Thursday 31 July 2008

We Must Roll The Dice or Give Over to the Mob

Over the last two days, Labour MP's and activists have been scurrying around whispering about David Miliband and his article. In all fairness, some, such as Geraldine Smith and Marshall, have publicly declared their feelings, but most have remained nameless. Meanwhile, in the blogosphere, many on the left are whining about Miliband and asking for a more liberal candidate. I am no fan of Blairism, and I do acknowledge that Miliband can, to some extent, be linked to it, although he is certainly not a Blairite. What many on the left seem to neglect to notice is that the Labour party has reached a low that no party has come back from ever. Frankly, I'd like Oprah Winfrey or Polly Toynbee to run the country, but I am not going to withhold my vote just because they don't.

The Labour party is facing destruction. No 'If's', no 'Buts'. Labour could be completely annihilated at the next election, so it's about time that people started getting in line and supporting a leadership challenge. To see Geraldine Smith accusing Miliband of 'betraying' Gordon Brown is laughable. "Sack him for being disloyal" she says. With people like her in the party it's no wonder that Brown is in such a state of denial. We have now reached the point where it is simply not possible to continue deluding ourselves into believing that we can win the next election with Brown. It is not possible. At this point, there are two options: go on with Brown as leader and hope that David Cameron is revealed to be Hitler's son (or something equally as impossible); or change leader, change policy and change tactics.

Gordon Brown currently has similar poll rating to those of John Major nearing the 1997 election. Brown's supporters say that an improvement in economical conditions will restore Brown's popularity and win Labour the next election. Even if that were to happen, it is highly unlikely that it would improve his ratings as they suggest; the economy improved rapidly towards the 1997 election and Major's popularity didn't follow suit. Instead, by retaining Major as leader, the Tories lost the 1997 election and, a decade later, are still in opposition. It is worth noting that Labour is lower in the polls than the Conservatives were at the time. Keeping Brown will at best result in the loss of the next election and 12, 13, 14 or even 15 years in opposition. At worst, it will literally destroy the Labour party. It has happened before, parties have gone from government to destruction in surprisingly little time.

Despite what Brownites say, retaining Brown will result in defeat. Now I am not saying that a change of leader will win the next election. Even if Labour elects Miliband who initiates the radical policies that he is famed for, the odds are stacked overwhelmingly against us. However, even if we don't win, a new leader will bring back much needed cash to the party and hopefully limit the time spent in opposition to one term rather than at least three. Put simply, we know what Labour gets by keeping Brown as its leader: 12-15 years in opposition at best, the end of the Labour party at worst. While we do not know what a change of leader will result in, it is hard to see how it could be any worse.

I don't know about anyone else, but if we have any chance at all of preventing the Tories overturning the good work that Labour has done over the last 11 years, I think we have to take it whatever the costs and risks. Labour has made monumental screw-ups, but it has also done things that have changed people's lives in a way that can statistics can not do justice to. The equality and human rights bills that are some of Labour's best work are often discreetly criticised by Tories; tax credits would be abolished to the pain of millions of vulnerable families, single parents would be victimised, those living in poverty would be told to find their own way out of it by Cameron's 'caring' Tories. A Conservative government would be tragic for millions of people, importantly, it would be the harshest on the poorest and most vulnerable members of society.

If we have to gamble, if we have to remove a good man from office for being the victim of circumstances that were (largely but not completely) outside his control, then so be it. That is the cost that we must pay to protect our country (not to mention Europe) from those who would wish to ruin it. That is the cost we must pay to prevent the poor from becoming poorer, the rich from becoming richer, and the victims from becoming ever more victimised; for that would be the legacy of a Conservative government and make no mistake about it.

We have one chance to stop this country falling into the hands of the right, lets take it!

Wednesday 30 July 2008

Finally, It Begins

So, as predicted, David Miliband is positioning himself to be a challenger for the Labour leadership when Gordon Brown is ousted. Attempting to hide my delight would be a largely futile exercise which I shall forgo. That said, I am more than a little disappointed at predictions and talk that, despite Mr Milliband's intervention, Mr Brown is unlikely to be gone until late September at the very earliest. Of course, I am an incredibly impatient person. David Miliband's article in the Guardian helps dispell asertions that he is a Blairite. What it does do is show Labour that there is a way forward that has the posibility of a conclusion other than anihilation.

David outlines his case for a radical change in policy that could help revitilise Labour activists and bring the donors back to a party which, despite paying down some £5million of debt is still £19m in the red. In his article, David returns to the radical positions that he continually proposes, but that are always aborted when he moves to a different department. The most important thing that comes through in his article, is his willingness to acknowledge not just the successes of his party, but also its failures. This is something that Mr Brown is completely incapible of. On so many issues, such as Iraq, he clearly believes that the party made mistakes, but will not openly admit it. In comparison, David says in his article "we needed better planning for how to win the peace in Iraq, not just win the war". As I said in my last post, we need someone who is prepared to acknowledge mistakes.

While we are far away from a leadership challenge, it is a very positive sign that David has thrown his hat into the ring. In a sign that we are on the right track, according to the Telegraph Jacqui Smith is against replacing Gordon Brown "I don't think that's what we want at a time when people are worried about the economy". You always know you are onto a good thing when Ms Smith disagrees.

Tuesday 29 July 2008

Contenders Ready!

