In the footballing world we’ve just had two big annual awards dished out: the Football Writers’ Award to Scott Parker and the Professional Footballers’ Award to Gareth Bale. The latter caused a particular controversy, partly due to the timing of the voting being just half way through the season but also because of divided opinion on who merits the award. Let me use a simplified, hypothetical example to show how a different voting system could help alleviate some of this debate.
Say for arguments sake a large majority of people (70%) believe that the award should go to the stand out player from the stand out team. As Manchester United are winning the league the candidates could include Nani, Ryan Giggs and Nemanja Vidic.
Another sector of opinion (30%) believe it should go to the player that has contributed the most to their own team: I’m thinking Charlie Adam, Gareth Bale or Scott Parker.
As the first group of people are considering the performance of individuals within a highly performing team, opinion is much more likely to be split. Nani, Giggs and Vidic may well all poll similarly high figures.
The second group of people could equally be split but, again for arguments sake, lets say they all eventually flock around Gareth Bale because of his European performances.
Here’s my hypothetical results:
Gareth Bale 30%
Nani 26%
Ryan Giggs 24%
Nemaja Vidic 20%
Now despite most people believing the winner should go to the stand out player from the stand out team, Gareth Bale has come out on top and he wins the award. This is what happens in a majoritarian system, a concentrated minority opinion beats a divided majority.
How could we rectify it? Well there’s a number of ways but lets use the political topic of the day: the Alternative Vote system.
What happens here is that instead of selecting just one candidate, each voter can rank their most favoured candidates 1, 2, 3 and so on. This is called an order of preferences. If nobody reaches a majority (50%) on everybody’s first preference, then the candidate that finishes last is taken out and all of his second preferences are added to the other candidates’ total.
So in my example, nobody reaches 50% as the leader Bale sits on just 30%. As the bottom candidate is Vidic, out he goes and most of his second preference votes (three-quarters) go to Nani whilst the others (a quarter) go to Giggs.
We now look like this: Nani 41%; Bale 30%; Giggs 29%.
Still nobody has hit that 50% mark, so out goes Giggs and all of his preferences are predictably redistributed to Nani.
We have a winner: Nani hits a whopping 70% whilst Bale stays static on 30%.
Why is that more fair? Well the majority of people didn’t want a player like Bale to win, they wanted a player that stood out for the best team to win. Nani may not have been everybody’s first choice, but a majority of people would have been happier with him winning it than Gareth Bale. What we’ve got is a result that the majority are satisfied with.
Now I’ve avoided politics for much of this post but this is basically what the AV referendum is all about. The No camp want to keep a system where whoever gets the most votes wins. Sounds simple and fair doesn’t it? But as I hope my example as illustrated it can often mean that the majority of people end up with a result they don’t want.
The Yes camp want to make this small adjustment to a system of AV that should mean that more people are satisfied with the end result. All the voter has to do is put his preferences in order: 1, 2, 3. All the counter has to do is keep eliminating the lowest placed candidate until somebody ends up with 50%. Now that is certainly simple and is more likely to be fair.
Of course I wouldn’t make the outlandish claim that the system is perfect or that in every instance a similar scenario to the one above will occur. But it certainly increases the chances of the result being one that more people are happier with. That is why people should care about this referendum and that is why people should vote YES.
My very first post was quite dismissive about accusations of Anti-Semitism in relation to my blog name. As the topic has recently been pushed to the front of the agenda by David and Idor Baddiel, I feel it is right I make my defence more thorough.
First of all let’s make one thing absolutely clear from the start. I am utterly opposed to discrimination of any kind. Being a wholehearted liberal I’m often on the receiving end of claims of being too soft, politically correct or out of step myself on issues surrounding discrimination. However on this occasion I believe that it is Baddiel and co who are out of step.
The campaign goes a little something like this: the “Y-word” (Yido) was once used as a pejorative term to describe the Jewish community and on occasion it is still used in that sense today (including within horrific chants making reference to the holocaust). Words like “n*****” and “p***” used to attack the Black and Asian community have been almost stamped out from the game. The Y-word hasn’t gone the same way and instead is used on a large scale by and to spurs fans to the extent that many are not even aware of its discriminatory nature.
The campaign is without a doubt well-intentioned and I respect all those involved for tackling what they perceive to be discrimination. But I think they are wrong. Let me explain my thinking.
