I'm not a big fan of rampant nationalism or of nationalist politics. The Nigel Farages and Alex Salmonds of this world, with their clarion cries about the greatness of the nation-state, leave me cold. Nationalism values people because of where they come from rather than who they are or who they might become which is pretty much anathema to everything I believe in.
You see, in the words of Scroobius Pip, I'm from a little place called Great Britain but I don't know if I love or hate Britain. There are lots of things that make being British wonderful - incredible landscapes; the national obsession with tea; the amazing diversity of our language and culture; the prevalence of social liberalism; our rich sweep of history; and Doctor Who to name but a few. But then there are lots of things that make Britain absolutely awful - our political system; ingrained sexism; casual racism; the M6; the bloody weather; the ability of the England cricket team to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory; flags on cars during football tournaments; the Daily Mail; the EDL... You get the idea. There are days I love living in the UK and days I loathe it but I'd never really say I'm proud of being British. How can you be proud of something that's an accident of fate? It's like saying I'm proud of having green eyes - I had absolutely no say in the matter!
People are though, aren't they? Proud of their little strip of land, of their English (or Welsh or Scottish or Irish) descent and scathing about anyone who isn't from these shores. Given that the UK is essentially an island of incomers this always seems to me a rather hypocritical position to take but whatever. I don't get it, how does love for one's country become hatred for other countries and other people? Surely you can have affection for the place you were born or where you live without using your nationality as a weapon to oppress others? And if your strip of land is that great why don't you want to share it with people and attract people from all over the world who can add to it's greatness? After all, this island would be pretty empty if it weren't for immigrants...
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, 4 March 2014
Thursday, 11 August 2011
Thoughts about the Riots...
So we've had three days of riots across England - mostly London-based but spreading to Birmingham and Manchester over the past few days. Things have started to calm down now but that just means people are increasingly casting around for someone to blame and to try, in a largely reactionary way, to suggest ways to deal with the aftermath. I don't have any kind of solution for this particular brand of lunacy but just wanted to get a couple of things off my chest.
Ken Livingstone yesterday referred to the rioters as protestors. Well they're not. I'm sorry but that's the long and the short of it. Protest implies you're protesting against something rather than just stealing plasma TVs and designer clothes "because it's free innit". This whole episode may have begun with a protest (against the shooting by police of Mark Duggan in Tottenham) but it seems clear that this legitimate protest was soon hijacked by those looking for trouble - as per the student protests last Autumn. I'm not saying there aren't serious underlying social issues at work behind this violence but these are long term factors created by decades of social mismanagement by politicians of all stripes. The fervid media attitude towards cuts in public spending combined with a resurgence of global economic problems has made the world feel a less secure place. In my opinion you can't say that an austerity programme less than 9 months old and only marginally more severe than the programme of cuts proposed by the previous government is a genuine factor here. Both the rhetoric and the growing reality of public expenditure cuts is a potential trigger factor but not a root cause.
It has also been suggested that abolition of the Education Maintainance Allowance caused young people to riot. Well in one way that's true. EMA is simply a symptom of a culture of entitlement that can be seen throughout society. When I was a teenager (and it's not that long ago) I had no need of EMA to encourage me to go on to further education - I knew that was what I had to do to improve my chances in life. I had supportive parents and teachers to help me on my way but I knew that to get on in life I had to help myself as well. I got my first job when I was 13 and have been lucky enough not to be out of work since. Very few of my early jobs were glamorous - I was a paper girl then a waitress - but I learnt social skills and earnt my own money long before I had any qualifications to my name. I wasn't unusual - all my friends and classmates had part-time and Saturday jobs. It was just what we did to earn the money for driving lessons, nights out and new clothes. It is tougher to find a job now than it was in 2001 but there are still hundreds of migrant workers doing the jobs that British people won't do. There's a large Polish community in the town I come from many of whom have university level qualifications but are doing relatively menial jobs because they'd rather work than be unemployed. I get the overwhelming sense that for a considerable section of British society they'd rather be unemployed/on benefits than do a job which is more menial.
So what are the answers? Well, I don't have any. My instinctive argument is in favour of a small state and a balanced budget but dogma is no use here. People make a country not politicians - surely the very essence of any kind of big society - and if the policiticians of this country continue to fail her people then things will only get worse. Austerity protects our economy in some ways, preventing massive interest rises on government borrowing and shielding us from some market forces but it makes growth more difficult especially in a time of continued global financial turmoil. If the Eurozone is falling apart and America has its credit rating lowered how can we possibly expect our economy to grow at anything like the pace required? This isn't the government's fault particularly - as a country recovering slowly from recession and with a big burden of debt there's only so much that can be done to improve matters. A fiscal stimulus like a VAT cut may well increase consumer confidence but then again it may not and runs the risk of market disapprobation.
