By Jonathan Sheppard
Last Tuesday I went to bed a normal person. By 6:00am the following morning I had joined a growing band of people who are known as being "victims of crime". Ok so mine was no biggie, but I still feel violated and angry that someone has dared to come on my property and take something of mine. Some little toe rag had entered my car parked two feet from my front door ransacked the boot and glove compartment and swiped my SatNav.
What to do? Well we needed to get to the station to head of to work and 10 minutes later we called the police. My wife was asked her name, ethnic minority, what job she had, and what car we drove amongst other pointless things including our address and we were told someone would be in touch. How naïve of me to expect a visit that evening from all those police we hear are making our streets safer.
Two days later – yes two days later - we get a call from a PC from a police station 20 miles away to finally give us a crime number. They apologise for the delay – but say they are behind in following up on committed crimes – something I'm sure all criminals will be delighted to hear.
We asked if anyone else has had anything broken into or stolen in an attempt to try to determine if it was part of a gang hitting the estate. No we were told. We ask are we likely to hear or see a police representative and are told it's unlikely.
Now at that point I suddenly concluded the police are just a pointless organisation. Is it too much to ask for a uniformed officer to visit someone who is a victim of crime? Funny how they had plenty of time to pull my wife over earlier in the year while driving to the station at 6:00am to breathalise her and then let her go on her way as they thought she may have been speeding. That's easy to do. Visiting a victim of crime and actually trying to solve it seems to be too much trouble.
That would have been the end of it had a neighbour not popped over to tell us the local paper had a small piece about someone else on the street who apparently also had things stolen on the same night.
So we do no less than call the police and ask why when we had asked if anyone else had been victims, had we been told no. First of all we were told there was no record of any other incident. When we point out it is in the local paper we are told that it is up to the public to link crimes. Funny – I really thought a detectives job may have been to detect things. Maybe I was wrong.
So now I am angry and ask for someone to call us back. Hours later a police constable calls and I yet again have to go through the whole story and say how I am pretty disgusted that now 4 days have gone and we have seen no uniformed officer given the police station is less than a mile away. She tried to fob me off, and then calls back a few hours later and leaves a message saying they were under the impression we didn't want to see anyone. Quite frankly I am nothing short of being disgusted as to how the police treat victims of crime.
They police spend more time collating useless information for their useless monitoring forms than doing real police work.
If they are behind in their work they don't send anyone out to see you. That means as a victim you clean up whatever mess the criminal has left – which means they will NEVER send anyone out as they will say they will then have no useable evidence. For them that then closes the case.
They don't even know what crimes have been committed where and furthermore think you the ordinary citizen should be doing the detective work for them.
My respect for the police has reached an all time low, and what makes me sad is I know my story is probably happening all over the country. Recorded crime will only be dropping because people like me will no longer see any point whatsoever in informing the police when a crime is committed.
The system now has to change to ensure victims of crime see police as a matter of course. Surely this isn't too much to ask? If that doens't happen, more and more people will begin to question what the purpose of our police force actually is.
Jonathan Sheppard is editor of Tory Radio.
Showing posts with label Guest Blog. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guest Blog. Show all posts
Monday, August 25, 2008
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Weekend Guest Blog: God & the Tories
By Laurence Boyce
Last year at the Conservative Party conference, a little reported altercation took place between John Gummer and the British Humanist Association (BHA). According to one report, Gummer was heard to say to his companion, “Do you know, there is nothing I hate more than these humanists?” He then launched into a tirade directed at the BHA stand, claiming that they had “no right” to be there, and that “the Conservative Party is and always has been a Christian party.” With that, he stormed off without further ado.
This bizarre and unprovoked attack led Hanne Stinson of the BHA to file a letter of complaint (pdf) to Conservative Chairman, Caroline Spelman. What response, if any, was received I know not. To be fair to Gummer, as one must be, he claims that nothing of the sort occurred. According to The Independent, Gummer maintains that the whole story has been blown out of proportion, describing the incident as being merely a “polite conversation.”
Polite conversation or blazing row? – I guess we shall never know. But I can’t help feeling that, broadly speaking, Gummer is right. Of the three major political parties, the Conservatives do appear to be the most religious and in particular the most Christian party. The flip side of the coin is that humanists and secularists also seem to be a bit left-wing. I hang out with my local humanist group where there is more than a whiff of left-wingery in the air, although there are also a couple of exceptions who might protest at the generalisation.
But logically, why should Conservatism be linked to Christianity, or humanism to the left? Humanism is the belief that there is no God, no afterlife, and therefore that we ought to make the best of the “one life we have” – namely, this one. Doesn’t that make all politics essentially a humanistic enterprise? Since when did Parliament pass a measure to take effect in the next life? Surely we are all humanists now? One might easily conclude that whatever religious biases persist in politics are merely historical vestiges.
Whatever the case, the winds of change are blowing about the political landscape. The Conservative Party has finally got around to setting up its own humanist group – The Conservative Humanist Association. “There is a great tradition of free thought in the Conservative Party,” declares Chairman, Jeff Peel. “Many leading Conservative thinkers have not required religious belief or superstition to define their lives or their political views: Hayek, Popper, Friedman and, indeed, Adam Smith.”
The group has the backing of former London Mayoral candidate, Andrew Boff, and for its inaugural conference meeting, they have secured a prize speaker – none other than the ayatollah of atheism himself, Professor Richard Dawkins – who, to the best of my knowledge, has never voted Conservative in his life. It should be a fascinating encounter. But whatever you do, please don’t tell Gummer!
Laurence Boyce is a Liberal Democrat and humanist/secularist/atheist/whatever
Last year at the Conservative Party conference, a little reported altercation took place between John Gummer and the British Humanist Association (BHA). According to one report, Gummer was heard to say to his companion, “Do you know, there is nothing I hate more than these humanists?” He then launched into a tirade directed at the BHA stand, claiming that they had “no right” to be there, and that “the Conservative Party is and always has been a Christian party.” With that, he stormed off without further ado.
This bizarre and unprovoked attack led Hanne Stinson of the BHA to file a letter of complaint (pdf) to Conservative Chairman, Caroline Spelman. What response, if any, was received I know not. To be fair to Gummer, as one must be, he claims that nothing of the sort occurred. According to The Independent, Gummer maintains that the whole story has been blown out of proportion, describing the incident as being merely a “polite conversation.”
Polite conversation or blazing row? – I guess we shall never know. But I can’t help feeling that, broadly speaking, Gummer is right. Of the three major political parties, the Conservatives do appear to be the most religious and in particular the most Christian party. The flip side of the coin is that humanists and secularists also seem to be a bit left-wing. I hang out with my local humanist group where there is more than a whiff of left-wingery in the air, although there are also a couple of exceptions who might protest at the generalisation.
But logically, why should Conservatism be linked to Christianity, or humanism to the left? Humanism is the belief that there is no God, no afterlife, and therefore that we ought to make the best of the “one life we have” – namely, this one. Doesn’t that make all politics essentially a humanistic enterprise? Since when did Parliament pass a measure to take effect in the next life? Surely we are all humanists now? One might easily conclude that whatever religious biases persist in politics are merely historical vestiges.
Whatever the case, the winds of change are blowing about the political landscape. The Conservative Party has finally got around to setting up its own humanist group – The Conservative Humanist Association. “There is a great tradition of free thought in the Conservative Party,” declares Chairman, Jeff Peel. “Many leading Conservative thinkers have not required religious belief or superstition to define their lives or their political views: Hayek, Popper, Friedman and, indeed, Adam Smith.”
The group has the backing of former London Mayoral candidate, Andrew Boff, and for its inaugural conference meeting, they have secured a prize speaker – none other than the ayatollah of atheism himself, Professor Richard Dawkins – who, to the best of my knowledge, has never voted Conservative in his life. It should be a fascinating encounter. But whatever you do, please don’t tell Gummer!
Laurence Boyce is a Liberal Democrat and humanist/secularist/atheist/whatever
Monday, August 11, 2008
Guest Blog: The Trouble With Appeasement
By Helen Szamuely
Some of us have been warning for some time: it is not that Russia has become stronger or very noticeably richer, it’s just that the West, particularly Western Europe has gone into appeasement mode again. By now, we should all know what happens when we appease a bully – the bullying increases. Russia was not allowed to get away with her bullying of the Baltic states and Poland by those countries standing up to her and there was a retreat. On the other hand, nothing happened when she broke business agreements and harassed Russian and business firms or when the government acquired control over the Russian media and started limiting activity on the part of others like the BBC Russian Service or when her troops crossed into Transdniestria (in Moldova), Abkhazia and South Ossetia (both in Georgia). The West said nothing when Russian planes started buzzing Georgian territory (and I don’t mean South Ossetian or Abkhazian either) and blowing up various installations; it said nothing when Russia turned off agreed supplies of gas or oil to countries it disapproved of, like the Baltic states, Ukraine and the Czech Republic.
