by Rob

Labour and Liberties

Ed Balls has recently stated in an interview that Labour had taken wrong decisions on civil liberties. In the interview with Andrew Marr, he described the efforts to pass laws allowing 90 days detention without trial as “a step too far”.

The change of position from Labour inevitably has political consequences. I think it’s fair to say that nobody would argue this is the sole reason Labour lost the election. Yet this seems a surprisingly reflective time for Labour. Some reflection was done during the leadership contest, as could only be expected, but now there seems to be a renewed emphasis on what Labour got wrong and what the party thinks should be corrected.

Labour is trying to shed an authoritarian image, but I suspect there is a lot more to it than civil liberties. Labour was also seen by some as bureaucratic and intervening needlessly – a perception that will be very difficult to change politically. To do so would almost certainly require policies to be proposed, which would in turn be playing their hand far too soon.

by Rob

Jon Stewart’s Rally to Restore Sanity

On Saturday, the comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert held the “Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear” in Washington D.C. At the end of the day, Jon Stewart made a short ten minute speech about why he wanted to hold the rally – arguing that there was a spirit of cooperation in America where not everyone was portrayed as an extremist.

He argued that holding an opposing view shouldn’t be a reason to demonise somebody, summarising that “we live now in hard times, not end times”.

Stewart self-deprecatingly remarked that:

I know there are boundaries for a comedian-funny-talker-guy, and I’m sure I’ll find out tomorrow how I have violated them

Nevertheless, Stewart seems to have taken on a role as a serious political analyst, and the rally seems to have struck a chord with some people.

I’ve no idea what effect this will have in the long term. I’ve made predictions before, and that didn’t work very well, so I’ll try and resist the temptation. The only thing I will say is that I doubt it will affect the mid-term elections today. But if Jon Stewart’s ideas gather followers things could get quite interesting in American politics.

by Rob

The Nature of ‘Politics’

In an interview with Mark Kermode last year, Alastair Campbell argued strongly against Kermode’s suggestion that politics is “venal and crass”:

Politics has delivered most of the great things in the world and its history

In fairness, I should probably start by saying that I’ve always been a great fan of Mark Kermode’s film reviews. Nevertheless, I couldn’t help but think Alastair Campbell was deliberately misunderstanding the accusation.

Politics hasn’t given us great things. It hasn’t given us the NHS, or rights, or fundamental changes in the law. Governments, Parliament, politicians, campaigners and democracy have given us these things, whilst politics appears to have taken on a completely different meaning.

The term ‘politics’ now appears to refer to hostile briefing, infighting and bickering in the Westminster bubble – the easily televised and publicised elements that satisfy what (of all people) Russell Brand refers to as a public desire for a narrative. Just think of the phrase ‘office politics’.

That’s not to say all politicians are evil, or that all great ideas have evaporated from the system. Far from it. Yet politics seems to have been reduced to a pettiness and point-scoring with the dreaded capability of making or breaking a career.

Why else would the accusation that a party is “playing politics” be an acceptable (and often damning) response to criticism?

There is an element of hypocrisy in my definition – you’ll note the category this and many other posts are published under – and perhaps my interpretation of the term ‘politics’ is that of a cynic, but I’d like to think otherwise. The political system can give and has given us some great things, but, in my opinion, it’s not quite politics.

by Rob

Russell Brand and Celebrity

I’ve just watched an interview on Newsnight that can only be described as bizarre. Jeremy Paxman interviewed Russell Brand, who decided to discuss the nature of fame and celebrity (seemingly regardless of Paxman’s initial aims for the interview).

Brand’s answers and commentary on “the cult of celebrity” seemed to consist of intelligence spoken so quickly as to be often virtually lost. He argued he drew attention to the public obsession with fame and narrative, claiming that as a result of constant media coverage of non-stories, nobody is interested in “the big ideas”.

For all my initial scepticism about the interview, I can’t help but feel that he has a point. The criticism levelled at “the cult of celebrity” is hardly new, but the concept that ideological debate and “big ideas” have been obscured is an interesting one.

Has the obsession with fame permanently damaged debate and the way politics operates?

by Rob

In the Red-Top Corner…

It’s no longer about Coulson. Chris Bryant on Sky News described the ongoing saga about Andy Coulson’s role in Downing St and his alleged part in any “phone hacking”* as a “sideshow”. Instead, the story is now all newspapers and whether they’ve been involved in similar conduct. Guido Fawkes has got stuck-in in customary fashion with a few comparisons, and much coverage has been given to Tom Watson’s statement that Parliament has been “afraid” of the media.

Few would dispute that politicians have often pandered to the media, but that question is hardly new and has been debated for years. Journalists would no doubt argue that they write what will sell, and are an extension of the public. They both keep the public informed and exert pressure where they think the public wants pressure. Politicians would argue that the effect of journalists writing what will sell leads to malpractice and a single-minded obsession with “getting the story”. This in turn leads to highly selective reporting at the whim of the editor and misrepresentation of facts.