Meanwhile what do we do about social problems? How can we teach kids to aspire to something more than a life on benefits when it's all they and their parents have ever known? How do we encourage children to get an education in order to get a great job when the costs associated with gaining a degree are spiralling and the job market is so challenging? I was lucky - my family all had jobs and my parents encouraged me to try and earn some money of my own. It was just obvious to me that I would have to work for a living and if I worked really hard then one day I would be lucky enough to do a job I really enjoyed. I wholeheartedly believe in a meritocracy but I can see how soul-destroying it must be not to have that vision, not to believe in your own ability to get on in life. To see things getting more expensive and politicians talking about tightening your belts when you and your family couldn't afford the things you needed or wanted even when the UK economy was booming. Perhaps that's why people jumped on the bandwagon of the riots. It's not an apology or an excuse but it's a reason.
So I ask again, how do we solve this? We could ask our politicians to stop becoming entrenched in the dogma that didn't win an election and work together to look at how we can be fiscally responsible and encourage growth. It's not an easy circle to square but surely if MPs stop arguing with one another and start thinking constructively they might just be able to do something productive on our behalf. At the same time we need to look at what we can do with resources other than money to encourage aspiration. If 13 years of a Labour government throwing money at every public service it could think of should have taught us anything it is that social problems can't be solved with investment alone. We need to encourage people to work together within and across communities to help kids realise that they can do anything they want - the only limit is their aspirations. We need to help people who got involved in violence over the past three days put it behind them and use this experience as a catalyst to do something useful.What this situations doesn't need is kneejerk reactions like reducing civil liberties or removing benefit. Yes the actions of those rioting, looting and in some cases killing and injuring people are deplorable but some of the reactions I've seen in the media and on twitter/facebook have been equally so - you don't solve a crisis by suggesting mass murder, you just don't. People convicted over this should feel the full force of the law, no-one should be disputing that, but it is just as important that they receive compassion, help and support to help them realise that there is more to life than a free flatscreen TV and that this country does have more to offer them than violence and poverty.
Ken Livingstone yesterday referred to the rioters as protestors. Well they're not. I'm sorry but that's the long and the short of it. Protest implies you're protesting against something rather than just stealing plasma TVs and designer clothes "because it's free innit". This whole episode may have begun with a protest (against the shooting by police of Mark Duggan in Tottenham) but it seems clear that this legitimate protest was soon hijacked by those looking for trouble - as per the student protests last Autumn. I'm not saying there aren't serious underlying social issues at work behind this violence but these are long term factors created by decades of social mismanagement by politicians of all stripes. The fervid media attitude towards cuts in public spending combined with a resurgence of global economic problems has made the world feel a less secure place. In my opinion you can't say that an austerity programme less than 9 months old and only marginally more severe than the programme of cuts proposed by the previous government is a genuine factor here. Both the rhetoric and the growing reality of public expenditure cuts is a potential trigger factor but not a root cause.
It has also been suggested that abolition of the Education Maintainance Allowance caused young people to riot. Well in one way that's true. EMA is simply a symptom of a culture of entitlement that can be seen throughout society. When I was a teenager (and it's not that long ago) I had no need of EMA to encourage me to go on to further education - I knew that was what I had to do to improve my chances in life. I had supportive parents and teachers to help me on my way but I knew that to get on in life I had to help myself as well. I got my first job when I was 13 and have been lucky enough not to be out of work since. Very few of my early jobs were glamorous - I was a paper girl then a waitress - but I learnt social skills and earnt my own money long before I had any qualifications to my name. I wasn't unusual - all my friends and classmates had part-time and Saturday jobs. It was just what we did to earn the money for driving lessons, nights out and new clothes. It is tougher to find a job now than it was in 2001 but there are still hundreds of migrant workers doing the jobs that British people won't do. There's a large Polish community in the town I come from many of whom have university level qualifications but are doing relatively menial jobs because they'd rather work than be unemployed. I get the overwhelming sense that for a considerable section of British society they'd rather be unemployed/on benefits than do a job which is more menial.
So what are the answers? Well, I don't have any. My instinctive argument is in favour of a small state and a balanced budget but dogma is no use here. People make a country not politicians - surely the very essence of any kind of big society - and if the policiticians of this country continue to fail her people then things will only get worse. Austerity protects our economy in some ways, preventing massive interest rises on government borrowing and shielding us from some market forces but it makes growth more difficult especially in a time of continued global financial turmoil. If the Eurozone is falling apart and America has its credit rating lowered how can we possibly expect our economy to grow at anything like the pace required? This isn't the government's fault particularly - as a country recovering slowly from recession and with a big burden of debt there's only so much that can be done to improve matters. A fiscal stimulus like a VAT cut may well increase consumer confidence but then again it may not and runs the risk of market disapprobation.