The Times online edition is reporting that David Miliband and Harriet Harman are preparing to challenge Gordon Brown in a leadership election. As you would expect, Harman has denied that this is true. The article does state that the most likely contenders in a leadership election would be Harman and Miliband. This fits in with thinking that other potential candidates do not have the support of either the unions or the party membership. Whilst Miliband has always been pretty popular within the party, Harman won the deputy-leadership election recently, hence her 'minding the shop'.

It is, of course, clear that they are not our own Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton. Neither has the huge support network from outside of the party. However, both could put up a good fight. Harman has already shown her capability in the deputy-leadership election and in standing in for the Gordon Brown whilst he is on vacation. Miliband has single handedly held together Britains foreign policy in the face of a PM who, unlike his predecessor, seems uninterested in anything taking place outside the borders of the UK.

Some in the Labour party fear a leadership election on the grounds that it would show the party divided in the eyes of the public. I think that this is completely wrong. Labour has been in power for eleven years, the public are bored of the same old thing, to them Labour is stale. Nothing can help improve the parties approval ratings like an open leadership battle where candidates are willing to publicly criticise their own party and Blair and Brown. This would effect a renewal of the party. Rather than defending the failures of the party, the candidates should acknowledge mistakes and criticise those who have made them, just as both Obama and McCain are doing in the US. A leadership challenge is probably the only thing that can revive the dead stick that is the Labour party.

Another thing to remember is that Labour currently has debts of £17 million to £25 million. Only a new leader can attract new donors and give Labour a campaign fund to fight the next general election on. One thing is clear, if Brown stays, Labour will be outspent 25-1 at the next election. At the moment, the party needs hundreds of thousands a year just to cover the interest payments on its loans. This cannot go on.

Monday 28 July 2008

Living Next Door

As it became clear on the BBC News/Two Scotland panel that the Scottish National Party (SNP) had taken the Glasgow East seat from Labour last Friday morning, there was a blissful hour or two where political commentators were still sleeping and Douglas Alexander was able to give a calm analysis of what the victory meant for Labour. Come six o'clock, the peace was shattered. The analysts and commentators started to once again preach the downfall of Gordon Brown. I freely admit that I was and am among them, his position is untenable. The most interesting part of this is how Labour allowed the second most senior meber of the party to move next door, unchallenged.

Gordon Brown became Chancellor on the 2nd of May 1997. He stayed in that role for just under ten years and two months. Then, he became the Prime Minister. A Labour MP told The World at One on Radio 4 this afternoon, that a PM needs different skills than a Chancellor. He is correct, but a point that he didn't make, and that no-one seems to make, is that the head of a nations finances needs different skills than a politician. I have long been amazed that we continue to have a politician running the public finances, especially in an economic downturn.

In America, the Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, is a former CEO and Chair of Goldman Sachs. His predecessor, John W. Snow had a long and successful career in the rail industry in addition to serving on several boards. G.W.'s first Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neil, served as the CEO of Alcoa, the worlds third largest aluminium producer, and as the Chair of the RAND Corporation.

Ultimately, history will judge whether Gordon Brown was a better Chancellor or PM, economist or politician. The important lesson from Brown's troubles is that there is a big difference between politics and economics, and maybe we should have a look at whether we really want the persons in charge of our finances to be in number 11 Downing Street just in the hope of moving next door.

Sunday 27 July 2008

Meet Barack Obama

Barack Obama now leads John McCain 49-40 in the latest poll.

Before leaving London on Saturday, Obama did an interview with Meet the Press for NBC, I'm posting it here because its a full 50 minute interview so if you are a Brit who has only seen snippets of him speaking before you might want to check it out. (Credit to NBC News and MSNBC by the way, they are way ahead of the pack in putting news video content online.)


Saturday 26 July 2008

Why Does Labour Worship These False Gods?

There's an interesting article at Harry's Place about the evils of faith schools, one person commenting says "the leader of the Labour group and the Conservative Cabinet member responsible for education have not replied. I would imagine that they know the situation is unjust, but they want to maintain it to appease the Christian establishment". This raises a good question, why does Labour listen to the Christian special interest groups and others like them? Some would argue that it is because we are a Christian society, however, this does not wash as we are in fact a secular society and few people pay much attention to churches anymore. It is actually part of a larger picture, for Labour does not just bow to churches, but also to a wide range of other groups of questionable intentions.

It has long been know that Labour is a slave to the City. Indeed, Polly Toynbee noticed last week that "the same day Purnell cracked the whip on [so called] 'scroungers', Alistair Darling retreated on closing key tax loopholes on foreign earnings, under pressure from the City". The question is of course why does Labour bend over to please the City when it receives nothing in return. It is startling that for all Labour have done for the City, the fat cats still support the Conservative party and throw ever larger wads of cash at it. What is even more perplexing, is that Labour continues to do the biding of a group that supports and finances its opponent.

It is not only the City, as mentioned above Christian leaders have a good time under Labour; notice how Jack Straw's Lords reform proposals include the retention of bishops. One does wonder why Labour is not corrupt. If it was then you could understand it bowing to the wishes of churches, big business, the banking industry and the City. The thing is, as its finances show, it is not. In the US, you can understand the Republicans positions on abortion and gay marriage because pro-family groups are big financial supporters. You could understand the Tories pandering to special interests baring mind the amount of support they receive from big business.

