An interesting column in the Telegraph by Boris Johnson caught my eye this morning. It was nice to finally see amongst the media someone who wasn’t swooning over “Churchill Clegg” and the Lib Dems, like a schoolgirl with a crush on the new kid at school.
In the article he contemplates the madness that has befallen the nation over the new found support for Mr Clegg. Whilst I do not share his blind optimism about the certainty of a Conservative all out victory at the forthcoming General Election, he does make some valid arguments in his dressing down of Mr Clegg. My favourite paragraphs from the column:
“Everybody treats Vince Cable as a semi-holy Mahatma Gandhi of British politics, because he is supposed in some way to have anticipated the financial crisis. Actually his most notable recommendation before the crisis was that Britain should join the euro – a move that would gravely have worsened our current position by leaving us in a Greek-style straitjacket.
What crouton of substance did Clegg offer last Thursday, in the opaque minestrone of waffle? He wants to get rid of Trident. Great! So Lib Dem foreign policy means voluntarily resigning from the UN Security Council, abandoning all pretensions to world influence, and sub-contracting our nuclear deterrent to France! They are a bunch of euro-loving road-hump fetishists who are attempting like some defective vacuum cleaner to suck and blow at the same time; and the worst of it is that if you do vote Lib Dem in the demented belief that there could ever be such a thing as a Lib Dem government, you won't get Prime Minister Clegg. You'll get Prime Minister Gordon Brown, for five more holepunch-hurling years, because the Lib Dems almost always vote with Labour, and in my years in Parliament I can't remember a single moment when they opposed a Labour measure to expand state spending or state control.”
Much has been made of Britain’s first televised leader’s debate. It has been labelled a game changer by most of the media with the Lib Dems now enjoying a 2 point lead over Labour with 30% according to the latest YouGov poll.
Personally I’m not quite sure why the Lib Dems have risen by so much in the polls. I should first off say that I only managed to watch 30 minutes of the debate before switching off in complete boredom – and this is coming from someone who actually finds politics interesting. Of course the debate could have livened up after that but I doubt it.
Mr Brown was his usual dull self, trying to defend Labour’s record and seeking re-election on that – a bad policy considering their appalling record. Mr Cameron seemed to be giving the most sensible answers but failed to get his message across effectively. I’m not sure whether it was an attempt to act serious and Prime Ministerial or whether it was a touch of the nerves but again he seemed incredibly dull. Mr Clegg was in fact the only person who seemed energetic, enthusiastic and interesting, which can be the only reason I can think of for his rise in support because what he was actually saying was complete rubbish. His policies were vague and incredibly idealistic – Mr Cameron and Mr Brown should have been able to pick holes in his arguments easily and exposed the Lib Dems for the idealistic party they are – none of their policies would work in practice. Instead Mr Brown and Mr Cameron chose to argue with each other and ignore Mr Clegg.
Of course the easy way to have made this debate enjoyable to watch would have been to cut the constraints that all the parties signed up to – in particular the ban on applause. If this debate had been more along the lines of Prime Minister’s Questions (which I generally enjoy watching) with jeering and applause from different members of the audience then this would have livened the debate up substantially.
Instead I rather suspect that no-one will be able to remember Britain’s ‘First Great Televised Debate’ for the boredom and monotony it produced. However I shall not say that the debate was insignificant – clearly it has had an effect on the polls and certainly if it stays the way it is then this election will have turned into a 3 legged race. However if the Conservatives and Labour have any sense they will concentrate their efforts in the next two debates to taking apart Mr Clegg’s policies and showing how they are unworkable in practice.
So I shall not follow in the footsteps of most other commentators in proclaiming the rise of the Liberal Democrats, not until the dust has settled and we have seen the next two debates. After all there are still two and a half weeks of the election campaign left to run, and as we all know even one week is a long time in politics.
There is an interesting article in The Times today by William Rees-Mogg on the need for immediate reform in The Lords and the entire constitution.
He makes the valid point that over the past 20 years the Lords has already undergone great change – most of it for the worse. He comments that the old separation of powers between the Commons and the Lords worked well, but has since been scrapped by Labour, and that the banishment of most of the hereditary peers was bad for the Lords because they were more apolitical than their life peer replacements.
Of course the perfect solution to all this would be to restore the House of Lords to its former glory and undo the demolition work undertaken by Labour. However in today’s world any party that suggested returning to a system whereby a few privileged landowners are allowed to adjust legislation from the Commons would be electoral suicide. It would be the best possible solution but is not viable.
So what of the alternatives being put forward? Labour wants a wholly elected chamber but this would cause many problems. Why should the Commons have priority over the Lords when both are elected? What if the Commons is dominated by the Conservatives and the Lords by Labour? Why should the Conservatives be able to push through legislation when both parties have equal support from the electorate as a whole?
Another alternative is a fully appointed chamber. This has the problem that those appointed to the Lords by the government would be there to push forward the government’s agenda – hardly appropriate for a revising chamber. The only other suggestions being put forward are a split between elected and appointed representatives. For me this has the combination of problems for the other two options.