Meanwhile what do we do about social problems? How can we teach kids to aspire to something more than a life on benefits when it's all they and their parents have ever known? How do we encourage children to get an education in order to get a great job when the costs associated with gaining a degree are spiralling and the job market is so challenging? I was lucky - my family all had jobs and my parents encouraged me to try and earn some money of my own. It was just obvious to me that I would have to work for a living and if I worked really hard then one day I would be lucky enough to do a job I really enjoyed. I wholeheartedly believe in a meritocracy but I can see how soul-destroying it must be not to have that vision, not to believe in your own ability to get on in life. To see things getting more expensive and politicians talking about tightening your belts when you and your family couldn't afford the things you needed or wanted even when the UK economy was booming. Perhaps that's why people jumped on the bandwagon of the riots. It's not an apology or an excuse but it's a reason.
So I ask again, how do we solve this? We could ask our politicians to stop becoming entrenched in the dogma that didn't win an election and work together to look at how we can be fiscally responsible and encourage growth. It's not an easy circle to square but surely if MPs stop arguing with one another and start thinking constructively they might just be able to do something productive on our behalf. At the same time we need to look at what we can do with resources other than money to encourage aspiration. If 13 years of a Labour government throwing money at every public service it could think of should have taught us anything it is that social problems can't be solved with investment alone. We need to encourage people to work together within and across communities to help kids realise that they can do anything they want - the only limit is their aspirations. We need to help people who got involved in violence over the past three days put it behind them and use this experience as a catalyst to do something useful.What this situations doesn't need is kneejerk reactions like reducing civil liberties or removing benefit. Yes the actions of those rioting, looting and in some cases killing and injuring people are deplorable but some of the reactions I've seen in the media and on twitter/facebook have been equally so - you don't solve a crisis by suggesting mass murder, you just don't. People convicted over this should feel the full force of the law, no-one should be disputing that, but it is just as important that they receive compassion, help and support to help them realise that there is more to life than a free flatscreen TV and that this country does have more to offer them than violence and poverty.
Sunday, 31 October 2010
The Shape of Things to Come...
Well, it's been a while but the twin factors of both the Browne Review and the Spending Review have driven me back into the waiting arms of my blog to muse about the reality of the brave new world I welcomed so enthusiastically in May...
First things first - last Wednesday's Spending Review was undoubtedly D-Day - not just for the coalition but for us all. Would it be as terrible as we feared? Well, I have to say no. Don't get me wrong - I'm not going to stand up and cheer about cuts to public spending which are undoubtedly going to make all of our lives more difficult in the short term - but I actually thought it would be worse. In truth, given the unrelentingly doom-laded tone of the media, until I actually read the Spending Review document in full I thought it was worse.
The biggest criticism Labour seem to be able to level at the government is that it's cuts are ideologically driven, that regardless of the country's financial situation the government would have gone on some kind of rampage of oppression - just because they could. Apart from the fact that this argument is somewhat childish it also ignores the fact that this ideological "roll back of the state" will only reduce public spending to 2007 levels - hardly an era of massive underinvestment. All the things that are being protected or invested in are hardly the choices of an insanely right wing mob - the health service, which will remain unequivocably free at the point of use; international aid and low carbon technologies. Rather these are the priorities of a liberal-minded government with a desire to position Britain well for the future.
The Spending Review isn't however devoid of ideology - quite the opposite - and for that we should be grateful. I certainly don't want anyone making decisions on the government's priorities for the next five years without a clear vision of what it wants the country to look like after those five years. What the CSR sets out is a plan to fundamentally reshape Britain - to create an economy dependent on innovation, enterprise and private sector growth rather than on an ever-expanding public sector, a burgeoning budget deficit and an over-stretched welfare state.
The decisions being taken on welfare and benefits are tough ones but it's important that they are taken. I defy anyone to say that our welfare system doesn't need fixing, I really do. I'm not denying that we should have one - exactly the opposite, it is our ability to care for the poor and vulnerable which makes us an enlightened society. But poverty and reliance on the state for survival should be the absolute last resource not a lifestyle choice. The fact that many children in low income families grow up with no ambition other than have a child, qualify for a council house and, if they're lucky, to stay out of jail is an appalling indictment on this country and one that we should feel ashamed of. Ultimately the reforms Ian Duncan-Smith is proposing will revolutionise the welfare system and improve the quality of thousands of people's lives but to do this the government has to make tough decisions up front, decisions which it is attempting to mitigate, but which will hurt.
However if the choices made in the CSR really deliver the brave new world we were promised in May than ultimately all of us will reap the benefits. Worth the risk? I think so. I hope so...