Labour receives 90% of its funding from unions, yet instead of doing their biding, it listens to those who oppose the unions. It has got to be the oddest politics ever encountered. This is one of the major flaws of New Labour, it gave out favours to special interest groups while allowing them to continue to fund the Conservatives. I never cease to be amazed by the complete incompetence of the Labour leadership. Its really hard to know whether to laugh or cry.

Friday 25 July 2008

"PLEASE STOP!" We Scream, He Continues Unabated

Early on Friday morning in Glasgow East, the worst fears of those sympathetic to the cause of the Labour party bore out. Despite the best intentions of the party machine to present it as a protest vote or a polite warning that the electorate is unhappy; it was simply one of the worst defeats in Labour's history. Granted it only lost by 365 votes, but this is compared with the nearly 8,000 vote majority it held the seat with at the last election. Glasgow East was Labour heartland, the 3rd safest seat in Scotland and the 26th safest seat in the country, yet it managed to lose 19% of the people who voted for it in 2005.

Gordon Brown said after that he is going to get on with running the country and that he believes that that is what the people want him to do. With that sentence you could be forgiven for thinking that you are reading an article from early May about the local elections, mid-May about the Crewe & Nantwich by-election or late June about the Henley by-election. The third successive by-election loss in as many months, the fourth set of bad results for Labour in three months; and Brown still has not changed his message.

Liberals and those on the left have asked, begged and finally demanded that Brown return their party to them. He has not, last week saw Blairtie James Purnell introduce welfare reforms that effectively makes the unemployed work for £1.50 per hour and outsources efforts to get people back into work to private companies. He also allowed, some would say encouraged, the press to report the reforms as "cutting off scroungers" rather than helping those with difficulty getting a job to enhance their employment prospects. Far from being the antidote to Blair's New Labour, Brown has ensured its continuation.

Polly Toynbee says that the Labour party has gone into cardiac arrest, the tragedy is that it has been in a comatose for months now; and it is beginning to seem like the plug will be pulled before it awakes. Unfortunately, the people who pull the plug are likely to be members of the party itself, whether it be deluded Blairites like John Hutton, who yesterday claimed that Labour must not change direction but instead maintain its course, or loyal backbenchers and supporters who have stood by their party despite its contemptible ineptness. Unless Gordon Brown stops them, Blairites will continue with their manifesto of authoritarian conservatism. This will end with a miserable defeat for Labour at the next general election or with what remains of Labour's support network completely abandoning the party.

I have previously used the analogy of a a ship adrift in the ocean with its captain acknowledging that it is lost but refusing to change course to describe the failings of Gordon Brown. Well to extend the analogy, Labour hit an iceberg with Glasgow East, and if it does not head for shore to make repairs pretty soon it is likely to sink; and this time it will be unsalvageable.

Different schools of thought from within and without the party try to pull it in different directions. If they are unable to reach agreement, they may just end up as vultures fighting for the remaining flesh on a dead carcass. I have said it many times, but for the sake of social liberalism I will continue to repeat it until the time that either my call is headed or that Labour is no more; to survive Labour must change direction. There is only one logical destination on its current path and that is annihilation.

I am no longer a Labour supporter and I have not been since 42-day detention was introduced, however, I crave for Labour to jettison New Labour and turn to the left so I can return. As much as my trust in the party has been destroyed, I still love Labour; and so do others. Should someone actually have the balls to take the reigns from Brown and move left, there will be thousands of people like me waiting to support it.

If this does not happen, I do wonder, and I believe that for the moment I am alone in thinking this, whether the conclusion of this sorry sequence of events will be a part of the Labour party actually splitting off to form a new party. For the moment Labour has yet still some chance of recovering from its current woes. However, no party has ever came back from the dismal position that Labour currently finds itself in, and I fear that the vultures are already circling.

Thursday 24 July 2008

SNP Wins Glasgow East By-Election

The Scottish National Party has won the Glasgow East by-election after a short recount. The SNP notched up 11,277 votes compared with Labour's 10,912.

The Conservatives beat the Liberal Democrats into third place with 1,639 votes compared to the Lib Dems 915.

SNP: 11,277; 43.1% (+6,009; +26.1% on 2005)----365 vote majority
Labour: 10,912; 41.7% (-7,863; -19% on 2005)
Conservatives: 1,639; 6% (-496; -0.9% on 2005)
LibDems: 915; 5.5% (-2,750; -6.3% on 2005)
Greens: 232; 0.9%

Turnout: 42.25%

"People of Berlin - People of the World - This is Our Moment. This is Our Time."



Barack Obama gave the only speech of his foreign relations tour in front of over 100,000 people. He talked about terrorism, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as climate change and human rights. Polls showed that between 70-80% of Germans support Barack Obama. A full transcript of the speech is available here and the video of the full speech is above.

UPDATE: ABC News reports that over 200,000 people turned out to watch the speech.

Obama Speech Anticipation Reaches Fever Pitch

The anticipation of Barack Obama's speech in Germany is so high that the candidate has tried to lower expectations about the number of attendees. The estimated number of people who will turn-out to see his speech range from 10,000 to 1million.

Anyone, who has been watching the Presidential race over the last few days will notice that John McCain is not handling the extra attention that Obama is getting very well. In an interview on ABC World News yesterday evening, he said that he believes that Obama's position on the war is a campaign tactic and not what he genuinely feels is in the best interests of the country. Also, McCain's campaign have launched a vicious ad campaign claiming that Fidel Castro supports Obama.