Although I accept the fact that it was once used as a pejorative term and, on occasion, it is still used that way, I do not accept that the general and most widely recognised use of it still carries that same pejorative meaning.
The familiar story goes that chants using the words yids and yidos were directed at Tottenham fans in a derogatory fashion because of their strong links with the Jewish community. Spurs fans decided to take ownership of the term and began to call themselves Yids/Yidos to deflect the effects of the abuse. In an empowering move the community managed to take control of the term and transform it.
I would not argue that this in itself makes it ok and I’ll use an example to illustrate my point. Segments of the black community decided to take ownership of the term “n*****” and refer to themselves and others within that community using that term. Crucially, this was never adopted across the large majority of that community and it remains wholly pejorative for anybody outside of the community to use the term. In almost every sense this word clearly still maintains a pejorative meaning and should be treated as discriminatory.
In contrast the words yido/yid in the very specific context of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club have been almost universally accepted to have taken on a new meaning. I cannot find the original study for this but I remember Tottenham Hotspur carrying out a survey on this very matter a few years ago and the conclusion was that overwhelmingly, in the context it is used, it was not considered offensive by the local Jewish community. Within the Tottenham Hotspur community it is now used affectionately and in many cases is recognised as a badge of honour. A new player can take great pride in hearing the chant yido directed at him as it is an indication of his acceptance into the heart of the football club’s fraternity. Issues like this always have to be considered within a context and this is not explained more precisely or thoroughly than by Robert Samuelson here [Note: It is a lengthy post by an extremely well-informed and superbly articulated Jewish Tottenham supporter, be prepared for a longer read than this!]
The key point is that words can and do take on new meanings and the continuing use of the term in its old sense in particular instances does not take away from its generally accepted new meaning. Of course anybody caught using it in its former sense should be punished accordingly. This is difficult to identify and requires clever policing but it is the right way to move forward. Taking away such a positive and powerful symbol from a respectable community because of the disrespectful minority is wrong.
Again I’d like to reiterate how much I empathise with the campaign’s concerns but for reasons stated above I think their concerns are misplaced. I’d invite them to embrace the term under its modern positive meaning and more correctly focus their efforts on the true anti-Semitism that undeniably lives on in places within the sport.
Without hesitation we must continue to catch and punish those that use it in a discriminatory fashion, but we also must not punish the larger majority that use it in its modern day positive sense.
I’m proud to be called a yido and I hope that everybody can come to recognise that as solely a positive thing.
“Well I’m voting for Clegg!” That was the response from Anita Dunn (the Obama strategist Cameron had drafted in) after an outstanding and eerily accurate rehearsal performance from Jeremy Hunt as the Liberal Democrat Leader in the lead up to the televised debates. The real Nick Clegg did indeed steal the show – a year ago today Cleggmania was born.
If Clegg was nervous, it didn’t show. Liberal Democrat members were used to his calm, measured, occasionally impatient yet altogether relaxed style. The general public on the other hand, denied previous opportunity by the vested interests of the partisan media, were just meeting him for the first time – and boy were they impressed…
Here’s a reminder of those poll results:
Gordon Brown -David Cameron - Nick Clegg
Populus/Times 17 - 22 - 61
YouGov/Sun 19 - 29 - 51
ComRes/ITN 20 - 26 - 43
Angus Reid 18 - 20 - 49
ICM/Guardian 19 - 20 - 51
Infamously Brown’s tactic to deal with the Clegg Factor was to hug him close – #Iagreewithnick becoming the unofficial slogan of the Liberal Democrat campaign thanks to Gordon’s exemplary efforts. Unsurprisingly, due to his obvious discomfort with the slicker side of politics, he struggled to get his own message across.
Cameron appeared altogether underprepared for the inspired performance of the new kid on the block. It’s difficult to believe he didn’t take into account the Clegg effect given so much was at stake and being the smooth media operator he is. Cameron’s message of change was undoubtedly overshadowed by what was perceived to be a genuine offer of change from a previously faceless man. Nerves must have got the better of him.
Fast-forward a year and in popular culture Nick has been transformed from Nick the Messiah to Nick the Pariah. Many would like to single out the Tuition Fees row last autumn as the pivotal moment in his transition but in truth the knives have been out for him from the start.
Take a look at these headlines on the day of the second debate:
Of course the public appeared to take no notice during the campaign as he continued to ride high in the polls. But the crucial poll, the one that counts, was disappointing. Simply put, not enough people took the plunge to actually vote for him -the public weren’t so resolute against the anti-Clegg agenda after all.