First things first - last Wednesday's Spending Review was undoubtedly D-Day - not just for the coalition but for us all. Would it be as terrible as we feared? Well, I have to say no. Don't get me wrong - I'm not going to stand up and cheer about cuts to public spending which are undoubtedly going to make all of our lives more difficult in the short term - but I actually thought it would be worse. In truth, given the unrelentingly doom-laded tone of the media, until I actually read the Spending Review document in full I thought it was worse.
The biggest criticism Labour seem to be able to level at the government is that it's cuts are ideologically driven, that regardless of the country's financial situation the government would have gone on some kind of rampage of oppression - just because they could. Apart from the fact that this argument is somewhat childish it also ignores the fact that this ideological "roll back of the state" will only reduce public spending to 2007 levels - hardly an era of massive underinvestment. All the things that are being protected or invested in are hardly the choices of an insanely right wing mob - the health service, which will remain unequivocably free at the point of use; international aid and low carbon technologies. Rather these are the priorities of a liberal-minded government with a desire to position Britain well for the future.
The Spending Review isn't however devoid of ideology - quite the opposite - and for that we should be grateful. I certainly don't want anyone making decisions on the government's priorities for the next five years without a clear vision of what it wants the country to look like after those five years. What the CSR sets out is a plan to fundamentally reshape Britain - to create an economy dependent on innovation, enterprise and private sector growth rather than on an ever-expanding public sector, a burgeoning budget deficit and an over-stretched welfare state.
The decisions being taken on welfare and benefits are tough ones but it's important that they are taken. I defy anyone to say that our welfare system doesn't need fixing, I really do. I'm not denying that we should have one - exactly the opposite, it is our ability to care for the poor and vulnerable which makes us an enlightened society. But poverty and reliance on the state for survival should be the absolute last resource not a lifestyle choice. The fact that many children in low income families grow up with no ambition other than have a child, qualify for a council house and, if they're lucky, to stay out of jail is an appalling indictment on this country and one that we should feel ashamed of. Ultimately the reforms Ian Duncan-Smith is proposing will revolutionise the welfare system and improve the quality of thousands of people's lives but to do this the government has to make tough decisions up front, decisions which it is attempting to mitigate, but which will hurt.
However if the choices made in the CSR really deliver the brave new world we were promised in May than ultimately all of us will reap the benefits. Worth the risk? I think so. I hope so...
Tuesday, 22 June 2010
The Unavoidable Budget
Well, no-one expected it to be pleasant but I'm not sure today's Emergency Budget made anyone (beside cider brewers) particularly happy. However, I can broadly support the ideals that the budget argues it represents - deficit reduction, encouraging enterprise and fairness.
Firstly, deficit reduction - the aim of this budget is ambitious: the balancing of the UK's books by 2015. £113 billion pounds worth of cuts is a big scary number - and £73 billion of these cuts were already set out by Labour (not that you'd be able to tell given their reaction today). But look at our balance sheet, really look without your party political goggles on - it's horrendous and we have to deal with it sooner rather than later. If you think the medicine of this budget is bitter, just envisage the sort of strictures that the IMF would impose. If we can rebalance our books ourselves, then surely we should give it our best shot. Yes it means 25% off departmental budgets and significant reductions to the welfare bill.
However I believe passionately that the state should not be the economy - the public sector is currently bloated and unprofitable and if it were a private enterprise it would have gone into administration years ago. Encouraging enterprise should be the core mission of government, creating a sympathetic environment for people to start and grow businesses. I meet a lot of people with fantastic ideas that have the potential to make a real impact on people's lives in all sorts of ways - you have to make it easier for people to turn their great ideas into reality. Lower corporation tax, a general commitment to simpler tax regimes and enacting the Conservative manifesto policies on a "one-in, one-out" approach to regulation all appear to be the approach of a government genuinely committed to unleashing enterprise.
Finally, on fairness - I can see that the coalition have genuinely tried to be fair and to target the brunt of any welfare cuts and tax rises at those who earn more. I can genuinely applaud the increase in the personal allowance for basic rate tax earners and I think a refocusing of the benefits system so it helps those genuinely in need without providing an excuse not to work is probably long overdue. The compromise that has clearly been reached on Capital Gains Tax is also fair without being punitive and a bank levy is more than fair, given the help the financial services sector has recieved over the past 18 months. However I've got reasonably serious reservations about the rise in VAT - whilst this may raise significant funds I can't help but think this will punish anyone on low and medium incomes, despite the retention of exemptions for food and children's clothing. The fact that such a tax rise has come about under a coalition government where both parties are diametrically opposed to tax rises in general is perhaps a sign of how bad things are. And despite the howls coming from the Labour benches I cannot help but think that we would have heard exactly the same thing from Alistair Darling today had the spectre of a "rainbow coalition" ever have managed to propel itself into being.