Then came the final surrender: earlier this year at the NATO Summit Germany, France, Spain and the Benelux countries “stood up to the Americans” and did what the Russian government wanted them to do: rejected the notion of putting Georgia and Ukraine on the path to membership. The final communiqué actually reversed that stance and made it clear that NATO will consider this autumn the two countries as potential members but that gave the Russians a time limit on action that they knew they would get away with.
For some time there has been a build-up of Russian forces in South Ossetia and Abkhazia as well as on the other side of the border. For those who are obsessed with Kosovo’s independence, may I suggest that you have a look at the time line? Russian intentions towards Georgia long predate that country’s independence.
Now, the inevitable has happened. The two countries are at war; Georgia has asked for a cease-fire and immediate negotiations but President Medvedev, determined to prove that he is as tough as his predecessor, now Prime Minister Putin, is refusing to acknowledge it. Russian jets are bombing cities in Georgia proper, including the outskirts of the capital, Tbilisi, and have sunk at least one Georgian boat. The idea that this is about the independence of South Ossetia has long been abandoned.
Can the West do anything to save an ally and to ensure that Russia does not destroy the only pipeline from the Caspian that she does not control? Let us not forget that little aspect of the conflict. Can the West make sure that Putin does not do what he has been threatening to do since 2000 and that is to restore the old Soviet geopolitical sphere under a slightly different name?
The further you go in appeasement, the more difficult it gets to stop the bully. We can do nothing for Georgia, though the Americans will be able to supply some technical assistance, such as anti-aircraft missiles. Our best hope is that Russia will get bogged down in another Caucasian war and might want out at a not too distant future.
There are other countries to consider. If Georgia is put under Russian control, its duly elected government is dismissed and the nascent democracy is destroyed, who will be the next on Russia’s list? Ukraine? The Baltic States? Eastern Europe? They are all worried and would like some assurance from their allies (I do not include Germany and France or the EU with its common foreign policy among these) that the same fate will not befall them.
It is time to stand up to the bully. Ukraine’s membership of NATO should be speeded up and Russia should be told that those energy agreements may be up for revision sooner than expected. The Kremlin needs to sell oil and gas and, at present, has no other outlet for it. Russia, we are told, is to be applauded for standing up for her interests. Fine. But it is time we stood up for our interests and, in the process, supported our allies.
Helen Szamuely blogs at EU Referendum
Guest blogs will in future only be posted at weekends. Please email me submissions of up to 500 words.
Some of us have been warning for some time: it is not that Russia has become stronger or very noticeably richer, it’s just that the West, particularly Western Europe has gone into appeasement mode again. By now, we should all know what happens when we appease a bully – the bullying increases. Russia was not allowed to get away with her bullying of the Baltic states and Poland by those countries standing up to her and there was a retreat. On the other hand, nothing happened when she broke business agreements and harassed Russian and business firms or when the government acquired control over the Russian media and started limiting activity on the part of others like the BBC Russian Service or when her troops crossed into Transdniestria (in Moldova), Abkhazia and South Ossetia (both in Georgia). The West said nothing when Russian planes started buzzing Georgian territory (and I don’t mean South Ossetian or Abkhazian either) and blowing up various installations; it said nothing when Russia turned off agreed supplies of gas or oil to countries it disapproved of, like the Baltic states, Ukraine and the Czech Republic.
Then came the final surrender: earlier this year at the NATO Summit Germany, France, Spain and the Benelux countries “stood up to the Americans” and did what the Russian government wanted them to do: rejected the notion of putting Georgia and Ukraine on the path to membership. The final communiqué actually reversed that stance and made it clear that NATO will consider this autumn the two countries as potential members but that gave the Russians a time limit on action that they knew they would get away with.
For some time there has been a build-up of Russian forces in South Ossetia and Abkhazia as well as on the other side of the border. For those who are obsessed with Kosovo’s independence, may I suggest that you have a look at the time line? Russian intentions towards Georgia long predate that country’s independence.
Now, the inevitable has happened. The two countries are at war; Georgia has asked for a cease-fire and immediate negotiations but President Medvedev, determined to prove that he is as tough as his predecessor, now Prime Minister Putin, is refusing to acknowledge it. Russian jets are bombing cities in Georgia proper, including the outskirts of the capital, Tbilisi, and have sunk at least one Georgian boat. The idea that this is about the independence of South Ossetia has long been abandoned.
Can the West do anything to save an ally and to ensure that Russia does not destroy the only pipeline from the Caspian that she does not control? Let us not forget that little aspect of the conflict. Can the West make sure that Putin does not do what he has been threatening to do since 2000 and that is to restore the old Soviet geopolitical sphere under a slightly different name?
The further you go in appeasement, the more difficult it gets to stop the bully. We can do nothing for Georgia, though the Americans will be able to supply some technical assistance, such as anti-aircraft missiles. Our best hope is that Russia will get bogged down in another Caucasian war and might want out at a not too distant future.
There are other countries to consider. If Georgia is put under Russian control, its duly elected government is dismissed and the nascent democracy is destroyed, who will be the next on Russia’s list? Ukraine? The Baltic States? Eastern Europe? They are all worried and would like some assurance from their allies (I do not include Germany and France or the EU with its common foreign policy among these) that the same fate will not befall them.
It is time to stand up to the bully. Ukraine’s membership of NATO should be speeded up and Russia should be told that those energy agreements may be up for revision sooner than expected. The Kremlin needs to sell oil and gas and, at present, has no other outlet for it. Russia, we are told, is to be applauded for standing up for her interests. Fine. But it is time we stood up for our interests and, in the process, supported our allies.
Helen Szamuely blogs at EU Referendum
*********************
Guest blogs will in future only be posted at weekends. Please email me submissions of up to 500 words.
Friday, August 08, 2008
Guest Blog: We Can Prosper Without the EU
Zach Johnstone
At just 18 years of age, I would be understating if I were to claim that my political consciousness is anything other than budding. I know there is much to learn, a great deal of which will only come through experience. But there are certain things which strike a chord even with one whose political philosophy is still forming; certain issues that evoke a fervent interest for no other reason than the fact that they seem to be completely commonsensical. In my short political life, many issues have taken a similarly central mantle, however there is a principal example which offsets all others; an issue that has been – and continues to be – responsible for many hours of debate and discussion amongst my peers, my family and anyone else who is willing to give me chance to make audible my standpoint. This issue is that of British membership of the European Union.
Now, I am well aware that such a stance is far from unique. But my qualm is not with a Europe based upon economic interdependence; I am the first to stand up and say that secure, economic cooperation is of great importance in an increasingly globalised sphere where smaller countries may well experience difficulty in negotiating trade agreements with bigger powers. But at what point did this mutually beneficial trading bloc transmogrify into the overbearing, political pseudo state of which we are all now citizens?
The answer is blurry; the EU’s approach has been an insidious slide towards a federal Europe, making use of the neofunctional model of integration to soften the blow of a diminished role for the nation state. What was once a trading bloc designed to eliminate the prospect of future European wars has become a socialist project to unite Europe politically, legally and economically. Since 1975, the British people have been granted no say as to whether or not they are in favour of such a shift. This is something I find particularly curious; why is it that continued membership of an economic entity was felt to be important enough to warrant a referendum, but every stage of political union has been felt too inconsequential? The question of governments leading the UK blindly against its will spans across the political spectrum, from Maastricht through to Lisbon.
But what I am keen to highlight in this post is perhaps the most ridiculous assertion of all: that the EU is an inevitable path, without which the UK would suffer heavily. This is something I’ve always failed to get to grips with; all things superfluous to economic union aside (i.e. everything post-Maastricht), I feel are mutually beneficial, and actually serve a valuable purpose. Now, given a return to the pre-Maastricht arrangement is an impossibility, what of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA)?
EFTA has, for many years, made it possible for countries such as Norway, Iceland and Switzerland to operate hugely effectively without the imposition of European judicial supremacy. Indeed, these countries are obliged to adopt EU directives with little say in the content, but as Daniel Hannan MEP pointed out a few years ago, the measures are nearly always of a very trivial nature. Fundamentally, they do not concern issues of epic proportion such as legal supremacy, agriculture and fisheries. Hannan goes on to point out that such measures have only numbered 3,000 since 1992, compared to a staggering 18,000 that the UK has adopted in the same time frame.