Even so, how did Clegg get so unpopular?
Well his sin, according to his critics, was to enter a coalition with the Conservatives. The Liberal Democrat’s policy of equidistance has been reinstated for some time but in many people minds its anti-Conservative stance of the 90s has never ended. Frankly speaking I don’t think it is correct to call yourself a pluralist party if you’re only willing to work with one other. Yes of course there were many policy areas where the Labour and Liberal Democrats could quite easily find agreement on – but there were also many areas where they could with the Conservatives too. Gillian Duffy’s recent assertion that “liberal policies were a lot like Labour policies years and years ago” couldn’t have been further from the truth . Labour had forgotten the meaning of liberal!
Regardless of the arguments about ideological compatibility one thing overrode all of that and that was the naked truth of the electoral arithmetic. A coalition with Labour, Tom, Dick and Harry would have been volatile and unstable. A minority Tory government would have been equally unstable. Only one party had the resources to run another election campaign (no points for guessing who). With the toughest economic programme for generations having to be implemented, even under Labour, and the worlds markets panicking, a government with a strong and stable majority was the only plausible way forward. Clegg and the Liberal Democrats did the right thing.
It is worth remembering that before Nick Clegg performed so incredibly well in those televised debates the Conservatives were cruising into office on their own. He stopped that almost single-handedly.
But he also did more than that. He and his negotiation team achieved something quite remarkable when you consider the sheer volume of our manifesto included in the coalition agreement. For a party that occupies less than 15% of the House to be well on their way to printing each of their four key manifesto pledges onto the statute book is truly phenomenal. This message is heard often but not listened to enough.
It was sensible to keep the battling behind closed doors whilst the coalition was young. In a country so use to adversarial politics the most important thing was to make the Government look united. That objective has shifted now and we are starting to be shown more visibly just how hard our ministerial team and Clegg are working to get a thick yellow line down each and every policy. Now is the time for people to be brave and back Clegg and back our party. Our confidence in them will be empowering and Nick is continually proving in government he is the right man to utilise that power.
One year on, the effects of Cleggmania remain.
Originally posted Friday 15th April 2011 at www.virtuallynaked.co.uk
The spin-machines went into overdrive around 8 hours before the results came in, and hours before polling had even closed. So in the cold light of day, let’s have a look at what last night’s result in Oldham East and Saddleworth actually means for the three major parties.
Labour were trying to make this about the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems were trying to make this about Labour. The Tories were trying to look like they were taking part. In reality this was about all three, but the extent of impact on the parties was always going to be variable according to the result.
First of all, some context. Labour spinners are saying that on any occasion in the past couple of decades, with just 103 votes in it, the Lib Dems would walk this by election - anything short of that will be a damning judgement on their performance in government.
The Lib Dems, whilst encouraging activists they could win it, were always out to avoid humiliating defeat. They wanted to make this about Red Ed and the idealess Labour party, a narrow margin of victory would therefore be portrayed as an underwhelming appraisal of the opposition.
The Tories were caught between reality and rhetoric. They were vulnerable to the accusation that they would give a free run to the Liberals, but also recognised the chances of beating Labour whilst in government was slim. An all out assault to finish 3rd is embarrassing for a party of government, giving a free pass for their junior coalition partners would have been just as embarrassing.
So the result: Lab 14718; LD 11160; Con 4481; UKIP 2029; BNP 1560; Green 530; Loony 145; Eng Dem 144; Pirate 96; Elvis 67; on a turnout of 48.06%
The spin doctors will continue to run their above lines, but if we wipe the mist from the windscreen I think we can make the following conclusions.
Labour have moderate consolidation of their position. We should not forget that Labour held this seat, albeit narrowly, at the height of Lib Dem popularity in May. As any government is subject to a protest vote, anything short of victory would have raised questions about the opposition’s performance. The victory was indeed an increased majority, but it was not devastating, it was good enough. Anything 3000+ would have been solid, 5000+ would have been emphatic. Less than 3000 would have started looking like an honourable defeat for the Lib Dems, not so different from Spurs’ last visit to the San Siro.[Nicely done - Spurs Ed]
The Lib Dems have stayed on their feet, and have saved themselves from the indignity of falling flat on their face, but not without the acute embarrassment of being seen stumbling back and forth before hand. Just a week or so ago some pundits were tipping the Lib Dems to be pushed back into third, and the national polls would indicate a wipeout. A victory without a victory was possible here if they were about 1500 votes closer, and let us not forget they have increased their share of the vote, but the medium term impact remains the same. The party needs to do a lot more to win the public back, this result avoided trumpeted talk of a wipeout, but was a reminder that they are actively unpopular.