On a slightly separate note, I was also pleasantly surprised by George Osborne not appearing like a complete incompetent at the despatch box - I know he can't help his face but he's never looked like someone you could trust with your money. However he gave a good performance today, delivering a budget which has clearly drawn on both the Conservative policies developed in opposition and the Liberal Democrat's genuinely interesting thoughts on income tax and rebalancing wealth. I'm not sure you could ever argue this budget is truly fair - we're all suffering disproportionately from the prolifigacy of both the banks and the Labour years in general - but I genuinely think that the Coalition has at least tried to think and act in a way that is more progressive and fairer than perhaps a majority Conservative government would have been able to.
All we can do now is wait and see - the early signs from the markets are promising, the Bank of England seems to support the course of action laid out by this budget and investors seem reassured by the new Government's determination to balance the books. But this is going to be the true test of the Coalition - if its ideals of a smaller state, a revitalised private sector and swift action on the structural deficit are the correct ones then in a couple of years time we will all be able to look around and say "well that was tough but we've survived".
The alternative, quite frankly, doesn't bear thinking about.
Firstly, deficit reduction - the aim of this budget is ambitious: the balancing of the UK's books by 2015. £113 billion pounds worth of cuts is a big scary number - and £73 billion of these cuts were already set out by Labour (not that you'd be able to tell given their reaction today). But look at our balance sheet, really look without your party political goggles on - it's horrendous and we have to deal with it sooner rather than later. If you think the medicine of this budget is bitter, just envisage the sort of strictures that the IMF would impose. If we can rebalance our books ourselves, then surely we should give it our best shot. Yes it means 25% off departmental budgets and significant reductions to the welfare bill.
However I believe passionately that the state should not be the economy - the public sector is currently bloated and unprofitable and if it were a private enterprise it would have gone into administration years ago. Encouraging enterprise should be the core mission of government, creating a sympathetic environment for people to start and grow businesses. I meet a lot of people with fantastic ideas that have the potential to make a real impact on people's lives in all sorts of ways - you have to make it easier for people to turn their great ideas into reality. Lower corporation tax, a general commitment to simpler tax regimes and enacting the Conservative manifesto policies on a "one-in, one-out" approach to regulation all appear to be the approach of a government genuinely committed to unleashing enterprise.
Finally, on fairness - I can see that the coalition have genuinely tried to be fair and to target the brunt of any welfare cuts and tax rises at those who earn more. I can genuinely applaud the increase in the personal allowance for basic rate tax earners and I think a refocusing of the benefits system so it helps those genuinely in need without providing an excuse not to work is probably long overdue. The compromise that has clearly been reached on Capital Gains Tax is also fair without being punitive and a bank levy is more than fair, given the help the financial services sector has recieved over the past 18 months. However I've got reasonably serious reservations about the rise in VAT - whilst this may raise significant funds I can't help but think this will punish anyone on low and medium incomes, despite the retention of exemptions for food and children's clothing. The fact that such a tax rise has come about under a coalition government where both parties are diametrically opposed to tax rises in general is perhaps a sign of how bad things are. And despite the howls coming from the Labour benches I cannot help but think that we would have heard exactly the same thing from Alistair Darling today had the spectre of a "rainbow coalition" ever have managed to propel itself into being.
On a slightly separate note, I was also pleasantly surprised by George Osborne not appearing like a complete incompetent at the despatch box - I know he can't help his face but he's never looked like someone you could trust with your money. However he gave a good performance today, delivering a budget which has clearly drawn on both the Conservative policies developed in opposition and the Liberal Democrat's genuinely interesting thoughts on income tax and rebalancing wealth. I'm not sure you could ever argue this budget is truly fair - we're all suffering disproportionately from the prolifigacy of both the banks and the Labour years in general - but I genuinely think that the Coalition has at least tried to think and act in a way that is more progressive and fairer than perhaps a majority Conservative government would have been able to.
All we can do now is wait and see - the early signs from the markets are promising, the Bank of England seems to support the course of action laid out by this budget and investors seem reassured by the new Government's determination to balance the books. But this is going to be the true test of the Coalition - if its ideals of a smaller state, a revitalised private sector and swift action on the structural deficit are the correct ones then in a couple of years time we will all be able to look around and say "well that was tough but we've survived".
The alternative, quite frankly, doesn't bear thinking about.
Monday, 31 May 2010
The Curious Case of David Laws
Whilst not in any way condoning David Laws' misclaiming of expenses there are several things that have really angered me about the "revelations" of the past few days.