Rees-Mogg continues in the article to suggest that more than just the Lords needs reform. In commenting on the poor devolution of national assemblies he says that
“Too high a proportion of recent constitutional reforms has been a reaction to events and to the political pressures of the time. We need a new constitutional convention and a written constitution.”
I’m not quite sure why everyone suddenly seems to want to change and codify what is already a very good constitution. Our constitution has evolved over the past 800 years or so, being updated and upgraded through Acts Of Parliament when required. There is absolutely no reason to change the British Constitution whatsoever – and even if there was would we really want the same people who cannot even write legislation well let alone the devolution of national assemblies to write a new British Constitution?
Codifying a constitution does not eradicate problems. Take the American Constitution for example and how it gives every American citizen the right to arm themselves – a right that was probably very useful back in 1776 but which now causes problems with excessive gun crime across America. Even if this new Constitution is absolutely perfect how are they meant to make it suitable 100 years from now or even 50? The world is constantly changing and we need a constitution which can do the same. Luckily we already have one, it’s just a shame that so many commentators want to dispose of it.
A second vicious attack on Nigel Farage and UKIP appeared recently, this time in The Times. This article is, if anything, even worse than that published in The Telegraph last week. Rather than make another rant on the subject, I shall point tothis post from Eursoc, which I think sums it up nicely.
It is interesting to note however that the writers of both of these articles, Tanya Gold for The Telegraph and Camilla Long for The Times, both won awards at The British Press Awards last night. Apparently this sort of journalism is the model that others should be following.
I’d only been awake a few minutes this morning before being spurred into writing another post. The reason? Opening a newspaper. The article in question that drove me to such anger was a piece in The Telegraph covering the recent UKIP conference.
Now I have no objection to the reviewer (Tanya Gold) taking issue with their policies, nor do I mind it being a subjective piece. My issue with it is that the piece has no ambition to give an outline of the party’s conference; instead it is designed to make UKIP seem as foolish as possible. Every quote is twisted and turned and everyone who has been interviewed is turned into a figure of ridicule. Within the first couple of paragraphs we have “They are here – the Little England Euro-sceptics, brushing the dust from their eyes”, “ragtag army of bearded men and ancient ladies” and “UKIP supporters are the worst dressers in British politics”. Honestly, can you imagine the same tact being used for other parties? Perhaps she would describe Labour as ‘self-interested liars, filling out their expenses forms’ or the Conservatives as ‘insubstantial career politicians, desperately trying to get their greedy mitts on power’.
This comes literally weeks after Nigel Farage, UKIPs former leader and most prominent member, was fined €3000 for correctly pointing out that Herman Van Rompuy (EU President for those who have never heard of him) has all “the charisma of a damp rag” and “the appearance of a low grade bank clerk”. This was enough for politicians to call for the democratically elected MEP to be suspended from the European Parliament, though similar language against this party seems more than acceptable – expected even. The hypocrisy astounds me.
But back to the article – surely this article is attacking a party many of The Telegraph’s readers agree with. After all it is a conservative newspaper, and The Conservatives have been bleeding votes to UKIP since ‘Cast-Iron Dave’ (as he is regularly called in the newspaper’s own comments) reneged on his Lisbon Treaty Referendum promise. Surely then none of the paper’s journalists despise UKIP to such an extent that they’d write such a scathing article. Well presumably that is why the editors brought in Tanya Gold to write the article, a lady famed for her “comic observational articles” in The Guardian, The Independent and The Daily Mail: the three papers that a typical reader of The Telegraph would disagree with most strongly.
As I conclude this post though I am heartened by the comments below the article. Despite the blatant attempt to win wavering Tories back into the fold, this article seems to have, if anything, pushed them into the arms of UKIP. At this moment all but 1 commenter has pledged their vote to UKIP. I will end with two of my favourite quotes from these comments:
“Your paper may well mock and denigrate UKIP in the run-up to the General Election, but it will be UKIP that has the last laugh when Cameron and his cronies fail to collect the keys to Number 10” (Christopher Dean)
“They aren't 'slick', and they don't have powerful spin doctors to get the Party 'message' across. In my book that is a definite plus … Pathetic”(Robbydot)
The planned strike by BA cabin crew staff will go ahead after talks between BA and Unite collapsed today. This comes after a failed attempted strike over Christmas, which was deemed illegal by a High Court ruling in December, and a pledge from Unite that any strike action would not occur over Easter.
I can’t help but wonder what was going through the minds of those crew members who voted for strike action. It seems completely barmy to me. Last month BA announced a pre-tax loss of £50m, which although an improvement on the £122m loss the year before, is still a long way from being profitable. The cost cutting measures announced by BA which have sparked this row were designed to try and cut this deficit and bring the company back to profitability. Measures the cabin crew have taken particular issue with include cutting cabin crew from 15 to 14 on long-haul flights and a two year pay freeze, as well as proposed measures for new recruits which include dispensing with seniority, promotion on merit and pay equal to the market standard plus 10%.