It is also interesting to observe the seeming ease with which an EFTA state may trade with the EU, in spite of the EU's deliberately insular economic area. Over 60% of Switzerland's exports are EU-bound, compared to around 40% of the UK's (from within the EU!). Admittedly, whilst Swiss goods can enter the EU freely, citizens do not enjoy the same liberty. But who is to say that EFTA cannot be expanded and improved? It could, as far as I can see, be moulded into a group of sovereign nation states whose only common link is of an economic nature.
In the face of this contradictory evidence, we are still told that independence from the hold of the EU comes at the cost of stability and economic security. Those who argue the EU would not grant us favourable trading terms upon secession forget two important points: firstly, the World Trade Organisation would not permit any sort of protectionist embargo against the UK anyway. Secondly, even if they were to do so then it would be a classic case of cutting off their nose to spite their face. Besides this, we would be negotiating trade terms with the EU as a nation leaving the EU for EFTA, not just as a member of EFTA. This means that - at the start of negotiations - we would be fully under the direction of acquis communautaire; we would not be opting in rule-by-rule, but opting out of unfavourable legislation and restoring national control over areas that the EU has no real mandate to dictate over anyway.
It is, however, for you to make up your own mind on the necessity of political union and the prospective fortunes of a UK that is “with” the EU but “not of it”, however I ask you to do so with both sides of the argument in mind.
At just 18 years of age, I would be understating if I were to claim that my political consciousness is anything other than budding. I know there is much to learn, a great deal of which will only come through experience. But there are certain things which strike a chord even with one whose political philosophy is still forming; certain issues that evoke a fervent interest for no other reason than the fact that they seem to be completely commonsensical. In my short political life, many issues have taken a similarly central mantle, however there is a principal example which offsets all others; an issue that has been – and continues to be – responsible for many hours of debate and discussion amongst my peers, my family and anyone else who is willing to give me chance to make audible my standpoint. This issue is that of British membership of the European Union.
Now, I am well aware that such a stance is far from unique. But my qualm is not with a Europe based upon economic interdependence; I am the first to stand up and say that secure, economic cooperation is of great importance in an increasingly globalised sphere where smaller countries may well experience difficulty in negotiating trade agreements with bigger powers. But at what point did this mutually beneficial trading bloc transmogrify into the overbearing, political pseudo state of which we are all now citizens?
The answer is blurry; the EU’s approach has been an insidious slide towards a federal Europe, making use of the neofunctional model of integration to soften the blow of a diminished role for the nation state. What was once a trading bloc designed to eliminate the prospect of future European wars has become a socialist project to unite Europe politically, legally and economically. Since 1975, the British people have been granted no say as to whether or not they are in favour of such a shift. This is something I find particularly curious; why is it that continued membership of an economic entity was felt to be important enough to warrant a referendum, but every stage of political union has been felt too inconsequential? The question of governments leading the UK blindly against its will spans across the political spectrum, from Maastricht through to Lisbon.
But what I am keen to highlight in this post is perhaps the most ridiculous assertion of all: that the EU is an inevitable path, without which the UK would suffer heavily. This is something I’ve always failed to get to grips with; all things superfluous to economic union aside (i.e. everything post-Maastricht), I feel are mutually beneficial, and actually serve a valuable purpose. Now, given a return to the pre-Maastricht arrangement is an impossibility, what of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA)?
EFTA has, for many years, made it possible for countries such as Norway, Iceland and Switzerland to operate hugely effectively without the imposition of European judicial supremacy. Indeed, these countries are obliged to adopt EU directives with little say in the content, but as Daniel Hannan MEP pointed out a few years ago, the measures are nearly always of a very trivial nature. Fundamentally, they do not concern issues of epic proportion such as legal supremacy, agriculture and fisheries. Hannan goes on to point out that such measures have only numbered 3,000 since 1992, compared to a staggering 18,000 that the UK has adopted in the same time frame.
It is also interesting to observe the seeming ease with which an EFTA state may trade with the EU, in spite of the EU's deliberately insular economic area. Over 60% of Switzerland's exports are EU-bound, compared to around 40% of the UK's (from within the EU!). Admittedly, whilst Swiss goods can enter the EU freely, citizens do not enjoy the same liberty. But who is to say that EFTA cannot be expanded and improved? It could, as far as I can see, be moulded into a group of sovereign nation states whose only common link is of an economic nature.
In the face of this contradictory evidence, we are still told that independence from the hold of the EU comes at the cost of stability and economic security. Those who argue the EU would not grant us favourable trading terms upon secession forget two important points: firstly, the World Trade Organisation would not permit any sort of protectionist embargo against the UK anyway. Secondly, even if they were to do so then it would be a classic case of cutting off their nose to spite their face. Besides this, we would be negotiating trade terms with the EU as a nation leaving the EU for EFTA, not just as a member of EFTA. This means that - at the start of negotiations - we would be fully under the direction of acquis communautaire; we would not be opting in rule-by-rule, but opting out of unfavourable legislation and restoring national control over areas that the EU has no real mandate to dictate over anyway.
It is, however, for you to make up your own mind on the necessity of political union and the prospective fortunes of a UK that is “with” the EU but “not of it”, however I ask you to do so with both sides of the argument in mind.
*************
If you would like to write a guest blog, email me 750 words. No guarantees I will use it, but I will do my best!
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Guest Blog: Why Real Change (and PR) is Needed
By Ed Jones
At 18 years of age the following statement may well be indicative of somebody who needs to get out more but it nevertheless is something which concerns me going into adulthood: I haven't got a clue who to vote for.
I should tell you that this has nothing to do with ignorance. I follow politics zealously and I see the capacity that the democratic model has for hosting pacified ideological warfare, which makes me wonder: why is the political debate in the UK so exasperatingly dull?
The answer is of course ploddingly simple, that the mythical 'centre ground' is the pursuit of every ambitious leadership. Of course the right and left still exist in academia, but away from the Lecture Theatres and Social Science Library the political options available to those who are not racist or apocalyptical greens are, in reality, just different brands of the same product. Of course there are nuances of difference amongst the red, blue and yellow parliamentary triumvirate but the deafening lack of atmosphere in the political arena is leading to a pandemic of apathy.
So how did this abandonment of distinctiveness come about in our political parties? Much of it has to do with the change in International circumstances. The death of the Soviet Union shattered the credibility of socialism as a practical ideology for governance and fatally weakened the left. New Labour is founded upon the principle that socialism doesn't sell. The Tories' venture to the centre has much to do with the natural growth of liberal morals, making it electorally unrewarding to appear authoritarian on such issues as the family and immigration. It could be argued, therefore, that the battle-lines have been redrawn by precedent and public attitudes - surely no bad feat?
My concern is not where the battle-lines were redrawn but how, over the last decade, they appear to be narrowing rather than re-widening. Left and Right need to be redefined along with all the shaded areas in between. There are major issues which need confronting and in order to achieve the strongest possible outcome there needs to be, at first, copious options which are debated, beaten down and voted upon. That is democracy. But in 21st Century Britain there is a dangerous consensus amongst the political classes which threatens to isolate the people from the elected representatives who exist to serve them.
The political spectrum has contracted and those beholding views which are contrary to the status quo cannot get their voices heard. The political arrangement as it is leaves no platform for those on the right of Cameron's Conservatives, Secularists, Republicans or Eurosceptics. (UKIP has one seat in Westminster out of 646). Having three seemingly interchangeable parties has led to debates on economic, foreign, and social policy being conducted within the confines of perceived moderation whilst ignoring more radical, but potentially preferable alternatives. There is not a party which truly advocates a small state. However unpalatable the unfettered adoption of free market economics may be, it should be a legitimate option to the public, some of whom desire it.
An interventionist foreign policy on the grounds of spreading Human Rights should be what the old left adopts as a primary cause to counter the energy imperialism we have seen under the banner of neo-conservatism. Instead there simply aren't realistic alternatives to how we conduct our international affairs. There are big issues which affect our society and our daily lives which simply are not scrutinised or debated. Globalisation, multiculturalism, the Monarchy, the House of Lords, abortion, faith and independent schools, the penal system and Europe are issues which I have strong views on but cannot relate with any of the political parties. It's not that they have contrary policies but rather that they have none at all or are in agreement with each other, surely signifying the death of democratic choice.