The first is the Telegraph's choice of timing, something which becomes even more questionable having seen their apparent headline for tomorrow about Danny Alexander. After all, the Telegraph first exposed what it claimed was the whole expenses scandal - albeit drip by drip - last summer. If the abuse of the rules made by David Laws was so deeply venal and shocking that it deserved his resignation then surely this should have been exposed then? And if the Telegraph genuinely felt it needed to play party politics with the story, rather than act "in the public interest", then surely it had the perfect opportunity to do so during the election campaign. This approach, whilst it would have been pretty grubby, would have effectively torpedoed the Liberal Democrats claim to the moral high ground. As the most right wing of the broadsheets and the traditional mouthpiece of the Tory right such an action would have been in their interest, bringing the election nearer to a normal two-way fight between Labour and the Conservatives - much more likely to deliver a Conservative majority. However, the fact that the Telegraph have sat on this until now suggests something more subtle going on. This is clearly an attempt to weaken the coalition, to work towards bringing down the government whilst the economic pain is still fresh and before it has a chance to enact any really radical social reform. A general election under these circumstances would only benefit one party - and it's not the Conservatives.
The other thing that upsets me about David Laws' situation is that he clearly got caught between obeying the rules and exposing his personal circumstances. Britain tends to see itself as a liberal (small L) society but attitudes to homosexuality are mixed at best. Given that consensual gay sex was only legalised in 1967 and the distinction between straight and gay relationships was only removed in law in 2004 this is I suppose hardly surprising. It is therefore possible to understand why a man such as David Laws would choose to keep his sexual orientation a secret and why to protect the public persona he had created he would make an error of judgement such as this. It's very easy to scoff and say "well this isn't about his sexuality - he cheated the taxpayer" but I can imagine very well the circumstances in which you would do anything to protect the people you love from pain. Of all the expenses stories that have circulated feverishly over the past year this is the one I find it genuinely hard to be indignant about - but ironically the one that may ultimately have the biggest impact on the country over the coming months and years.
The first is the Telegraph's choice of timing, something which becomes even more questionable having seen their apparent headline for tomorrow about Danny Alexander. After all, the Telegraph first exposed what it claimed was the whole expenses scandal - albeit drip by drip - last summer. If the abuse of the rules made by David Laws was so deeply venal and shocking that it deserved his resignation then surely this should have been exposed then? And if the Telegraph genuinely felt it needed to play party politics with the story, rather than act "in the public interest", then surely it had the perfect opportunity to do so during the election campaign. This approach, whilst it would have been pretty grubby, would have effectively torpedoed the Liberal Democrats claim to the moral high ground. As the most right wing of the broadsheets and the traditional mouthpiece of the Tory right such an action would have been in their interest, bringing the election nearer to a normal two-way fight between Labour and the Conservatives - much more likely to deliver a Conservative majority. However, the fact that the Telegraph have sat on this until now suggests something more subtle going on. This is clearly an attempt to weaken the coalition, to work towards bringing down the government whilst the economic pain is still fresh and before it has a chance to enact any really radical social reform. A general election under these circumstances would only benefit one party - and it's not the Conservatives.
The other thing that upsets me about David Laws' situation is that he clearly got caught between obeying the rules and exposing his personal circumstances. Britain tends to see itself as a liberal (small L) society but attitudes to homosexuality are mixed at best. Given that consensual gay sex was only legalised in 1967 and the distinction between straight and gay relationships was only removed in law in 2004 this is I suppose hardly surprising. It is therefore possible to understand why a man such as David Laws would choose to keep his sexual orientation a secret and why to protect the public persona he had created he would make an error of judgement such as this. It's very easy to scoff and say "well this isn't about his sexuality - he cheated the taxpayer" but I can imagine very well the circumstances in which you would do anything to protect the people you love from pain. Of all the expenses stories that have circulated feverishly over the past year this is the one I find it genuinely hard to be indignant about - but ironically the one that may ultimately have the biggest impact on the country over the coming months and years.
Wednesday, 26 May 2010
A Little Bit of Pomp & Ceremony
I should probably start this post off by clarifying that I am, generally, a fan of the British Monarchy. I'm not sure I'd institute a hereditary monarchy if I was starting a new country from scratch and there are a lot of members of the Royal Family whom I think are a waste of space but as an institution the monarchy is a *good thing* - at least in my eyes.
Thus the State Opening of Parliament will always be one of those occasions that fills me with joy - I love a Crown, a ridiculously long train and an archaic ceremony with a strange fervour. I suspect this comes from the fact that as a historian by inclination very old things will always appeal... However today wasn't really about the past - it was about the future, about the still shiny and new Coalition government telling us in a bit more detail what they plan to do over the months and years to come. It marks the start of a certain amount of returning to reality in UK politics...