Forgive me for my lack of sympathy with the crew but these measures seem more than fair, generous even, given the recent recession and the resulting effect it has had on the aviation industry. Bear in mind that a crew of 14 is still above most other airlines and a fair way above the legal minimum of 12 (for a Boeing 747). Had BA wanted to save more they could have cut the crew further; they should be relieved that BA has only knocked 1 member from each flight, not incensed by it. BA also pays higher salaries than the market average and a pay freeze while the airline recovers seems reasonable.
As for the measures yet to come into effect, the proposed scrapping of the Seniority System is long overdue. Under this system the longer standing cabin crew get first dibs on the flights they want to work on, often earning more than some pilots into the bargain, and causing newer staff to take the unwanted earlier flights to less desirable locations. As for promotion on merit, I’m amazed this has not already been adopted and even more shocked that the cabin crew oppose it. In what other job would less able workers be promoted above brighter or harder working individuals, simply because they have been there longer? It’s madness and surely increases complacency among the crew; competition is healthy and would help to improve customer service for the airline’s passengers.
This strike will serve only to reverse the company’s partial recovery causing heavier losses, in both the punitive sense and in terms of passengers. And what will the strike achieve? BA has used the time since the ruling on the first planned strikes to retrain hundreds of ground crew and will put the biggest contingency plan in its troubled history into effect over Easter. The airline has pledged to keep 65% of its customers flying, utilising a fleet of chartered jets and a 1,000 strong volunteer cabin crew. The cost of this plan is part of the reason why BA put a weaker option on the table to that offered previously.
Mr Woodley, Unite’s General Secretary, is now demanding that offer back after he failed to get a better deal. But it’s too late: had Unite been more reasonable and accepted that offer earlier, BA would not be struck with the departure of many customers, and increasing losses. Mr Walsh, Chief executive of BA, has said that the threat of strike action has cost the airline £27m and 103,000 passengers. What happens if this strike causes such an exodus of passengers that the national carrier has to call in the administrators? How the cabin crew will rue their greedy demands when they are jobless and broke themselves. Of course Tony Woodley and his chums at Unite won’t be too upset by this as they’ll be keeping their jobs and raking in their six-figure salaries regardless of the outcome of this dispute.
And what of the Government’s efforts to resolve the issue? Well Cameron has branded them “feeble” and added “It is back to the 1970s”, saying that Labour is a "wholly owned subsidiary of the union ... They pick the candidates, they choose the policies, they elect the leader and they have special access to Downing Street”. Cameron is spot on here - of course the same can be said for the Tories. The difference is that it is donors like Lord Ashcroft controlling the party and its politics rather than the unions. As for Cameron’s quip about the 1970s, continuing his comparison he is surely implying that he is to Thatcher, as Brown is to Callaghan. Back then the unions had brought the country to its knees, and it was Thatcher who crushed their grip on the country to such an extent that they have only recently began to flex their muscles again. I cannot imagine the current Conservative party being anything like as successful in their dealings with the unions, not while Cameron’s in the cockpit.
Right, I’ve had it. I’m fed up of the rubbish
I keep reading in the press; Fed up of the incredible bias on the BBC; Fed up
of our useless politicians. No-one seems to represent the views of the general
public any more. So I’ve decided to start my own blog to express my own views
and hopefully stimulate some discussion on some of the key issues our
politicians shy away from. This is something I have been considering doing for
a while, primarily through frustration at the ever diminishing differences
between the three ‘Main Parties’ whose policy boundaries are now so blurred
that the only choice between them at the forthcoming election is which of the
leaders is going to cause the least damage to this country.
The thing that has angered me into finally
putting pen to paper though (or fingers to keyboard) is not just the complete
lack of understanding of the public mood from the main parties but from the
mainstream media as well. I can now no longer read a newspaper without being
angered by the fact that not a single one cares about this merging of the
political parties. On the one hand you have The
Guardian moaning about the Conservatives and arguing the case for Labour
and on the other you have The Telegraph
continually stressing how the country cannot survive five more years of Brown
and Labour. None seem to realise that Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib
Dems are one and the same. None understand the true reasons behind the public
hatred of politicians, who bleat on about such things as the Expenses Scandal
as the reason for their downfall.
Voter turnout has been decreasing since a
relative high of 77.7% at the 1992 General Election to a low of 59.4% in the
2001 election. A recent Ipsos/Mori poll predicted that turnout for the upcoming election could be as
low as 53%. This trend shows that public apathy to politics is no new
phenomenon, and while it has been exacerbated by the recent scandals, had
already been on the increase. The political ‘Elite’ fail to see the real
reasons the public are disillusioned with politicians. Why bother turning out
to vote when every candidate is proposing the same thing?
In my despair at the lack of comment on this
subject I have started this blog. I will use it to comment on what I believe to
be the important issues of the day and endeavour to give a refreshingly
different take than that offered by the mainstream media. I encourage criticism
and debate, something that our current crop of politicians seem keen to stifle!
Posts