I am not naive. I know that I live in one of the freest democracies in the world and I would not substitute our political system for any other. But it can be improved. Party politics is not the issue as you may have come to think I believe: it is the Parliamentary system. We need not to kill political parties but enliven them and have more of them. Political Careerism is inevitable and the brightest sparks want to be at the top with a powerful party, not a fringe movement. This attitude is positive and avoids intellectual wastage. It needs to be easier for parties to access Westminster, gain credibility and attract heavyweight political figures; the national debate would diversify, intensify and diminish voter apathy.
Proportional Representation is the solution. Perhaps I am overly optimistic; I am aware that it is not a flawless system but it is more democratic and would lead to a vibrant Parliament which is home to alternative views alongside conventional ones. And so what if the BNP get a seat or two? If they won the votes they should get the representation. Parliament is not a liberal club it is the voice of the nation.
At 18 years of age the following statement may well be indicative of somebody who needs to get out more but it nevertheless is something which concerns me going into adulthood: I haven't got a clue who to vote for.
I should tell you that this has nothing to do with ignorance. I follow politics zealously and I see the capacity that the democratic model has for hosting pacified ideological warfare, which makes me wonder: why is the political debate in the UK so exasperatingly dull?
The answer is of course ploddingly simple, that the mythical 'centre ground' is the pursuit of every ambitious leadership. Of course the right and left still exist in academia, but away from the Lecture Theatres and Social Science Library the political options available to those who are not racist or apocalyptical greens are, in reality, just different brands of the same product. Of course there are nuances of difference amongst the red, blue and yellow parliamentary triumvirate but the deafening lack of atmosphere in the political arena is leading to a pandemic of apathy.
So how did this abandonment of distinctiveness come about in our political parties? Much of it has to do with the change in International circumstances. The death of the Soviet Union shattered the credibility of socialism as a practical ideology for governance and fatally weakened the left. New Labour is founded upon the principle that socialism doesn't sell. The Tories' venture to the centre has much to do with the natural growth of liberal morals, making it electorally unrewarding to appear authoritarian on such issues as the family and immigration. It could be argued, therefore, that the battle-lines have been redrawn by precedent and public attitudes - surely no bad feat?
My concern is not where the battle-lines were redrawn but how, over the last decade, they appear to be narrowing rather than re-widening. Left and Right need to be redefined along with all the shaded areas in between. There are major issues which need confronting and in order to achieve the strongest possible outcome there needs to be, at first, copious options which are debated, beaten down and voted upon. That is democracy. But in 21st Century Britain there is a dangerous consensus amongst the political classes which threatens to isolate the people from the elected representatives who exist to serve them.
The political spectrum has contracted and those beholding views which are contrary to the status quo cannot get their voices heard. The political arrangement as it is leaves no platform for those on the right of Cameron's Conservatives, Secularists, Republicans or Eurosceptics. (UKIP has one seat in Westminster out of 646). Having three seemingly interchangeable parties has led to debates on economic, foreign, and social policy being conducted within the confines of perceived moderation whilst ignoring more radical, but potentially preferable alternatives. There is not a party which truly advocates a small state. However unpalatable the unfettered adoption of free market economics may be, it should be a legitimate option to the public, some of whom desire it.
An interventionist foreign policy on the grounds of spreading Human Rights should be what the old left adopts as a primary cause to counter the energy imperialism we have seen under the banner of neo-conservatism. Instead there simply aren't realistic alternatives to how we conduct our international affairs. There are big issues which affect our society and our daily lives which simply are not scrutinised or debated. Globalisation, multiculturalism, the Monarchy, the House of Lords, abortion, faith and independent schools, the penal system and Europe are issues which I have strong views on but cannot relate with any of the political parties. It's not that they have contrary policies but rather that they have none at all or are in agreement with each other, surely signifying the death of democratic choice.
I am not naive. I know that I live in one of the freest democracies in the world and I would not substitute our political system for any other. But it can be improved. Party politics is not the issue as you may have come to think I believe: it is the Parliamentary system. We need not to kill political parties but enliven them and have more of them. Political Careerism is inevitable and the brightest sparks want to be at the top with a powerful party, not a fringe movement. This attitude is positive and avoids intellectual wastage. It needs to be easier for parties to access Westminster, gain credibility and attract heavyweight political figures; the national debate would diversify, intensify and diminish voter apathy.
Proportional Representation is the solution. Perhaps I am overly optimistic; I am aware that it is not a flawless system but it is more democratic and would lead to a vibrant Parliament which is home to alternative views alongside conventional ones. And so what if the BNP get a seat or two? If they won the votes they should get the representation. Parliament is not a liberal club it is the voice of the nation.
*************************
If you would like to write a Guest blog please email me no more than 750 words. I cannot guarantee publication, though!
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Guest Blog: What to do About Brazil?
By James Davenport
So a 17 year-old British tourist in Brazil has been murdered, dismembered, and the limbs and head disposed of separately to the torso. Police have the torso, still looking for the rest, though they have a 20 year-old man who has apparently confessed to killing her.
Brazil is the most violent country in the world. The surprise is not that a British tourist has, tragically, been murdered, but that it occurred far from Rio or Sao Paulo.
Few British tourists stray from these two cities, which coincidentally are the most violent of them all. But every city in Brazil, even Brasilia (though a long way out of the city) has favelas. These slum areas are marked by the most extraordinary poverty, the people living in wood and tin shelters packed tightly together. Mostly roads do not exist, people making their way between the buildings across wooden walkways over open sewers and drains. You've not seen poverty until you've seen it Brazilian-style.
So it's not entirely surprising that there is a massive level of crime. The favelas themselves are to a great extent no-go areas for the police, who instead largely pursue a policy of containment.
Although many of Brazil's criminals live in the favelas, it is certainly not the case that criminals (or crime) are limited to them. You can, if you are not careful and do not seek local advice, quite easily find yourself the victim of a mugging or worse. The greatest danger is not having cash in your bank account. Frequently a victim will be marched to the cashpoint and ordered to empty their account. If they can't or won't, they are simply shot.
Brazil does not have the death penalty, although the number of extra-judicial executions by the police are almost enough to worry the great man Donal Blaney. Arguably, however, Brazil has a far more frightening deterrent - it's prisons. They really are as bad as the portrayal in the 2003 film Carandiru, an account of the events and conditions in the prison of the same name leading up to the infamous 1992 massacre.
Having seen a Brazilian prison (from the outside, I hasten to add), I can vouch for the realism. Indeed that film was shot in the prison itself, shortly before it was demolished.
Yet crime remains at an incalculable level. Murder, violence and robbery are everywhere. It seems even the concentration camp conditions of Brasil's prisons do not deter.
So what to do about the terrible level of (mostly violent) crime in Brazil? How can this most wonderful of (partly) tropical paradise be rescued from endemic crime?
It seems to me that the answer lies in Brazil's greatest resource: the Amazon rainforest. There has been much talk of the developed world paying the developing countries with rainforest to preserve them. The argument is that, since the rainforest is an environmental resource for the whole world, the whole world must contribute to its preservation. The very poor nations on whose territories the rainforests are located cannot reasonably be expected to forgo the economic benefits of exploiting the resources that the rainforests hold, without compensation for doing so. This could be done by diverting the mostly wasted existing aid budgets, and I believe is a reasonable demand.
In Brazil, as in the other rainforest states, the funds could be used to do something dramatic: invest in the country's poorest. The funds could be used to build decent housing, with roads, sewers, fresh water and legitimate electricity connections. After this capital investment the continuing flow of funds could, combined with an expansion in open markets*, provide the kick-start to Brazil's economy that it needs to lift its people out of poverty. A hand up, not a hand out, to coin a phrase.
I must declare an interest here. My partner is Brazilian and Brazil has a very special place in my heart. I love the country and its people. It is a place where, despite astonishing poverty, a guest is made almost embarassingly welcome. Brazilians know how to live - their food, music, parties and hospitality are second to none. Having travelled into the Amazon, up the great river itself, I can speak for the beauty of the land and the greatness of its people.
Brazil is a nation of monumental contrast - the beauty of its environment and its people, against the ugliness of its crime and its poverty. By investing in the future of the human race and of our planet itself, we can at the same time give this most wonderful of nations the means to fulfil it's potential.
*Sadly the lastest WTO talks have collapsed. Maybe one day our politicians will see sense.