So what do I think of the Coalition now the dust has had two weeks to settle? To be honest it all still seems bit unreal - according to folklore hung parliaments are supposed to bring inertia and bickering not a general love-in and rapid action. I admit to having had my own assumptions well and truly challenged - although at least I didn't make a party political broadcast about the dangers of the Hung Parliament party (a piece of wit David C must be regretting even more than *that joke* about Nick Clegg)... How I thought other countries coped I have no idea!
Broadly, I still like the Coalition a lot - the Programme for Goverment issued last week set out a policy framework that seemed to capture the best bits of both parties and it is clear that a lot of work has gone (and continues to go) into making this partnership work. The almost lightening speed with which the £6 billion of spending cuts for this financial year have been identified is the exact opposite of inertia. It feels like the entire country has been put on a new server and suddenly you realise how much the old server was slowing you down.
The phrase "in the national interest" has been supremely overused over the past few weeks but it genuinely feels like that is how the Conservative and Lib Dem front bench teams are trying to govern - and that's what we need. The Eurozone is in meltdown, war appears to be looming between North and South Korea - this is really no time for prevaricating or party political points scoring. The next few years, maybe even the whole of the next five years, are going to be tough - but I have this quiet sense that we might just come out the other side ok.
Thus the State Opening of Parliament will always be one of those occasions that fills me with joy - I love a Crown, a ridiculously long train and an archaic ceremony with a strange fervour. I suspect this comes from the fact that as a historian by inclination very old things will always appeal... However today wasn't really about the past - it was about the future, about the still shiny and new Coalition government telling us in a bit more detail what they plan to do over the months and years to come. It marks the start of a certain amount of returning to reality in UK politics...
So what do I think of the Coalition now the dust has had two weeks to settle? To be honest it all still seems bit unreal - according to folklore hung parliaments are supposed to bring inertia and bickering not a general love-in and rapid action. I admit to having had my own assumptions well and truly challenged - although at least I didn't make a party political broadcast about the dangers of the Hung Parliament party (a piece of wit David C must be regretting even more than *that joke* about Nick Clegg)... How I thought other countries coped I have no idea!
Broadly, I still like the Coalition a lot - the Programme for Goverment issued last week set out a policy framework that seemed to capture the best bits of both parties and it is clear that a lot of work has gone (and continues to go) into making this partnership work. The almost lightening speed with which the £6 billion of spending cuts for this financial year have been identified is the exact opposite of inertia. It feels like the entire country has been put on a new server and suddenly you realise how much the old server was slowing you down.
The phrase "in the national interest" has been supremely overused over the past few weeks but it genuinely feels like that is how the Conservative and Lib Dem front bench teams are trying to govern - and that's what we need. The Eurozone is in meltdown, war appears to be looming between North and South Korea - this is really no time for prevaricating or party political points scoring. The next few years, maybe even the whole of the next five years, are going to be tough - but I have this quiet sense that we might just come out the other side ok.
Sunday, 16 May 2010
Judgements
I originally intended this blog to be a place for me to sound off about politics - and maybe it mostly will be - but something has really shaken my view of the world so I thought I'd share.
A female colleague of mine took me aside yesterday and, in a well meaning way, basically told me that the way I dressed and the colour of my hair were likely to affect my career prospects. More to the point, that my ultimate boss - who is a man - was unlikely to take me seriously because of my appearance. Whilst the comments on my personal appearance are upsetting for a number of reasons the thought that a senior male colleague, whom I like and respect, would think less of me for something I wear or the colour of my hair appals me.
To a certain extent I can understand the comments on my dress sense - I err on the funkier side of business wear... However, there are a number of mitigating factors - for a start I work at a University which, for obvious reasons, doesn't have a strictly defined dress code and I have a relatively junior role. I also think I have a reasonable grasp of what is appropriate for different occasions - for example I would never not wear a suit when I'm at an external event or meeting a client.
However the idea that my hair or my clothes would be make a man think less of me in the workplace does truly shock me. I've never been a militant feminist - I'm lucky enough to be born into a generation where I've always thought I never needed to be. Perhaps I'm just naive but I've never felt that my being a woman has ever really made a big impact on how people perceive me professionally - I always strive to do the best I can whatever I'm doing and I've always felt that my teachers, lecturers and line managers (male and female) have respected me for my ability.
I don't think that a man in my job, or indeed in any job, would ever find themselves in this situation. And if it had been a man who had made these comments to me people would be recommending I sue them. Women are really lucky, even in comparision with 20 years ago, that we have legislation that protects our right to be treated and paid equally. But evidently the battle for equality isn't over...