Obama, however, does not seem to wish to fight fire with fire. It has been revealed that his campaign has spent $5million on advertising blocks during NBC's Beijing 2008 Olympics coverage. It's nice to see a candidate supporting something positive like the Olympics rather than endlessly mud slinging.

Obama has been discussing foreign policy issues with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, he is also meeting German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Berlin Mayor Klaus Wowereit. Some three-quarters of Germans support Obama although his support is consistent all across Europe, he is the prefered candidate of Britaim amd France along with many other members of the EU.

Obama's speech in Germany is expected at around 6pm British time. I would think that it would be covered live on the BBC News channel, but then again they may feel it is more important to have the News at Six on two channels at the same time. If it is covered on the News channel, you can watch it here live: Obama speech live here at 6.30pm British Time (BBC)

Iris Robinson To Toxic for Tories

It seems that Iris Robinson's bigotry may be too much for David Cameron to swallow. The Irish Times reports that her frequent out bursts could endanger Cameron's re-branding of the Conservative party. It comes as 11,000 have called for the bigoted bitch to be reprimanded. Even Iain Dale has vented about her recent behaviour. I should again note that she does deny saving it, however, there are audio recordings which prove that she said it.

As I said yesterday, I support free speech, but she very simply said the one thing that is totally unforgivable. We are all well aware of societies attitude to paedophilia, its regarded (rightly) as on of the worst crimes one can commit, so to accuse someone of it is just unacceptable. BTW, if she had said that about an individual, they'd be well on their way to receiving large checks for both libel and defamation.

This article is part of the DoS Iris Watch campaign.

Wednesday 23 July 2008

Extend Abortion To Northern Ireland

What can I say, pretty much does what it says on the tin. There is an guest post at Harry's Place calling for support to extend abortion rights to Northern Ireland. NI is currently a member of the league of draconian states with abortion only allowed where the mothers life or permanent health is deemed to be at risk.

A cross party group of MP's are launching a bid to give NI women the same rights as women in the rest of the UK. Please do support them. The move is lead by the lovely Dianne Abbott (she's the Labour MP who sits on This Week with Michael Portillo for the Tories on BBC1) who said "When it comes to abortion rights, Northern Ireland women are effectively second class citizens: they don't have the same rights as women in England and Wales and Scotland and they even have fewer rights than women in the Republic of Ireland".

Please do email Mrs Abbott with a message of support if you can, and, as it will be a free vote, it is vitally important that you email your own MP to ask for their support for this bill. Unfortunately, my MP appears to be a hardcore religious freak who has opposed all civil rights legislation in the past including the HFE bill.

The NI parties, all of which oppose the extension, claim that they oppose the bill because the people of NI are against it. In response, here is a snippet of a speech made by the Canadian PM on the introduction of the civil marriage act (gay marriage) "the rights of minorities [must] not [be] subjected--never [be] subjected--to the will of the majority. The rights of [those] who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers, and these rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority."

If every person in NI is against abortion the fact will still remain that it is a basic right that should be granted to everyone. MP's have a responsibility to protect citizens rights, not to rule by majority opinion.

Tuesday 22 July 2008

The Spectre of Missing Dreams

On Friday, Barack Obama is expected to arrive in Britain, and his unique brand of new politics will arrive with him. That British voters back Obama by a ratio of 5-1, suggests that Obamamania will be well received in Britain as in the rest of Europe. The question, however, is what effect is Obama's campaign having on British politics. You don't need YouGov or Ipsos MORI to tell you that British voters are incredibly unhappy with the British political 'class' or 'elite'. However, the Westminster political system has been out of touch will ordinary voters for a long time, so what effect will Obama's brand of inclusive politics have on the already pissed off voters of Britain?

"I have a dream" they are the words once uttered by Martin Luther King that have been used to demonstrate the sher magnitute of the historical nature of the Obama campaign. However, for our own embattled Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, the words "I don't have a dream" would perfectly describe the cause of the rapid detirioration of the Labour party's popularity, and its leader along with it. While many on the left were not big supporters of the New Labour project, most would admit that at the very least, Tony Blair had a vision. In comparisson Gordon Brown appears to be making it up as he goes along.

Many ask why Obama is so popular, the simplest answer to that question is hope. Obama is able to restore hope to so many in society, after the dark days that have loomed over America during the duration of the Bush administration. Obama's campaign is unique in that this hope is felt by both minorities and mainstream society alike. In Britain, this has never happened before. The most frightening thing, however, is that the hopes of the most vulnerable members of British society are being dashed further by the day. Those living in extreme poverty in the fifth largest economy in the world are losing all hope as the party that has historically fought so hard for them, is not just at risk of spending the next decade in the political wilderness, but is making things harder for them on the way down from grace.

Earlier this week, the Labour party announced a shocking attack on the poorest members of scoiety and, more importantly, its own voting base. Rather than helping long term benefit recipients get back into work by offering a gradual climbdown from benefits, Labour instead intends to make people work for their benefits, at a rate of £1.50 per hour. If the Conservatives had introduced it, the Guardian would have crucified them. Instead it was mute, with only Polly Toynbee having the guts to stand up against the view that people don't have jobs simply because they don't want them.

