Cameron will undoubtedly carry the day,in the long-term it is something that will unquestionably be stored in the collective memory of the Conservative right for future reference. Furthermore, Conservative Home is likely to be very disappointed in its hopes for a ‘tough renoegiation’ since the Conservatives, outside the EPP are in no position to renegotiate pretty much anything so while opposition from that quarter is currently muted expect some more to arise. Indeed, the article states;
Indeed, I think it doubtful whether a Conservative Prime Minister not seeking such a renegotiation would last even a full term. Spilts within the Party would be huge.
This is not Cameron’s much-anticipated Clause IV moment; in fact, in contrast to Tony Blair who won the day on Clause IV by not compromising Cameron is a Hugh Gaitskell figure; trapped in the contradictions of his own efforts to compromise and unable, precisely because of that compromise to win a complete victory.
Cameron’s policy headaches…. November 3, 2009
Posted by darrellgoodliffe in Uncategorized.Tags: Conservatives, David Cameron, Health Spending, Lisbon Treaty, NHS, Opinion, Policy
add a comment
It is easy to ridicule the Conservatives for being ‘policy-lite’ but when they do announce something substantive it is actually very clear why they avoid saying too much. Let’s look at the much-vaunted health announcements yesterday as reported in The Times; Cameron ‘guaranteed’ £1.5 billion worth of savings from cutting ‘bureaucracy’. However, in the next breath he promised the creation of a new ‘independent’ body to run health and a ‘re branded’ almost Orwellian sounding ‘Department for Public Health’. Oh and ‘targets’ will be replaced by ‘outcomes’ in a ‘radical’ policy shift that threatens to give semantic juggling masquerading as an idea a bad name.
So, Cameron’s plan to cut bureaucracy and bring-in ‘patient power’ is to create a new bureaucracy which, seemingly, is accountable to nobody but itself. Worse still the very real possibility is that such a body will not put patient but commercial interests first; an ideological agenda clearly demonstrated in Cameron’s commitment to ‘competition between providers’. While finding these savings Cameron also promises ‘real-term growth’ in health spending and astonishingly manages to keep a straight-face. Cameron’s agenda for ‘paient power’ actually seems to mean merely increasing access to information;
Under the Tories patients would also have the right to much more information about their local hospitals, which the party says will make doctors accountable to patients rather than to ministers. Hospitals would publish online the success rates of everything from heart transplants to cancer survival rates.
“When patients not only have the power to choose where they get treated, but also the information to make an informed choice, then hospitals and GPs who don’t provide good care will have to raise their game,” Mr Cameron said.
So, no increase in actual control at all then? In fact, patients can look forward to the shifting of control from democratically elected representatives to a new ‘independent’ body. As a representative of the Patients Association, Katherine Murphy, says nothing can really replace the accountability of the ballot box. Andrew Lansley, writing for Conservative Home, insists that Cameron’s health plans demonstrate committment to the founding ideals of the NHS;
Our approach to public services is clear. Real choice and control for patients. Competition between providers. Payment according to the quality of care. Professionals accountable to patients for results.
Lansley has seemingly forgotten the committment to a consistent standard of care regardless of wallet size. Indeed, he seems to have fundamentally re-written the founding principles and invented his own. What a tangle the Conservatives seem to get in when actual concrete policy comes to light….lest we forget the small matter of a certain European Treaty.
Labour’s left struggles with it’s narrative…. November 2, 2009
Posted by darrellgoodliffe in Uncategorized.Tags: Labour, Opinion, Progressive politics
add a comment
Often on this blog the need for a distinctive Liberal Democrat narrative has been argued/discussed. However, if you thought we have problems (and I think we do have) then spare a thought for the Labour left which is conducting it’s post-mortem on the upcoming election seemingly already;
Adaptation to the political mainstream over the last one and a half decades was a strategy that gave short-term electoral success at the price of the long-term viability of social democratic politics. Recent national and European election results prove that this short-term success is over and that the crisis of social democratic politics has reached worrying levels indeed.
I can’t but agree with John Cruddas who writes above for LabourList. However, this isn’t a cause of the problem of social democracy but a symptom. Open Left illustrates this with its ‘Five Questions’;
Economy: Should the Left seek to shape a fundamentally different model of capitalism in the aftermath of the banking crisis and subsequent recession?
Ideology: Should the Left draw more on its social democratic or radical liberal traditions in looking to the future?
Equality: Should the equality that the Left now pursues be more focused on capabilities than just resources
Community: Should the Left seek to foster a shared sense of identity, morality and community, or embrace a diversity in each?
Power: Should the Left be collecting or dispersing democratic and political power in seeking to bring about change?
The first question illustrates the problem perfectly; what made social democracy/socialism distinctive was that it offered a clear alternative to capitalism not that it wanted to offer something slightly better. Even Blairism recognised the core appeal of the vision of a society radically changed in some of it’s syntax. Even in its reformist strands the goal was still clear; a transformation, not adaptation of society. Having lost what is distinctive about it; the left has simply lost its way and it’s narrative constitutes nothing more than a whimper. Really the first question should be this; does the recession show that there are not still fundamental flaws within capitalism that the left should articulate and address?
In terms of ideology it is perhaps time for something of a cross-fertilisation would be advisable with social democracy and liberalism learning from each other (social democracy relearning it’s commitment to liberty and democracy, liberalism learning that economic democracy and equality need to be fought for for liberty to mean anything). The rest of the questions are marked by the core lack of anything alternative to say; views on community, equality and morality stem from that core vision.
Until the left answers that question it’s narrative will remain a whimper…..
Will Clegg now change his position? November 2, 2009
Posted by darrellgoodliffe in Uncategorized.Tags: Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, iNick Clegg, Opinion, Preseidential Elections
6 comments
Afghanistan’s election has collapsed into a complete and utter shambles. Hamid Karzai has been declared the ‘winner’ of a non-contest following the withdrawal of Abdullah Abdullah; Karzai’s only challenger. Abdullah withdrew because;
almost all his demands for changes to the IEC and the suspension of government ministers – which he said would have reduced the risk of major fraud in the next round of voting – were rejected.
Who can blame Abdullah when there were widespread reports that Karzai was already busy trying to fix the second round? No doubt Western leaders will now scramble to endorse the position of Hillary Clinton that Abdullah’s withdrawal does nothing to challenge the legitimacy of the Karzai government. Of course, to most people this will be a completely amazing position; that the candidate who committed widespread fraud not only escapes a run-off but is crowned as the ‘legitimate’ president of Afghanistan. For Western governments Karzai’s coronation seems to be the most expeditious option but I doubt it will turn out that way; now, along with the Taliban and their support you can add the supporters of Abdullah to those alienated from the government. Not only will Taliban propaganda increase in effectiveness but also, in time, the seeds of a another possible rebellion have been sown.
It is not unfair or wrong to say, once again, that every British troop (or any other nationalities) that dies is doing so defending a illegitimate, crooked and corrupt government. So, with this in mind, what will Nick Clegg say? Up to this point he has taken every position possible except the logical and correct one; to call for immediate British withdrawal. However, it is totally legitimate to ask how many ‘last chances’ the Afghan mission and British presence actually gets. It is long past the time when Clegg should have shown some boldness and called for the above (and squarely told Brown that British troops dying for this was wrong) so, we wait for Wednesday’s PMQ’s with interest and in hope more than expectation….