The Tories will be criticised for their collapse. Many will say they have aided the Lib Dems by running a soft campaign. My experience on the ground indicated the local activists were unrelenting in their campaigning, whilst the leadership were economic in their support. It would be politically naive to suggest this had nothing to do with supporting their coalition partners, but the narrative had already been written. This was always about Labour vs Liberal Democrats, and a full on assault by the party to face defeat would have been unnecessarily damaging. The impact is marginal, with the most likely damage to be a continuation of internal mumblings.
Labour won, and they won comfortably. The Liberal Democrats lost, but didn’t lose badly. The Tories collapsed, but will shrug this off. What does Oldham East and Saddlworth really mean? Not a lot really in the medium-long term. It might affect the Westminster bubble and blogosphere for a while, but it’s not altered anything significantly, it’s merely reinforced what everyone already suspected.
Re-posted www.virtuallynaked.co.uk
As LA Galaxy confirm that they are ‘open’ to David Beckham going out on loan, a one-time fantasy is rapidly materialising into reality. Although with it, the ancient contest between heart and mind erupts once again – will it be good for Tottenham Hostpur Football Club?
David Beckham is a hero of mine, when I say I have a hand-drawn picture and his annual calendar up in my bedroom I am not descending into inflated, fictional imagery for the sake of reinforcing my status as an uncompromising fanboy – I’m making an open admission that any socially-aware 20 year old man shouldn’t make. I am without a doubt a direct product of the Beckham Generation. I’ve grown up idolising his every move and effort, on and off the pitch, and he has given me some of the most special memories of my life – not least that freekick against Greece. To me, he is nothing short of a hero.
There is however one entity in football that attracts even greater devotion from me and that is, of course, my beloved Spurs. From Darren Anderton to Gareth Bale, I’ve followed and supported Tottenham Hotspur through a lifetime of mid-table mediocrity, hopeless underachievement and the occasional cup-run – and often in the rubbish “insert drinking product brand here” cup for that matter. “I’m Tottenham ‘til I die”, as I’ve so often screamed in the company of thousands of others.
But things are so different now. Becks is nearly a decade away from that memorable freekick and Spurs recently embarrassed the Champions of Europe as they swaggered their way into the knockout stages of the Champions League. With the likes of Lennon, Bale, Van Der Vaart and Modric setting the world alight – where is the room for 35 year old Beckham who has been plying his trade in the nauseatingly comfortable Los Angeles for the past few years?
The nay-sayers’ argument goes a little something like this: “Beckham to spurs? What do they want him for? He’s too old, his legs won’t keep up with the Premier League, besides they’re doing fine without him – wouldn’t want to disrupt their form. The media circus that surrounds him won’t be good for the club either – it’s all about him, him, him. It must be about selling shirts”.
If it is at all possible, and I dare say it isn’t at all, I would like to claim with minimal bias that the nay-sayers are wrong. Of course if I was speaking with my heart alone there is no question; but the battle for my mind is a little more complicated, and I still settle in favour. Here’s five reasons why:
This post is to throw my wholehearted support behind Nick Clegg and the ministerial team with regards to Higher Education policy. I write this post as a Liberal Democrat and a student. A student that by the way receives the maximum financial support from the Government for fees and maintenance loans, so I guess that makes me exactly the sort of student that will be deterred from University following these changes (or not, as I will seek to explain..). As an added point to consider, what exactly do I gain as a rank-and-file member writing a blog post in support of Nick Clegg? He does not know who I am, I’m more likely to attract abuse than praise for this post – there is no good reason for me to be tribal on this matter. I am writing this because it is what I believe.
The last few weeks have seen what should have been a difficult, complex and thorough debate transformed into a confused, oversimplified and angry mess. There are many valid points to be made for and against the proposals put forward by the Coalition; unfortunately I feel these points from both sides have been cast into the margins.