Far from having an inspirational vision like Obama, Brown's political strategy is to pander to the vile tastes of the Daily Mail. It escaped few people's notice that the editorial announcing new welfare policy changes was in the Daily Mail, the home of the kind of ignorance that breads the belief that people chose not to have a career. As with allowing 42-day detention, and the testimony of annonymous witness, and reclassifying canabis against the advice of the governments own chief scientists; this was aimed at pleasing Browns good friend Paul Dacre the current editor of the Daily Mail and editor-in-chief of DMGT's other titles. In the final days of Tony Blair's premiership, many on the left were looking to the future with relief, expecting Gordon Brown to abandon New Labour and return Labour to its socialist roots. How wrong they were.

Over a year after Brown took office, Labour's approval ratings are unimaginably low, an aparent rebranding is long forgotten, and he still has no clear plan about how to move forward. Put simply, while Obama is flying on a wave of unprecedented JFK-esque popularity, Brown is floating adrift in a vast political ocean and shows no sign of reaching shore anytime soon. The most worrying thing, is that Brown seems unaware that his ship has even left port. He's willing to acknowledge difficulties but is unwilling to do anything about them. He acknowledges that his party has had a tough time lately but thinks that voters are just keeping him on his toes and are really overal pretty happy with the government.

The tragic irony is that in Brown this country has one of the most competant leaders it has ever had when it comes to actually running the country and implementing policy. Unfourtunatley, its not much good when he has no dream to go with it. Right now the Labour party is captained by a brilliant navigator who has a complete inability to set a course. If Labour retains Brown as its leader, the best case schenario will be that it spends the next 10-15 years adrift, just as the Conservatives have done. In the worst was schenario, however, he will continue pushing the Daily Mail agenda and the Labour party will sink with very few hands, because they will have already abandoned ship long ago. And thats from someone who took a life belt and swum the day after the 42-day vote.

While Brown may go on for months or years insisting that some miraculous event will redeem him before the next election, the spectre of a missing vision will proceed to haunt him and his party for years to come, just as it did the Conservatives over a decade ago.

Pictures: IMF; J E Theriot - http://commons.wikimedia.org

Excuse Me, Why Does This Portrait Look So Different from the Orginal?

The BBC is reporting that Speaker of the House of Commons is to hold a conference on getting more women in to Parliament. I found this article a few days ago when I was looking for something else, it points out that Iraq has more female MP's than Britain. Currently, one in five MPs is female, this is a shocking statistic and clearly something needs to be done about it.

However, as this move comes a few weeks after the governments equality bill, I endeavoured to find out whether the government has truly earnt its sexism bashing stripes. In short, it hasn't; neither, I might add, have any of the other parties. Whilst all of the three main parties go around valiantly campaigning for equality and an end to discrimination, not one of them has a cabinet which is made up of more than a quarter of women.

Lets start with Labour and the Official Cabinet of State; out of 23 cabinet members, only 6 are female. The Conservatives Cabinet of the Official Opposition contains a total of 28 cabinet members, again only 5 are female. The prize for the cabinet with the least number of women (in total and proportionally), however, goes to the Liberal Democrats. Out of the 27 members of the Lib Dems Shadow Cabinet, 4 are female. Pathetic! That not one of the three main parties has managed to give over a quarter of the seats in their cabinets to women is not just disgusting, but laughable.

I know that many are not fans of positive discrimination, but all three parties need to agree to reserve half of the seats in their cabinets for women. It can be done. In Spain at least 9 of the 18 members of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero's cabinet are female (I say at least because I don't know whether a couple of the Spanish names are male of female and they don't have Wikipedia articles).

Addressing the lack of women in Parliament is of course a very good thing, however, what is really needed is a sea change in all areas of British politics. We cannot go on with politics being so under representative of society.

Monday 21 July 2008

Polly Rains on Purnell's Parade

As usual, Polly Toynbee says what we're all thinking: "why is it always more rights for the rich and more responsibilities for the poor?" in the only article on James Purnell's welfare reform that doesn't pander to the right.

Iris Robinson Opens Her Vile Mouth Once Again

Some people just don't know when to quit, just weeks after claiming to be able to 'cure' homosexuality whilst commenting on the story of a gay man who had been viscously beaten in a homophobic attack, the delightful Democratic Unionist MP Iris Robinson yesterday said that "there can be no viler act, apart from homosexuality and sodomy, than sexually abusing children" in the House of Commons of all places.

The Honourable Mrs Robinson, who is also the wife of the Irish First Minister Peter Robinson, is already under investigation for hate crimes after over 100 complaints were made against her. She is a 'born (brain-dead) again' Christian and a few days ago said that is the responsibility of the government to uphold 'God's law'. I probably should add that she has since retracted reworded her comments.

Usually, I'd just feel sorry for her that she's deluding herself to such an extent . However, she has really crossed the line this time. I'm far from a militant gay person, but even I am angry over this. There are some things that you just do not say and really are inexcusable. To call anyone's behaviour paedophilic when its not is completely reprehensible, but to do it to between 1 and 10% of the population is frankly obscene.

I support freedom of speech, I support the freedom to offend people, but she has said the one thing that is completely unacceptable. Northern Ireland is not as friendly and accepting as England, Wales and Scotland; there are kids growing up there stuck between THE proverbial rock and hard place: religion and their sexuality. NI is still very religious and frankly I hate to think what a kid growing up in that environment may do to themselves. With people like her in prominent positions in NI society and politics its hardly surprising that the rate of suicide is so much higher among gay teenagers. If someone who was employed rather than elected made a comment like that they would be fired instantly, whether in the public or private sector!