Of course politicians are “afraid” of the media – they can make or destroy a political career. The famous Blair request for “eye-catching initiatives” suggests a close and dangerous relationship between politicians and the papers. The “spin machines” of Westminster have often courted the papers to try and portray parties in a favourable light or slam opposition. Yet although the papers have been happy to grab the extra information, a good story may out-rank a source, hence the coverage given to the expenses scandal.

So here’s a thought. Political parties have often tried to woo the papers, with little reciprocation from the media. With Labour’s own PR machine effectively out of action until the leadership election, perhaps this all amounts to a bit of revenge. MPs have had enough, and now is a rare opportunity for a bit of payback. Where a fight between media and politicians leads is anybody’s guess, but if the story continues I wouldn’t expect the news cycle to be a quiet one in a few months time.

 

*Technically, it’s not hacking. Or tapping. See this handy post on Dizzy for a bit more detail.

by Rob

Have MPs Learned from the Expenses Scandal?

I’ve finally listened to the Any Questions debate from Friday (which much like more regular blogging, ended-up slightly lower down on my to-do list than expected). One of the more interesting moments was Ed Miliband’s mention of a loss of faith in politics as a consequence of the expenses scandal.

This seems to be the received wisdom – that the absurd claims on many MPs’ expenses forms somehow damaged the public’s belief in our democracy. Similar claims were made by Tom Watson in relation to allegations of “phone tapping” made against Andy Coulson*.

I can’t help but question the extent of this. If an angry member of the public were to meet an MP and summarise what they felt, which of the following is more likely?

1. “I’ve lost faith in politics. I don’t think our political system is functioning.”

2. “I’ve lost faith in politicians. You’ve abused your position for personal gain.”

The expenses scandal was never about politics or the system. People stopped trusting individual politicians to represent them, because bluntly speaking, they seemed to be in it for themselves.

By all means reform the system, and declare a “new politics” that is “progressive”, but are we all forgetting what was wrong in the first place?

I’m not suggesting we throw out all MPs and start again, or that there is nothing wrong with the system. Nor am I suggesting that all politicians are “in it for themselves”. But it seems all too easy to move from blaming politicians to blaming politics and the system.

 

* Maybe more on this later when everything’s settled down.

by Rob

Education: “Is our children learning?”

Rarely is the question asked, “is our children learning?”

–George W. Bush, 2000

Last week on The Big Picture*, Simon produced a special report on the state of the education system. The panel all seemed to agree that there wasn’t anything particularly wrong with the current state system, going as far as to argue that there was a relatively even distribution of both state and independent schools throughout the league tables.

The panel don’t seem to be alone; a recent Populus poll for The Times (9th Feb 2010) asked people to rate their perception of public services on a scale of 0 – 10, and the modal average was 7.

This raises two puzzling questions: firstly, why are the Tories focusing on education as the target of their policy announcements, and why would anyone call for “positive discrimination”?

The Conservatives have been calling for reform of education with a focus on more traditional subjects like history, and have proposed radical changes allowing parents to have more influence. Their draft manifesto lists various policies for achieving this and granting more independence in what they call a post-bureaucratic age, but the true reason is found in the opening blurb:

the success of our plan to mend Britain’s broken society depends less on the actions that a Conservative government will take to give people more power and more on society’s response [emphasis added]

Despite the apparently positive view of education that the Populus poll indicates, the same poll found that 70% believe society in Britain is broken. The question is how to fix it, and the Conservatives have, rightly or wrongly, targeted education.

As for the private and state sectors, it can only be presumed that there is a perception of a gap between the two. Otherwise, the only reasoning for calls for “positive discrimination” is covert class war – something few parties are willing to openly advocate. Perhaps this argument may see such calls silenced over the course of the election, particularly if Labour are to claim that the state sector is now the equal of independent schools.

Is education reform needed, have the Tories misdiagnosed a “broken Britain”, or is this all myth?

*Shameless plug alert! Rob presents The Big Picture.

by Rob

The Role of Blogs

The 2008 U.S. Presidential Election clearly showed the potential for the political use of the internet in campaigning. Our own general election here in the U.K. is likely to be no different, particularly with blogs such as Iain Dale’s Diary and LabourList already featuring prominently in discussions in the mainstream media.

Yet when there was originally speculation about the political role of blogs, it was suggested that they provided little more than a platform for the views of an individual. The comments sections seem to contradict this. Whilst yes, in some cases people are angered or seek to provoke others, there is also opportunity to hold the blogger to account and discuss issues further. Bloggers have taken to publicly asking questions of each other and answering them – as when Guido Fawkes of Order-Order questioned Daniel Finkelstein’s approach to tax.

Edward Murrow’s maxim holds true:

the fact that your voice is amplified to the degree where it reaches from one end of the country to the other does not confer upon you greater wisdom or understanding than you possessed when your voice reached only from one end of the bar to the other

Both comments and the network of blogs (I refuse to use the term “blogosphere”) inform reader and writer alike. The change in tone from dismissing blogs to accepting them is one that has, and hopefully will continue to, expand discussion and debate.