So a 17 year-old British tourist in Brazil has been murdered, dismembered, and the limbs and head disposed of separately to the torso. Police have the torso, still looking for the rest, though they have a 20 year-old man who has apparently confessed to killing her.
Brazil is the most violent country in the world. The surprise is not that a British tourist has, tragically, been murdered, but that it occurred far from Rio or Sao Paulo.
Few British tourists stray from these two cities, which coincidentally are the most violent of them all. But every city in Brazil, even Brasilia (though a long way out of the city) has favelas. These slum areas are marked by the most extraordinary poverty, the people living in wood and tin shelters packed tightly together. Mostly roads do not exist, people making their way between the buildings across wooden walkways over open sewers and drains. You've not seen poverty until you've seen it Brazilian-style.
So it's not entirely surprising that there is a massive level of crime. The favelas themselves are to a great extent no-go areas for the police, who instead largely pursue a policy of containment.
Although many of Brazil's criminals live in the favelas, it is certainly not the case that criminals (or crime) are limited to them. You can, if you are not careful and do not seek local advice, quite easily find yourself the victim of a mugging or worse. The greatest danger is not having cash in your bank account. Frequently a victim will be marched to the cashpoint and ordered to empty their account. If they can't or won't, they are simply shot.
Brazil does not have the death penalty, although the number of extra-judicial executions by the police are almost enough to worry the great man Donal Blaney. Arguably, however, Brazil has a far more frightening deterrent - it's prisons. They really are as bad as the portrayal in the 2003 film Carandiru, an account of the events and conditions in the prison of the same name leading up to the infamous 1992 massacre.
Having seen a Brazilian prison (from the outside, I hasten to add), I can vouch for the realism. Indeed that film was shot in the prison itself, shortly before it was demolished.
Yet crime remains at an incalculable level. Murder, violence and robbery are everywhere. It seems even the concentration camp conditions of Brasil's prisons do not deter.
So what to do about the terrible level of (mostly violent) crime in Brazil? How can this most wonderful of (partly) tropical paradise be rescued from endemic crime?
It seems to me that the answer lies in Brazil's greatest resource: the Amazon rainforest. There has been much talk of the developed world paying the developing countries with rainforest to preserve them. The argument is that, since the rainforest is an environmental resource for the whole world, the whole world must contribute to its preservation. The very poor nations on whose territories the rainforests are located cannot reasonably be expected to forgo the economic benefits of exploiting the resources that the rainforests hold, without compensation for doing so. This could be done by diverting the mostly wasted existing aid budgets, and I believe is a reasonable demand.
In Brazil, as in the other rainforest states, the funds could be used to do something dramatic: invest in the country's poorest. The funds could be used to build decent housing, with roads, sewers, fresh water and legitimate electricity connections. After this capital investment the continuing flow of funds could, combined with an expansion in open markets*, provide the kick-start to Brazil's economy that it needs to lift its people out of poverty. A hand up, not a hand out, to coin a phrase.
I must declare an interest here. My partner is Brazilian and Brazil has a very special place in my heart. I love the country and its people. It is a place where, despite astonishing poverty, a guest is made almost embarassingly welcome. Brazilians know how to live - their food, music, parties and hospitality are second to none. Having travelled into the Amazon, up the great river itself, I can speak for the beauty of the land and the greatness of its people.
Brazil is a nation of monumental contrast - the beauty of its environment and its people, against the ugliness of its crime and its poverty. By investing in the future of the human race and of our planet itself, we can at the same time give this most wonderful of nations the means to fulfil it's potential.
*Sadly the lastest WTO talks have collapsed. Maybe one day our politicians will see sense.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Guest Blog: For an English Parliament
By Robin Tilbrook, Leader of the English Democrats
I am very grateful to Iain for this opportunity to appear on his blog as his guest.
Iain, whilst remaining always a loyal member of the Conservative Party (in its best traditions), has also been a good friend to the English Parliament cause.
I also was once a Tory, having been so since my student days (and my father and grandfather before me!). I was quite active in the Party, including standing as a local candidate. If a referendum on Labour’s prospects for National Devolution for Scotland and Wales had been put to all the people of the UK in 1998, I would have voted against it. But, and it is a big BUT, now it has happened and all parties concede that it is not going to unhappen. Indeed it is only in England that discussion on revoking National devolution for Scotland and Wales could, apparently sensibly, take place. In Scotland and Wales it is recognised that their devolution is a process which is not yet complete. All parties there, including the Conservative Party, are promising more powers and a general expansion of status and remit for their National Parliaments and governments. So the outstanding question, to my way of thinking, is what is going to happen in England!
In England, in startling contrast with the British Establishment Parties’ attitudes elsewhere, their attitude is that there should be little or no recognition of England and the English as a separate Nation. The Establishment talk is always about the need “to preserve the Union” of the United Kingdom and that this need overrides English claims to recognition and to fair treatment. This is not acceptable to anyone like me who cares about England.
The English Democrats (in cooperation with the Campaign for an English Parliament) have spent most of our campaigning time so far trying to inform people of the negative effects on England and on the English Nation of their unfair treatment. In doing so we have distributed over 20 million leaflets and the effects are clear to see. In every opinion poll on the subject since October 2006, over 60% of English respondents in opinion polls have said that they want an English Parliament with at least the same powers as the Scottish one. This is shorthand for not only a Parliament but also an English Government and First Minister. The British Establishment’s reaction is an interesting example of the different standards applied to England. The proportion of the Scottish electorate who voted for a Scottish Parliament was 44%. This 44% vote has been accepted by all establishment commentators as “the settled Will of the Scottish people”. Yet the views of over 60% of the English can be dismissed as an irrelevance!
At the moment I believe that the British Establishment could placate English demands for fair treatment by finalising the process of making the UK a federal state with an English First Minister, Government and Parliament to join those of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; but the time will come when this will no longer be enough. This is because people are getting ever more exasperated by Establishment intransigence. There will then be a tipping point after which only independence will be acceptable. I sincerely hope that the British Establishment will recognise this before it is too late but I have to say that the signs are so far not encouraging. The latest effort by the Tories is frankly pathetic.
Ken Clarke’s Democracy Task Force has produced an obviously inadequate response to what was not the real demand. The real demand is for equal constitutional treatment for England and for Scotland. This includes a Parliament, a First Minister and a Government. This not just a demand for better representation in a legislature. I think Clarke's proposal, which I still call EVEL (English Vote for English Laws), is obviously unworkable under our current constitution e.g. if the UK Government is of a different party to the majority of English MPs. I suspect that it has been cynically produced as a “Populist Positioning Policy” to deceive much of the electorate, and also the many Conservative activists, who are in favour of an English Parliament, into thinking that the Conservatives will do something to make our constitution fairer. In fact all EVEL does is offer a policy which is easy to explain on the doorstep when canvassing but which could not be implemented – that is simply political chicanery.
This chicanery is of a piece with the reasons why I left the Conservative Party. This was because, having lobbied as hard as I could within the Party, I came to the view that its leadership did not want to do anything for England and could not be reformed from within. I also felt that England needed a proper political party to be the voice of moderate English Nationalism on a par with the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru.
I know Iain feels that the cause of an English Parliament is best served by remaining within the Party and I wish him every success but I think that in six years the cause of English Nationalism has been enhanced enormously by the English Democrats and that we are now getting the kind of election results which it took the SNP about forty six years to achieve!
In another 6 years I intend that we will in a position to force the British Establishment's arms up its back (perhaps whilst Iain plays the “nice cop”!? and between us) I hope that we can force a constitutional change that will result in the fair and democratic treatment of England’s legitimate interests to the benefit of all the people of England!
So in the meanwhile I pray to Ken Clarke and the Conservative leadership to:- “… lead us not into temptation, and deliver us from”...EVEL!!!
I am very grateful to Iain for this opportunity to appear on his blog as his guest.
Iain, whilst remaining always a loyal member of the Conservative Party (in its best traditions), has also been a good friend to the English Parliament cause.
I also was once a Tory, having been so since my student days (and my father and grandfather before me!). I was quite active in the Party, including standing as a local candidate. If a referendum on Labour’s prospects for National Devolution for Scotland and Wales had been put to all the people of the UK in 1998, I would have voted against it. But, and it is a big BUT, now it has happened and all parties concede that it is not going to unhappen. Indeed it is only in England that discussion on revoking National devolution for Scotland and Wales could, apparently sensibly, take place. In Scotland and Wales it is recognised that their devolution is a process which is not yet complete. All parties there, including the Conservative Party, are promising more powers and a general expansion of status and remit for their National Parliaments and governments. So the outstanding question, to my way of thinking, is what is going to happen in England!