Sorry for the rant, but as I said above, there are some things that are completely inexcusable. Please email a link to this story or write about it on your own blog if you can, I want everyone to know about this hate-fuelled bitch! BTW: I am now starting Iris Watch to digg up anything else she does.

The Big Democracy Question

Yesterday evening, France's Parliament voted yes (same link here in English) to a constitutional reform bill put to it by Nicholas Sarkozy. His reason for wanting to reform French politics is that they are almost universally accepted as extremely undemocratic. The French Parliament is seen as extremely week while the President of the Fifth Republic of France commands an extremely powerful position in French democracy. Coming only a week after the revelation of Jack Straws proposals for reforming our Parliament, this article asks, which type of democracy should we have?

In the interest of full disclosure, I am very loosely a republican. However, although I do not support Britain having a monarchy, I have yet to be convinced of a better option, hence the reason for this article. Although there is no official democracy ranking system, the Economist formulates its own annual Democracy Index, however, its purpose is to rank the democratic credentials of individual countries, not to endorse types of democracies. When cross-referenced with the HDI (Human Development Index) and Gini co-efficient (a measure of income equality), the Democracy Index does provide some useful results. Sweden, which tops the Democracy Index, also has the lowest Gini co-efficienct (i.e. the highest income equality) and is ranked an impressive sixth in the HDI. The rankings also show that of the five most democratic countries, according to the democracy Index, four of them are constitutional monarchy's (and the only one that isn't, Iceland, only has a population of circa 300,000 people)

On income equality, two (Sweden and Denmark) of the top five are constitutional monarchy's, the other three are republics. Again, four of the top five countries in the HDI are constitutional monarchy's.

What, then, is the difference between the democratic practices of Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark and those of the UK? Sweden has a written constitution, as does Norway and a unicameral parliament; in the Netherlands the Prime Minister is primus inter pares (first among equals) and as such has no more power than any other minister in his cabinet. The Netherlands also has a bicameral parliament, with upper house elected by the provincial legislature. The Norwegian parliament is a unicameral body but after elections it elects a quarter of its membership to form a sort of upper house, with the remaining three quarters forming a lower house.

So does this mean constitutional monarchy's are the best form of democracy, maybe not. The important thing to note that the constitutional monarchies that feature at the top of these rankings are Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands and Denmark, all Scandinavian apart from the Netherlands (which is well known the world over for its social liberalism). So perhaps culture is a big factor that needs to be taken into account. Supporting this would be the fact that the nearest country to the UK (and therefore our culture) is Ireland (ROI), which is a republic.

What, however, would work for the UK and our culture? Public opinion is broadly accepted to be between two thirds and three quarters in favour of retaining the royal family. However, this does not mean that the public support the current unelected House of Lords or the amount of power currently invested in the Prime Minister. It also does not mean, although some would argue this, that the public are right or that they will feel the same in a few years time. So, even if we retain the monarchy, at least for the time being, what about the House of Lords? The proposals presented by Jack Straw would see a new upper house, 80% elected 20% appointed.

An important point for liberals is that, for some unknown reason, the bishops would retain their seats. As the proposals would see the amount seats in the upper house slashed down to just a few hundred, this would surely give unelected bishops representing a tiny minority of the population more power than they had decades ago when people were more religious. In a 2006 Guardian/ICM poll 33% described themselves as "a religious person" while 82% saw religion as a cause of division and tension between people. Makes you wonder how many support having bishops in their legislature.

Jack Straws plans would also dramatically reduce the stature of the new upper house and, presumably, its power. In a time where the House of Lords is our last line of defence against 42-day detention (regular readers will notice that I manage to slip this into every post) and anonymous witnesses, this is surely very worrying.

The last point that needs to be discussed in this article is of course, Proportional Representation (PR). Most of our European neighbours (notably excluding France) use PR, the result of course is often coalition governments. Our system uses First Past The Post (FPTP), this usually means that we have strong single party governments, the side affect of this, however, is that huge numbers of votes are not represented at all. This is a double edged sword, on one hand it prevents groups such as the BNP from gaining electoral prominence, on the other hand it gives two parties a near monopoly and, arguably, ensures a two party political system. The risk in switching to PR is currently being played out in Italy, although, this could also be due more to cultural factors.

Gordon Brown is not about to call a referendum on constitutional reform, however, it is always useful to discuss the pro's and con's of the political systems, it helps keep our MP's in check and you never know what's around the corner. The Lib Dems apparently have bold plans for reform and also seem to like referendums, maybe they would give us a choice if they somehow managed to win the next election.

Note: The CIA Gini co-efficient rankings were used in this article as they covered more countries than those of the UN.

Sunday 20 July 2008

Hero(ines) and Villains - Sunday 20th July 2008

The Hero(ines) and Villains feature is here to thank those who make a positive contribution to liberal causes and tut tut those who make a negative contribution.

Hero(ine) of the Week: Humanity

This week, at risk of being accused of plagiarising Time magazine, our hero(ines) are Humanity. In a week where Channel 4 was told off over a climate change denying documentary, and George Bush revoked the executive order that protected polar bears and other species from having their habitats destroyed in the pursuit of, you guessed it, oil; the positive contribution that Humanity has made to its environment and its co-inhabitants of the plannet Earth should be remembered.

Although the chosen picture is of something that Humanity made over a thousand of years ago, we still make wonderful contributions to the natural environment today. We need to remember that, because we are in danger of destroying the very thing that gives us life: Earth.