First lets deal with that pledge and that clear flagship policy of the Liberal Democrats that was to phase out Tuition Fees altogether within six years. How can I, how can the party, possibly consider going directly against this after entering government? The answer is not because we are blinded by power. Firstly, you do not get into politics and join the Liberal Democrats if power in itself is all you are interested in and secondly, what good is ‘power’ if it is not to implement your own beliefs? Which leads me onto my second point - it is also not because we are powerless. Quite the contrary, this Coalition Government is all about a tension of power pulling in different directions and attempting to settle things by compromise, I will explain how I think this policy is a compromise later.
The inescapable truth upon entering the Coalition was that the pledges we made and the manifesto policy we proposed became wholly undeliverable. You may well disagree with the economic arguments about the severity of the deficit meaning that the policy was financially unworkable. However, what has to be accepted is that being one-fifth of a Government of which the other four-fifths were considering the polar opposite to our policy means that it was politically impossible to deliver.
The issue of Higher Education funding needed tackling. The legacy left by Labour was one that needed to be rectified – they recognised this themselves by commissioning the Browne Report. So it was simply not a responsible option to leave things as they were, either by mutual agreement between the coalition partners or by the Liberal Democrats rebelling against anything short of their pledge. The pledge and the manifesto policy, I hope I have explained, was impossible to deliver and it would be irresponsible to leave the issue alone altogether – Governments have to act.
But the party had the right to abstain in the coalition agreement – why didn’t they just abstain? Well I always thought that actually this was a bit of an insidious option. If we abstained from start to finish, that is from the formulation of the policy to the vote, then we would have had a wholly Conservative proposal going to the vote tomorrow. Not only do I fear that a Higher Education policy that is 100% Tory would be wrong, but the abstention would be useless because with a Liberal Democrat abstention the Tories can still beat the opposition. So all that is saved would be the face of the party, condemning the next generation of students to a policy perhaps more unfair than the one we inherited – that, in my opinion, is cowardly and unfair.
So the only responsible, fair and credible option is to engage. Put aside our vast differences on the matter and work together to reach a workable and mutually agreeable fairer policy than that we inherited from Labour. The Browne Report of course laid the foundations. This was an independent research project that had examined the issue for a considerable length of time and it would have been equally wrong to dismiss out of hand his recommendations as it would have been to swallow them whole. Neither of those two things happened. Remember there was a considerable campaign to ‘Keep the cap’ upon the release of the report following its recommendation to effectively create a free-market for fees – a cap has been kept.
The policy itself, in my opinion, is fairer than that which we inherited. Part-time students, often the most vulnerable group of students, will now be supported. The threshold of which you have to start repaying your fees has been raised from the lowly £15k to much more like the national average of £21k. The poorest students will be considerably better off, with some even receiving their first year’s tuition for free. Monthly repayments will be considerably lower than before, meaning greater disposable income throughout the graduate’s lifetime. Let’s not pretend that this “debt” is anything like a debt from a bank loan or credit card. No bailiffs will be knocking on the door, no extortionate rates of interest will be charged. The reality is that the amount you pay off is relative to the amount you earn and it is deducted straight from your monthly wage packet (just like a, err, tax).
I admit that the spectre of fees can psychologically deter someone from attending University. It deterred me at first, and to be perfectly honest the spectre of £3k a year or £9k a year would have been equally frightening – I can’t afford either I would have thought. But once the system of repayment was helpfully explained to me by my Sixth Form careers department, the spectre disappeared. I could afford to go because graduates pay fees, not students.
I do not want to go on too much about the policy itself, other than reiterate that it is fairer than the one we inherited from Labour. This, in my opinion, was the maximum achievable under the circumstances. This I believe is probably the thinking of the ministerial team.
I welcome reasoned objections to the policy. What I reject is the demonisation of Nick Clegg and my party. The decision, as I have tried to explain, has been made in good faith and because it is what the ministerial team believes is the fairest, deliverable deal for students and universities. Wrong? Maybe. Sell outs? Certainly not.
Well actually ‘that’ Indy headline should be corrected to ‘those’ Indy headlines as the Clegg-emblazoned frontpage has seen two ‘quotes’ splashed across it’s bottom-centre.
Last night I was confronted with the spectre of my leader’s face accompanied by the proclamation that ‘There is no future for us as a party of the left’. Now anyone who reads this blog will know that I’m an avid supporter of the coalition, so do not label me a ‘labour troll’ when I say this, but that headline made my stomach turn. Why would he say such a divisive thing on the eve of the most unity-necessitating conference in the party’s history? Furthermore, why does he believe he has the right to declare such a thing, when it is the members (left and right leaning) that get to establish the future of the party? Not least this very weekend.