In England, in startling contrast with the British Establishment Parties’ attitudes elsewhere, their attitude is that there should be little or no recognition of England and the English as a separate Nation. The Establishment talk is always about the need “to preserve the Union” of the United Kingdom and that this need overrides English claims to recognition and to fair treatment. This is not acceptable to anyone like me who cares about England.
The English Democrats (in cooperation with the Campaign for an English Parliament) have spent most of our campaigning time so far trying to inform people of the negative effects on England and on the English Nation of their unfair treatment. In doing so we have distributed over 20 million leaflets and the effects are clear to see. In every opinion poll on the subject since October 2006, over 60% of English respondents in opinion polls have said that they want an English Parliament with at least the same powers as the Scottish one. This is shorthand for not only a Parliament but also an English Government and First Minister. The British Establishment’s reaction is an interesting example of the different standards applied to England. The proportion of the Scottish electorate who voted for a Scottish Parliament was 44%. This 44% vote has been accepted by all establishment commentators as “the settled Will of the Scottish people”. Yet the views of over 60% of the English can be dismissed as an irrelevance!
At the moment I believe that the British Establishment could placate English demands for fair treatment by finalising the process of making the UK a federal state with an English First Minister, Government and Parliament to join those of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; but the time will come when this will no longer be enough. This is because people are getting ever more exasperated by Establishment intransigence. There will then be a tipping point after which only independence will be acceptable. I sincerely hope that the British Establishment will recognise this before it is too late but I have to say that the signs are so far not encouraging. The latest effort by the Tories is frankly pathetic.
Ken Clarke’s Democracy Task Force has produced an obviously inadequate response to what was not the real demand. The real demand is for equal constitutional treatment for England and for Scotland. This includes a Parliament, a First Minister and a Government. This not just a demand for better representation in a legislature. I think Clarke's proposal, which I still call EVEL (English Vote for English Laws), is obviously unworkable under our current constitution e.g. if the UK Government is of a different party to the majority of English MPs. I suspect that it has been cynically produced as a “Populist Positioning Policy” to deceive much of the electorate, and also the many Conservative activists, who are in favour of an English Parliament, into thinking that the Conservatives will do something to make our constitution fairer. In fact all EVEL does is offer a policy which is easy to explain on the doorstep when canvassing but which could not be implemented – that is simply political chicanery.
This chicanery is of a piece with the reasons why I left the Conservative Party. This was because, having lobbied as hard as I could within the Party, I came to the view that its leadership did not want to do anything for England and could not be reformed from within. I also felt that England needed a proper political party to be the voice of moderate English Nationalism on a par with the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru.
I know Iain feels that the cause of an English Parliament is best served by remaining within the Party and I wish him every success but I think that in six years the cause of English Nationalism has been enhanced enormously by the English Democrats and that we are now getting the kind of election results which it took the SNP about forty six years to achieve!
In another 6 years I intend that we will in a position to force the British Establishment's arms up its back (perhaps whilst Iain plays the “nice cop”!? and between us) I hope that we can force a constitutional change that will result in the fair and democratic treatment of England’s legitimate interests to the benefit of all the people of England!
So in the meanwhile I pray to Ken Clarke and the Conservative leadership to:- “… lead us not into temptation, and deliver us from”...EVEL!!!
Monday, August 04, 2008
Guest Blog: Politics is a Derby, Not a Kick-About
By Matthew Dear
It’s 1987 and I’m standing in my parents’ kitchen, barely 5’ tall – an eager political novice, fascinated by news of the impending election (insofar as I can understand it), and by my father’s intense animation about the subject. Four years previously I’d cut my political teeth with a red crayon, imploring my neighbours to ‘Vote Labour’ through the medium of an A4 sheet of scrap paper affixed with masking tape to my bedroom window.
It’s 1987 and I’m standing in my parents’ kitchen, barely 5’ tall – an eager political novice, fascinated by news of the impending election (insofar as I can understand it), and by my father’s intense animation about the subject. Four years previously I’d cut my political teeth with a red crayon, imploring my neighbours to ‘Vote Labour’ through the medium of an A4 sheet of scrap paper affixed with masking tape to my bedroom window.
“It’s a shame that you threw away that Tory leafet,” my father says to me. “Why?” I ask, bewildered. “Because I was going to wait until your mother got home, light a bonfire, and we could all have danced round it,” comes the reply. Guiltily, I write “Vote Conservative” in large letters and proffer it, suggesting that we could burn that instead. “It’s all right” says my father, gloomily.
Such was the tribalism, the belonging, the passion of politics. My crayoned efforts stuck out like a sore thumb in South West Norfolk, which tends at election time to play host to a forest of blue placards, free-standing on heavy wooden posts at the end of long driveways. In 1987 in my best friend’s street, every single house bore a placard – two Alliance, the rest Tory. Even in a seat that was hardly a marginal, all of my friends parents were talking about the election, as were my geekier school friends. Witness the electricity fizzing and crackling through the Lady’s famous “I’m enjoying this” speech. See a barely recognisable Alex Salmond, lining up with Labour to spit bile at the outgoing premier, and wonder at Simon Hughes, eager to join in the fun.
The majority of readers will, I expect, be glad to know that I personally saw the light and put all of my eggs into the blue basket a few years ago. But what is remarkable is my father’s acquiescence. He was glad that I’d decided to become an activist at all, and it didn’t matter that it was for a party which he would have happily massacred for most of his adult life. It set me to wonder if political belief hasn’t become something of an oddity, viewed in the eyes of most as a ‘hobby’. A hobby which causes anyone who shares it to immediately feel a kindred with others who do the same. For the activist, the ‘tribe’ is no longer one’s own party, but rather activists of any colour, shade or hue.
At the last set of local elections, I arrived at a nearby polling station at 7am to act as a teller, blue rosette pinned to denim jacket, to find the Lib Dem candidate already in position. Rather than snarl at me, or spit out a pleasantry or two, he shook me warmly by the hand (on an extremely cold morning) and we proceeded to talk jovially about electoral politics at every level for the best part of 2 hours. Such fellowship is surely not new, but I would argue that it has now become commonplace, where once it was quite unusual.
Of course, Punch and Judy politics is alive and well amongst politicians, whatever Mr Cameron’s efforts to the contrary. But what about the Great British public? The same public who witnessed the miners’ strike, yelling at their televisions in favour of either the pickets, or the police, according to their political taste? The British public who only 20 years ago displayed their colours proudly on their lawns, windows and balconies at election time? Perhaps we’re too busy spring-cleaning our iTunes libraries; renovating our bathrooms; and managing the heavily-leveraged personal finances that make it all possible – our only concern being which party, blue, red, or aqua-marine, will make our accumulation of consumer fripperies as cheap and as easy as it can be. Which are we now more likely to hear? “Tory scum?” “Socialist scum?” Or, “nah mate, I don’t do politics?”
Maybe New Labour ended the ideological battle once and for all. Pleasingly, the centre-right seems to have won. But, if politics is ever going to enliven the public again, we need to establish points of difference. People like a fight. They’ll watch Man Utd v. Liverpool in their billions, but would they watch those same players if all they ever did was play headers and volleys in the park? I doubt it. The next election should be a derby game – not a kick-about in the park. And I’m well up for it.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Guest Blog; Why Young People Don't Join Political Parties
By Austen Sanders
Is it just me, a touchy 21 year old, or did the recent commemorations of ’68 carry an implicit charge of political apathy aimed at “young people today” - the individuals who, one assumes, grow up to be men on Clapham omnibuses? Such accusations are, I believe, misdirected. Young people are often interested in politics – but not in party-politics.
I’ve just graduated from university and over the last three years, in many a conversation with my friends, I’ve found that even those of us with the keenest interest in politics share this aversion to tribal politics. We’re attracted to the more marginal areas of political life such as think-tanks or the blogoshpere (apologies to all the skilled and influential individuals working in these areas).
Many of the most talented members of the next political generation are not particularly interested in sacrificing sweat and tears, (let alone blood), to party organisations. Either party politics will have to change, or a large measure of skill and enthusiasm will drain out of political life.
Many of these issues were touched on in a report published a fortnight ago by right of centre think-tank Reform and Ipsos MORI, entitled “A New Reality: Government and the IPOD generation”. The IPOD generation, by the way, is what comes after generation x. Members are aged 18-34 and are “insecure, pressurised, over-taxed and debt-ridden”.