Picture: Gunkarta - http://commons.wikimedia.org

Villain of the Week: The Pope
This week we have seen the Pope talking about the evils of greed and immoral actions during World Youth Day. Ironic, as despite the billions of dollars holed up inside the Vatican, the New South Wales State Governement has footed the AU$129m bill for the World Youth Day celebrations. Funny how the Pope does not define the use of Australian tax payers money to fund a Catholic promotional event as greed on behalf of the Church. World Youth Day is another large Catholic event that tries to complete the indoctornation of young people into a religion that promotes discredited theories about existance in addition to sponsoring discriminiation and claiming that humanity has dominion over all other species on the Earth.

As I discused the perils of climate change above, it is worth noting the head of the Catholic Church in Australia, Cardinal Pell, believes "the hysteric and extreme claims about global warming are also a symptom of pagan emptiness... Belief in a benign God who is master of the universe has a steadying psychological effect, In the past pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. Church leaders in particular should be allergic to nonsense."




















Picture: Ausir - http://commons.wikimedia.org

Saturday 19 July 2008

Tory MEP's Support Berlusconi's 'Nazi' Law

In a move that will surely even David Cameron will be unable to gloss over, Conservative MEP's have refused to support a resolution that condemns the actions of Silvio Berlusconi's government as xenophobic and illegal. The right wing coalition that Italy's most infamous politician leads wants to fingerprint all Roma gypsies - including children.

It would appear that Tory MEP's are becoming an ever increasing pain-in-the-ass for Cameron. After the problems with trying to reign them in over the issue of their expenses, it appears they are now ignoring the work that Cameron put in to shedding the Conservative party of its image as the nasty party.

Me thinks all is not well at Tory High Command. For the record, although I expect many, if not most, in the Conservative party will approve of their move; I do believe that Cameron genuinely will not. Centre-right (small-c) conservative, yes; fascist, no. Although, that's more than I can say for his MP's and MEP's.

Read more here

Photo: gildemax - www.commons.wikimedia.org

Another Bright PR Idea From Brown & Associates

On the same day that Barack Obama launches his foreign relations tour, with an unprecedented amount of coverage form all corners of the globe, including, no doubt, the British press; Gordon Brown decides to launch his own mini-tour. Despite conventional wisdom dictating that it is not a good idea to launch a PR campaign while the entire world is clambering for coverage of the 21st century's JFK, the British Prime Minister decided to pop to the middle-east for the weekend.

First he stepped of a military chopper at a base in Iraq, then, after he'd had time to play with a big gun and meet both the Iraqi Prime Minister and President, he vanished only to reappear in Israel. Apparently it's part of a two day visit to that will include a trip to the West Bank.

Whilst in Iraq he spoke of troop levels, "It's certainly our intention that we reduce our troop numbers but I am not going to be setting an artificial timetable at the moment". I imagine he may wait for a change in the occupancy of the White House before moving on Iraq. There is some logic in that, but obviously if he withdrew our troops now, it would send a message to US voters; seriously undermine John McCain's plans for Iraq; and give a boost to Obama's position. Then again, it may be too much to expect a man who can't even help himself to help Obama.

More Brown in Iraq pictures here.

Friday 18 July 2008

Tidbits: BBC

Every now and then I come across articles on blog sites criticising the BBC and claiming that it stifles competition. Well I've just found this, which paints a much different picture.

Could a Hijack by the Unions Save Labour?

After the 42-day detention bill passed, I resigned my membership of the Labour party. At the time I felt disgusted at what the party that I grew up supporting had become, I honestly could not see myself supporting Labour ever again. A month later, the anger has cooled, but I still cannot support Labour until they change direction. The Guardian today reported that the unions, which now contribute around 80-95% of Labour's funding, have given a list of demands to senior party figures. For those of us who want our party back, is this not good news?

Since Gordon Brown's approval ratings dived, this government has been obsessed with running in a popularity contest with Conservatives. They've tried everything to get the public to agree with them, whether it be 42-days, tax screw-ups or begging dictators to pump more oil. The funding crisis that Labour sees itself in could herald change. It is an undeniable fact that Labour would go into bankruptcy or administration if the unions pulled funding. This gives them enormous influence over the party and, while organisations having influence over political parties is usually a bad thing, this could be just what Labour needs restore its fortunes.

According to the Guardian, the unions proposals include "scrapping NHS prescription charges, bringing all hospital cleaning back in-house, legal changes that would to allow councils to negotiate procurement contracts that include fair employment clauses, the right to five days a year paid educational leave for all workers, free school meals for all children in primary schools, and mandatory time off to retrain and all firms bidding to run public services to be required to give guaranteed apprenticeship numbers". Proposals like this are exactly what is needed to bring back supporters, members and voters to the Labour party.

The Conservatives repeatedly try to insinuate that the unions have de-facto control of government policy. While this is far from true, the reason they are spinning this line is because they are well aware that firm policy commitments like the ones listed above are far more attractive to both working and middle-class voters than BS about a 'broken society' but no clear plan about how to 'fix' it. The Conservatives biggest weakness could just be their lack of policy. Attacks about union influence can be easily countered by pointing out that the Conservatives rely not on democratically elected workers groups for funding, but instead on big (often, polluting) business and shady multi-millionaires and billionaires who pay little, if any, tax.