I would like to define myself as one of the left leaning members. When Clegg made those comments regarding welfare the other day, I shuddered. Yes there is much to be reformed in our welfare system but his rhetoric regarding the cuts to it’s budget came with far too much relish for my stomach’s liking. Whilst I understand where he was coming from, namely I agree that Labours ‘throw money at it’ approach was wrong, he did not make enough provision for establishing that the ‘safety-net’ element does have a part to play as part of a wider, better approach and in particular in the midst of a struggling economy and rising unemployment.
Now for a backtrack, by the Indy. The actual frontpage read ‘There is no future for us as left-wing rivals to Labour’. Better, it calmed my anxiety somewhat. When I picked up the paper in the only newsagent open on a Saturday morning at the Peckham end of Old Kent Road, I discarded the more extreme ends of the thought stream (this is membership-threatening) and drifted to the more subdued scepticism area positioned somewhere in the grey between depression and indifference.
Now for the grand opening. I hurriedly begin to consume the interview-article that had caused so much overnight deliberation to discover this: ‘the Lib Dems never were a receptacle for left-wing dissatisfaction with the Labour Party. There is no future for that; there never was’.
What a bloody farce. Is that it? All he effectively said was that it is not a very wise way forward for the party to base their philosophy on the recruitment of disaffected members from another party. In fact that is the very tactics that are being employed by the Labour party right now, it’s not sustainable and they will find that out very soon.
So relief all round then? Not quite. Some members upon last night’s developments hurriedly defended Clegg without an ounce of deliberation. They did not await to read the article or indeed contemplate that this could be a reason to question the party’s motives. These members have gone native. They have become so stubborn in their (albeit often rightful) defence of the coalition that they have forgotten to scrutinise it as well. No support should be unconditional and some members should be cautious not to forget that.
The other day I witnessed on Lib Dem Voice somebody brand the great Dr Richard Grayson a ‘labour troll’ for daring to question our welfare policy. This is a very dangerous route to set off down. He has given his life to this party and his views should not only be respected but taken with a great deal of consideration. I personally have not found myself agreeing with a lot of what he has written about the coalition but I will continue to assess and not dismiss his opinion, as I will with all objections to party policy.
That Indy headline has drawn out a timely lesson for us all, think and consider before you react. Knee-jerk activity gets us nowhere. I remain in support of the coalition but not without condition.
Friday night I travel up to Liverpool on the eve of the Liberal Democrat Conference. It will be the first one I have attended but you could be forgiven for thinking it’s the first one there’s ever been. As much as I’d like to claim it is my own presence that has triggered such lofty awareness (and security), it probably has more to do with the party now being in government.
So what to expect? Well if the press is to believed then I’m in for five days of depression mixed with anger, seasoned with disillusionment and a touch of rebellion. If the internal emails are a better guide, then it’s a holiday of jubilation and celebration accompanied by a flurry of coma-inducing excitement.
Call me speculative, but I’m going to place my expectations somewhere in between the two.
The feeling I’ve got from the membership on the ground so far has been pragmatic. I have encountered pockets of the disillusionment described by Fleet Street, but in most cases people are tentatively positive about what lies ahead. Our local party membership is certainly up and last I heard the national party’s net membership is up too, so reports that half the party left for Labour in their bargain poundshop giveaway are greatly exaggerated.
There is a consensus building that being in government is good. We are implementing policies from our manifesto, we have stumbled across one of the most liberal Tory leaders in decades and been presented with a miraculous opportunity to trial run a new way of coalition politics. However, all of this optimism is inextricably attached to a very fundamental disclaimer: that the Tory’s don’t step an inch closer to the right than they already are and more specifically they do not cross that incredibly thin line of dealing with the deficit decisively and dealing with it ruthlessly.
Of course the Labour party are rolling around in fits of laughter and venom at the party’s apparent naïvety. But they have fallen behind. With the tonic so heavily concentrated, they inevitably got drunk and strayed many miles from their desired path. Now, tired and hungover, they haven’t a clue how to get back to where they started or even where that is.