Now here I must hold up my hands and admit that my interest in the report stems at least partly from the fact that I’m halfway through a summer internship at Reform, but it does make some valuable points.
I and another intern at Reform recognised ourselves in many of its descriptions. As it says, we “are not focused on ideology and therefore have the reputation of being uninterested in politics”. Without strong ideological beliefs to tie us to any particular party, neither my friend nor myself are particularly attracted to working within party politics.
Even our brief experience working in a think-tank has shown us how much genuine cross-party consensus there is on issues such as academies, but the major parties seem almost dedicated to obscuring these points of constructive agreement out of a fear of blurring their profiles and losing votes. We are enthusiastic about politics, and dislike the dead hand of the party line.
Most of my more politically aware friends from university are not choosing to work for, or even join, parties. Think-tanks provide a far more attractive destination. To someone leaving university, they appear as small and agile organisations in a dynamic sector which gives far more room for genuinely exciting and wide-ranging thought than a party research department. I don’t know if this is actually true, but I do know that that is what it looks like to young people making decisions about their political futures.
Technology has changed the way we see politics. We are very much aware that blogs are the place for the quickest and most exciting political news. We go to the blogs to pick up on election results before the mainstream media reports the official returns, and we can’t get enough of the gossip from blogs like Guido’s (Heat magazine in the corridors of power).
In a way, this shapes our understanding of our relationship with the political process. The blogger, and not the party activist, gives us our point of view. As a result, we identify with the perspective of the slight outsider, commenting on but not fully immersed in party politics.
The challenge for the major parties, and the party system as a whole, is to show the IPOD generation a political process that they are excited about and believe that they can take part in meaningfully. There will always be those who find their way into positions of power but a good number, motivated by the best of ambitions, may otherwise just drift away.
Solutions? I think the IPOD generation demands a political process which recognises the place of consensus within political life. The devolved politics of Scotland and Wales offers, perhaps, a possible vision of a way forward. The place of proportional representation in both electoral systems is no co-incidence.
Of course assumptions must always be challenged and alternatives provided, but the unbending rigidity of adversarial party-politics does not offer a political future the IPOD generation is interested in. Either the political process will change, or even the most passionate young people will turn off and disappear.
Is it just me, a touchy 21 year old, or did the recent commemorations of ’68 carry an implicit charge of political apathy aimed at “young people today” - the individuals who, one assumes, grow up to be men on Clapham omnibuses? Such accusations are, I believe, misdirected. Young people are often interested in politics – but not in party-politics.
I’ve just graduated from university and over the last three years, in many a conversation with my friends, I’ve found that even those of us with the keenest interest in politics share this aversion to tribal politics. We’re attracted to the more marginal areas of political life such as think-tanks or the blogoshpere (apologies to all the skilled and influential individuals working in these areas).
Many of the most talented members of the next political generation are not particularly interested in sacrificing sweat and tears, (let alone blood), to party organisations. Either party politics will have to change, or a large measure of skill and enthusiasm will drain out of political life.
Many of these issues were touched on in a report published a fortnight ago by right of centre think-tank Reform and Ipsos MORI, entitled “A New Reality: Government and the IPOD generation”. The IPOD generation, by the way, is what comes after generation x. Members are aged 18-34 and are “insecure, pressurised, over-taxed and debt-ridden”.
Now here I must hold up my hands and admit that my interest in the report stems at least partly from the fact that I’m halfway through a summer internship at Reform, but it does make some valuable points.
I and another intern at Reform recognised ourselves in many of its descriptions. As it says, we “are not focused on ideology and therefore have the reputation of being uninterested in politics”. Without strong ideological beliefs to tie us to any particular party, neither my friend nor myself are particularly attracted to working within party politics.
Even our brief experience working in a think-tank has shown us how much genuine cross-party consensus there is on issues such as academies, but the major parties seem almost dedicated to obscuring these points of constructive agreement out of a fear of blurring their profiles and losing votes. We are enthusiastic about politics, and dislike the dead hand of the party line.
Most of my more politically aware friends from university are not choosing to work for, or even join, parties. Think-tanks provide a far more attractive destination. To someone leaving university, they appear as small and agile organisations in a dynamic sector which gives far more room for genuinely exciting and wide-ranging thought than a party research department. I don’t know if this is actually true, but I do know that that is what it looks like to young people making decisions about their political futures.
Technology has changed the way we see politics. We are very much aware that blogs are the place for the quickest and most exciting political news. We go to the blogs to pick up on election results before the mainstream media reports the official returns, and we can’t get enough of the gossip from blogs like Guido’s (Heat magazine in the corridors of power).
In a way, this shapes our understanding of our relationship with the political process. The blogger, and not the party activist, gives us our point of view. As a result, we identify with the perspective of the slight outsider, commenting on but not fully immersed in party politics.
The challenge for the major parties, and the party system as a whole, is to show the IPOD generation a political process that they are excited about and believe that they can take part in meaningfully. There will always be those who find their way into positions of power but a good number, motivated by the best of ambitions, may otherwise just drift away.
Solutions? I think the IPOD generation demands a political process which recognises the place of consensus within political life. The devolved politics of Scotland and Wales offers, perhaps, a possible vision of a way forward. The place of proportional representation in both electoral systems is no co-incidence.
Of course assumptions must always be challenged and alternatives provided, but the unbending rigidity of adversarial party-politics does not offer a political future the IPOD generation is interested in. Either the political process will change, or even the most passionate young people will turn off and disappear.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Guest Blog: Death of the Record Industry
By James Clark
Finally, after 25 years of self-harm, the music industry has succeeded in taking its own life.
Seppuku was finally achieved with news that The British Phonographic Industry (BPI), the music industry’s enforcement arm, is to join with Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in issuing warning letters to thousands of customers whose computers contain illegally downloaded albums and songs.
The industry premise is simple: if you download songs without paying up then the artist and the label which invested in them get nothing, thus you are stealing and hurting the industry. Andy Burnham was straight in to back the move, citing the need to “protect artists”. It’s rubbish though; the real villains are elsewhere.
As a teenager I and everyone I knew would tape music from the radio shows like the late John Peel’s, hoping to hear new things we might like. This was equally illegal (remember those great “Home Taping Is Killing Music” warnings the BPI’s forerunner used to issue?). Did it kill the industry in the 80s and 90s? Not a bit. Artists I came to love at the time: The Cult, Billy Bragg, The Smiths and, as the adverts used to say, many, many more, all came to my attention through tapes like this. Having discovered I liked them I thirsted for more, and I went out and bought their records.
One of those bands whose records I bought after getting a tape from a friend called themselves Pop Will Eat Itself. True prophets from Birmingham, as it turned out. In the 80 and 90s music was about broadcasting yourself. If you were a “goth”, and loved The Cure and The Sisters Of Mercy, you dressed accordingly. Other kids knew your likes, and to some degree your view of the world, your values and what mattered to you just from seeing you.
The music you listened to reflected and reinforced this. It was like belonging to a clan. The same went for metal heads, skinheads, new romantics, grungers, hippies and a thousand other clans.
The commercial spin-off of this was that kids expanded their tastes, and thus spending, as they grew older because their music was rooted in something which grew with them. But the record industry couldn’t help itself. In the 90s it decided that paying money to drunken and difficult bands was a mug’s game, and investing in expensive A&R to find good acts was equally stupid.
Instead it started producing endless dance acts and boy bands. In the short term it worked – a “DJ” needs only some technical kit and a pile of someone else’s records to produce an album. Boy Bands, short on talent, do as they’re told for fear of being sacked. And it sold records, including to a new audience, the newly-financially-empowered under-14s. But when the 14 year olds were 18 year olds they simply stopped buying records altogether. Perhaps the odd Christmas No1, or “Now That’s What I Call Music! 3894”, but nothing else. Why? Because they had no musical identity. S-Club 7 and East17 meant nothing to them after they grew up. The music they listened to as kids didn’t lead them anywhere, or to anything new. The internet is the new John Peel, the new underground scene. It is through building a presence amongst file-sharers, and on social networking sites, that the acts of tomorrow break through from the underground to the commercial mainstream – not because they’re on iTunes, but because kids love the sense of discovery, of finding something others don’t know, of being first.
File-sharing should have been the industry’s salvation. I own dozens of records I came to via file-sharing friends. I suspect 80% of the records I have bought in the last five years can be traced back to file-sharing. Almost all of my friends have done similar things – file-shared to find new things amongst on-line communities of like-minded people, and then bought records as a result.