The Conservatives website has not one clear policy about anything, yes it has lovely rhetoric about a moral society with lots of nice values, but no plan how to get there. The demands that the unions are pushing may be expensive, may be opposed by business leaders, but they are undoubtably very good for society. More than that, allowing five days a year paid education leave may seem like not much to most people, but they could be extremely beneficial to the pooreest members of society. A single mother who works five or six days a week to put food on the table for her children can't afford to take time off to get a qualification that would enable her to get a promotion or a better paying job. This scheme, would enable her to get a qualification without losing money.

For too long those living in poverty have been forgotten by society at large, the new power bestowed in the unions could reverse that.

While I was writing this article, the BBC revealed that they had obtained a leaked copy of a new government plan for welfare reform. I don't yet know the detail of it, but from the outline, it would appear that Gordon continues to pander to Paul Dacre rather than those who are fighting in vain for him and his party, such as Polly Toynbee.

If Labour continues on the current path instead of bowing to the unions demands, it needs to be given an ultimatum, get left or get lost. The unions have the power to bankrupt Labour and several government ministers (including the PM) along with it, if Labour continues on the path to the right, they should use it. Better loose power for 5 years than a decade and a half.

Tuesday 15 July 2008

Teenage Tearaway or Teenage Terrorist?

He looks like a child; crying, begging for help, but he receives no sympathy or comfort from the strangers sat opposite him. Beyond the grainy, low quality video that only reveals a pale faced man in an orange jump suit; he is a child. He is a boy of only sixteen, yet the strangers have not come to help him, instead they are there to exploit the trust and desperation of this young man. The strangers joke about his wounds, "I'm not a doctor, but you look like you're getting good medical care," he soon realises that they are not there to help him. The strangers are his own countrymen, and this sixteen year-old boy who has been subjected to weeks of sleep deprivation is a Canadian citizen.

Six years after he was first detained, videos of Omar Khadr being interrogated by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) in Guantanamo have been released. They are the first videos of a Gitmo interrogation to ever be released. In the words of a Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) official, he is very simply a "screwed up young man".

In a liberal democracy, where humanity unites society, we would expect a vulnerable teenager who has been driven to terrorism by his family and his background to be given help. We would expect rehabilitation to be the most pressing concern as with any other young offender. Instead, Omar was shipped of to Gitmo where, at the very least, he was deprived of sleep for days on end, his lawyers aledge more.

The US illegally detained and are rumoured to have tortured him, the CSIS cooperated, and aided his captors at Gitmo instead of fighting for the rights of one of their own citizens. This is revealed on the same day that the Guardian's front page alleges that MI-5 (British internal intelligence) and the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS, commonly known as MI-6, British external intelligence) colluded with the Inter-Service Intelligence (Pakistani intelligence service) to have British terrorist suspects, British citizens among them tortured in Pakistan. Welcome to the West, liberty for all, unless our governments decide otherwise.

One of my favourite bloggers is a survivor of the 7/7 London terrorist attacks. She opposed the new 42-day British detention law, her argument was that we can never be truly safe, so why destroy the civil liberties that we have fought so hard for in trying.

Omar puts his head in his arms, begins pulling at his hair, "KILL ME! KILL ME! KILL ME!" he sobs. Six years later his story makes only fourth bill on BBC News after a kidnap suspect winning libel, the trial of a man who faked his own death, and rising inflation. Something is very wrong when we have lost the ability to be shocked by the illegal detention and 'soft' torture of a sixteen year-old boy, for six years by the most powerful and supposedly moral country in the world.

Al-Qaeda doesn't make terrorists, the CIA does.

Sunday 13 July 2008

In Praise of Restraint

In advance of the full publication of the governments new youth crime plan on Tuesday, it was today revealed that young people who carry knives will be made to visit hospitals where stabbing victims are treated.

I have to express my relief at the simplicity of the measures. In the wake of 42-day detention and secret witnesses, I had been dreading the next set of draconian laws. However, to my surprise, the youth crime plan contains nothing of the sort. Will the new measures work, perhaps. Should we be glad that the Home Secretary has for once exercised restraint in the face of media pressure, definitely.

Crime is not a topic that particularly peeks my interest, it reminds me of the long afternoons I spent in Sociology class in the sweltering heat. However, of late, the horror of watching the government stroll off with ever more of our civil liberties has put me on edge.

David Cameron last week proposed providing anyone found carrying a knife with the expectation of a prison sentence. This would not solve anything. Many of those who are now carrying knifes are, ironically, doing so because they fear being stabbed themselves. And why not, its the media's latest fetish. Every new stabbing is broken live on the news channels and will be on the front page of the next day's tabloids. Even the main news bullions now lead with knife crime regardless of the fact that there are two wars and one potential nuclear conflict going on in the world. Just like binge drinking (started by ITV News, spread to all media) and terrorism, this is an issue that cannot be solved while the media's eye is trained on it.

I've always had a problem with the term 'War on Terror', not because I dispute the danger from terrorism but because it glamourises terrorism. Terrorists are no more soldiers in a war then any common criminal. The same is happening with knife crime. Does anyone genuinely believe that those idiots waving machetes around on the BBC behave like that after the cameras have gone home? Of course not. This will only truly be solved when the media get bored and move onto something else. That said, I dread to think what that something else will be.

PS. Welcome to my new blog!

UPDATE: Polly Toynbee has written more extensively on this topic in todays Guardian. - 15/07/08