Politics has moved on. Parties are working together, compromising and combining strategies to achieve shared goals and all the while Labour can’t remember the night before or the vomit they’ve left for the Coalition to clean up. So if you don’t mind, I’m going to choose to ignore the Labour jibes and threats and give this new relationship a chance. We may have had things in common in the past, but they’ve changed, not us.
..Everyone knows that, its common knowledge. Of course we quite like to pretend that we don’t really know that, it comforts us to live in a facade of idealism rather than accept that all those horrible cynics are right. Except this rule doesn’t apply in August. No, no - in this month we openly accept that journalists make stuff up and affectionately dub it ‘silly season’, so we can all have an endearing chuckle at those funny-old hacks who sell us porkies just to fill the column inches.
This season’s roundup includes an outright lie about Charles Kennedy joining the Labour Party, a wholly unnecessary resurrection of David Kelly conspiracy theology (did you forget about that one already?) and the frankly ludicrous rumour about Ed Balls’ sexuality.
Some revel in the lunacy but I prefer to switch off. I have an instinctive scepticism towards the print media as it is, so the idea that they can openly celebrate their deceit for an entire month is like watching Luis Suarez in the 120th minute against Ghana – discomforting, painful and infuriating.
Something that has always troubled me is that very discomfort I feel every time I see a deliberately deceptive headline or a manipulative use of statistics in the papers. I think to myself ‘something should be done about this’, but I know that my overriding belief in liberalism means that I have to remain tolerant.
This belief is becoming tested of late; I wonder to myself if it’s contradictory to expect better regulation of a lawless media whilst maintaining a steadfast belief in a free press. Where is the line between sensible regulation and the erosion of that very right?
I wouldn’t dare hazard a guess while I’m still in a flux about the dilemma but I will advise one thing: don’t bother google searching the Ed Balls thing - I made it up.
…After two terms of the frighteningly simple George W. Bush, America had finally awoken to the the more liberal, diplomatic and progressive ways of a certain African-American. Right? Wrong.
America has fallen out of love with Obama so quickly it makes you wonder if it was ever more than lust in the first place. America lusted over the popular appeal of Obama in the rest of the world and his inspiring message of Hope and Change, one of the oldest seduction techniques in the book, merely sealed the deal. The rest of the world loved him for good reason, he marked a positive change in foreign policy direction and a desperately overdue lurch (somewhat) to the left domestically. But America? Well, like the playground legend that every girl craves but nobody really likes, they opted for the idea of him rather than his ideas.
This for me is intensely depressing. The strikingly probable threat of a Palin Presidency in 2012 makes it all the more unbearable to think about. With the Tea Party Movement gathering pace across the US, the truly intimidating right wing philosophy that is inextricably tied into the American Political discourse is rearing it’s ugly head once again.
An example of the frankly backwards, populist policy of the Republican party has been dominating the headlines just recently. Except the focus by the media is on how ‘out of touch’ and ‘politically inexperienced’ Mr. Obama is rather than how outrageous the Republicans are. Read the following statement by Republican Texas Senator, John Cornyn:
“To me it demonstrates that Washington, the White House, the Administration, the President himself seems to be disconnected from the mainstream of America. This is not about freedom of religion because we all respect the right of anyone to worship according to the dictates of their conscience, but I do think it’s unwise to build a mosque at the site where 3,000 Americans lost their lives as the result of a terrorist attack.”
He is of course referring to Obama’s recent decision to speak out about the proposal of a Mosque planned to be built near the site of Ground Zero. After remaining silent on the issue for a while, describing it as a local issue, Obama casually, if not inadvertently, endorsed the project by emphasising the importance of tolerance and stating that Islam did not attack the World Trade Centre - Al Qaeda did.
Spot on Mr. Obama. Why does the Texan Senator think it is ‘unwise’ to build a mosque at the site if he respects the right to worship? Unless, of course, he ignorantly believes that it was Islam that attacked America?
What’s more depressing is that the Republican is acutely aware of the Mid-Term Congress elections being just around the corner and he knows that his opinion isn’t the crazy charge of a far-right movement but the general feeling of mainstream ‘liberal’ America. Even President-Elect Palin was confident enough to speak out passionately against the proposals when she urged moderate Muslims to refudiate the plans.
Yes, she did say refudiate. No, it isn’t a real word. More spectacularly still, instead of retracting the comment as a mistake or fool-hearted moment she stuck by her creative use of the English language and self-aligned herself with William Shakespeare. Help, please.