Sure, one or two people out there will “steal” everything and never part with a penny, but they’re a tiny minority and they have always existed (your friend with the 1,000 self-recorded tapes, remember him?). The industry, and the BPI, though, insist they should be able to deliver dross and expect people to buy it blind. I’m 37, and I’m still buying records and loving new things. I’m already a 20+ year customer for the industry. What of today’s 17-year-olds? There are only so many X-Factor winner albums one can buy in 20 years.
The reality is that the music scene survives, just, beneath this cloying blanket of commercial greed and risk aversion, with the odd band breaking through to the clean air above. Within a decade, though, the industry will be gone as we have known it, and the talent it uncovered, and the lifelong joy it bought people as a result, will have gone with it.
Blues legend says that the great Robert Johnson sold his soul to the Devil at a deserted Mississippi crossroads in return for his success. The next Robert Johnson will get there to find the offer rescinded – Satan is gorged on the souls of an entire industry.
Finally, after 25 years of self-harm, the music industry has succeeded in taking its own life.
Seppuku was finally achieved with news that The British Phonographic Industry (BPI), the music industry’s enforcement arm, is to join with Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in issuing warning letters to thousands of customers whose computers contain illegally downloaded albums and songs.
The industry premise is simple: if you download songs without paying up then the artist and the label which invested in them get nothing, thus you are stealing and hurting the industry. Andy Burnham was straight in to back the move, citing the need to “protect artists”. It’s rubbish though; the real villains are elsewhere.
As a teenager I and everyone I knew would tape music from the radio shows like the late John Peel’s, hoping to hear new things we might like. This was equally illegal (remember those great “Home Taping Is Killing Music” warnings the BPI’s forerunner used to issue?). Did it kill the industry in the 80s and 90s? Not a bit. Artists I came to love at the time: The Cult, Billy Bragg, The Smiths and, as the adverts used to say, many, many more, all came to my attention through tapes like this. Having discovered I liked them I thirsted for more, and I went out and bought their records.
One of those bands whose records I bought after getting a tape from a friend called themselves Pop Will Eat Itself. True prophets from Birmingham, as it turned out. In the 80 and 90s music was about broadcasting yourself. If you were a “goth”, and loved The Cure and The Sisters Of Mercy, you dressed accordingly. Other kids knew your likes, and to some degree your view of the world, your values and what mattered to you just from seeing you.
The music you listened to reflected and reinforced this. It was like belonging to a clan. The same went for metal heads, skinheads, new romantics, grungers, hippies and a thousand other clans.
The commercial spin-off of this was that kids expanded their tastes, and thus spending, as they grew older because their music was rooted in something which grew with them. But the record industry couldn’t help itself. In the 90s it decided that paying money to drunken and difficult bands was a mug’s game, and investing in expensive A&R to find good acts was equally stupid.
Instead it started producing endless dance acts and boy bands. In the short term it worked – a “DJ” needs only some technical kit and a pile of someone else’s records to produce an album. Boy Bands, short on talent, do as they’re told for fear of being sacked. And it sold records, including to a new audience, the newly-financially-empowered under-14s. But when the 14 year olds were 18 year olds they simply stopped buying records altogether. Perhaps the odd Christmas No1, or “Now That’s What I Call Music! 3894”, but nothing else. Why? Because they had no musical identity. S-Club 7 and East17 meant nothing to them after they grew up. The music they listened to as kids didn’t lead them anywhere, or to anything new. The internet is the new John Peel, the new underground scene. It is through building a presence amongst file-sharers, and on social networking sites, that the acts of tomorrow break through from the underground to the commercial mainstream – not because they’re on iTunes, but because kids love the sense of discovery, of finding something others don’t know, of being first.
File-sharing should have been the industry’s salvation. I own dozens of records I came to via file-sharing friends. I suspect 80% of the records I have bought in the last five years can be traced back to file-sharing. Almost all of my friends have done similar things – file-shared to find new things amongst on-line communities of like-minded people, and then bought records as a result.
Sure, one or two people out there will “steal” everything and never part with a penny, but they’re a tiny minority and they have always existed (your friend with the 1,000 self-recorded tapes, remember him?). The industry, and the BPI, though, insist they should be able to deliver dross and expect people to buy it blind. I’m 37, and I’m still buying records and loving new things. I’m already a 20+ year customer for the industry. What of today’s 17-year-olds? There are only so many X-Factor winner albums one can buy in 20 years.
The reality is that the music scene survives, just, beneath this cloying blanket of commercial greed and risk aversion, with the odd band breaking through to the clean air above. Within a decade, though, the industry will be gone as we have known it, and the talent it uncovered, and the lifelong joy it bought people as a result, will have gone with it.
Blues legend says that the great Robert Johnson sold his soul to the Devil at a deserted Mississippi crossroads in return for his success. The next Robert Johnson will get there to find the offer rescinded – Satan is gorged on the souls of an entire industry.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Guest Blog: Obama or McCain? Who gets the Vote of the Poor?
By Andrew Mitchell MPFrom the tea rooms of the House of Commons to the slums of Nairobi, the Obama versus McCain showdown is the talk of the world. It promises to be the most unpredictable and gripping contest for many years. What will it mean for the poorest people on the planet?
There is now a real prospect that the next leader of the free world will have close relatives who are among its poorest inhabitants. According to a recent CNN report, Barack Obama's Kenyan grandmother and uncle "do not have a television and live in a simple, single-story canary-yellow home several miles from the closest village."
Obama's father was born and raised in the East African nation; after the recent post-election violence, some reporters asked breathlessly 'Can Obama Save Kenya?'. On an emotional visit to his father's homeland in 2006, Obama was greeted by cheering crowds. He took a public HIV test at a remote rural health clinic in an effort to promote AIDS awareness. And the Senator from Illinois has taken a legislative interest in development issues back in Washington: he is piloting the Global Poverty Act through Congress, which would require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive policy to halve extreme global poverty by 2015, and demands measurable benchmarks and timetables to achieve this ambitious goal. If he wins in November, he might just be carrying this through as President.
But there is an elephant in the room whenever the presumptive Democratic candidate discusses development: Trade. During the primaries he followed John Edwards and Hilary Clinton in playing to the protectionist gallery. This is dangerous territory: failure for the Doha Round could fatally undermine the multilateral, rules-based system overseen by the World Trade Organisation that protects poor countries and offers the best route to freer global trade. The deadline is looming for this vital and much-needed agreement.
The voice of reason on trade is that of Republican frontrunner John McCain. He has bravely kept the flag of economic freedom flying, making the unanswerable case that free trade and open markets are the surest route to growth and development. Pointedly ignoring the siren call of protectionism, he promises to "aggressively promote global trade liberalization at the World Trade Organization and expand America's free-trade agreements to friendly nations on every continent."
McCain's views on development are practical and challenging, though perhaps less clearly-defined than Obama's. He has called for the G8 to boot out undemocratic Russia, but embrace the market democracies of India and Brazil. Writing in Foreign Affairs, he pledged to help promote an 'African Renaissance', and to work to eradicate malaria. On Darfur, he says " I fear that the United States is once again repeating the mistakes it made in Bosnia and Rwanda" and promises "my administration will consider the use of all elements of American power to stop the outrageous acts of human destruction". On a more personal level, his website tells us that "in 1993, John McCain and his wife, Cindy, adopted a little girl from Mother Teresa's orphanage in Bangladesh" and that adoption is a policy area of personal interest to him.
Clearly, both of the Presidential hopefuls have thought seriously about how to tackle poverty around the world. This is nothing new: from the post-war Marshall Plan, through JFK's Peace Corps, successive Presidents have recognized that peace and prosperity abroad matter to their citizens at home. Whichever candidate wins in November will face tough challenges on development - to say nothing of the massive military, strategic and environmental questions which so affect the world's poor.
Getting a global trade deal that works for all, winning the fight against disease, rationalizing the US aid programme and ensuring every dollar of hard-earned taxpayer's money achieves the maximum value for the poor: there are battles to be fought and political capital to be expended to get these things done.
As the Presidential race unfolds, in its barrage of pundits and predictions and polls, people in remote villages and urban slums around the world will be watching as closely as the inhabitants of the Washington beltway and the Westminster village. For what happens in November 2008 matters as much to them as it does to us.
******
Note from Iain: I will be running a series of guest blogs throughout the Summer. If you would like to write an article to appear on the blog (max 750 words) please do email me. I can't guarantee it will be used though!
Tomorrow: James Clark on the death of the British Record Industry
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)