Appearance matters but evidently in women it matters more - there was outrage this week about the dearth of women in the new coalition cabinet but women in the public eye get scrutinised and judged on their appearance far more than any man. I don't think I've ever seen a media article on a male politician's choice of footwear but Theresa May and Sarah Brown have both had their shoe taste scrutinised. Millions of magazines are sold every week poring over the appearance of various celebrities - in at least 9 out of 10 cases the victims of this scrutiny are women. The worst thing is that we tend just to accept this - that the rest of the world will judge a woman on her hair, her clothes, her makeup (or lack of) - without comment or question.
So maybe that's the next frontier, hopefully in another 20 years this will be even less of an issue... As for me - well conforming to expectations would certainly be the easiest thing to do but just accepting the status quo never changed anything did it?
Wednesday, 12 May 2010
Election Reflection - Part One
I've been following both the General Election campaign and the negotiations for a coalition government pretty breathlessly - which has earned me the title of political correspondent at work as well as some less desirable nicknames!
It's not my first general election as a voter - I voted in vain against the Blair government in 2005 - but it is the first election I could participate in where there was a real and growing sense that change could happen. However, I dreaded until about an hour ago that real change wouldn't actually happen - a change I didn't even think possible until last Friday. To a certain extent we won't know that anything has changed for months, even years but to me the events of the 7th - 11th May 2010 already seem momentous.
I should probably clarify my own politics a bit more here - I don't claim to have foreseen a Conservative-Liberal coalition or that I would have voted for one had it been on offer last Thursday. I think the coalition has the potential to do tremendous good for the country but that's a position I've arrived at very recently indeed!
I come from a traditionally Labour-voting community in North Wales - my grandfather once claimed that Wrexham would elect a cow if you stuck a red rosette on it - but not from a particularly Labour household. I remember my parents admiring Margaret Thatcher and whilst Tony Blair taking office in 1997 is a moment embedded in my memory I don't recall it bringing any scenes of wild joy at home (I was only 11). Personally, I've always been interested in politics but quite often from a historical perspective - I studied history at uni - and have struggled sometimes to find a political "tribe". After all Welsh girls don't vote Tory do they?!
Except this Welsh girl did and does, at least for the time being... I've watched David Cameron change the Conservative Party over the past 4 years and I hoped, prayed and voted for a Conservative Government with a mandate that would allow him to change this country. It was always an outside hope - opinion polls consistently pointed to the result we eventually got, a hung parliament with the Conservatives as the largest party - but I truly believed it was the only way the UK could move forward. Maybe that's the trouble with being a historian, you get a bit too wedded to the status quo because it is "historical" and not always because it's the best way of doing things!
Also, given Labour and Liberal noises throughout the election campaign, I can probably be forgiven for attaching virtually no value to Nick Clegg saying that he'd support whichever party gained a majority of votes and seats. The "Anti-Tory" voices were everywhere - much as I love Twitter there's been some very nasty abuse doing the rounds for anyone who even thought of voting Conservative - and a so-called "progressive coalition of the left" seemed by far the most likely outcome of any split vote. Plus "my" party have their own faults - Cameron's done well but there are still some hard-line right wingers hanging about (Lord Tebbit I'm looking at you) - so Lib Dem support for the Conservatives seemed about as likely as hell freezing over. I kind of felt that was a shame - I've always had a soft spot for the Liberals - but at the end of the day I felt I had to pick a party and I chose the Conservatives.
I did that for a number of well-thought out policy reasons not just because I like David Cameron and think his wife's pretty... Firstly and fundamentally, I'm not a socialist in even the most moderate sense - socially liberal yes, but I'm a strong believer in capitalism, enterprise and a small state. Secondly, I'm mildly eurosceptic - I believe we get a lot of benefits from membership of the EU but the single currency and other aspects of European federalism just don't stack up in my head. Finally, I believe in a welfare state that supports its citizens when times are hard but encourages them to be pro-active as often as possible. So I read policies, watched debates and reaffirmed my pro-Conservative leanings. Then I put my X in the box last Thursday and sat back to watch the results - half in hope and half in fear.
It's not my first general election as a voter - I voted in vain against the Blair government in 2005 - but it is the first election I could participate in where there was a real and growing sense that change could happen. However, I dreaded until about an hour ago that real change wouldn't actually happen - a change I didn't even think possible until last Friday. To a certain extent we won't know that anything has changed for months, even years but to me the events of the 7th - 11th May 2010 already seem momentous.
I should probably clarify my own politics a bit more here - I don't claim to have foreseen a Conservative-Liberal coalition or that I would have voted for one had it been on offer last Thursday. I think the coalition has the potential to do tremendous good for the country but that's a position I've arrived at very recently indeed!
I come from a traditionally Labour-voting community in North Wales - my grandfather once claimed that Wrexham would elect a cow if you stuck a red rosette on it - but not from a particularly Labour household. I remember my parents admiring Margaret Thatcher and whilst Tony Blair taking office in 1997 is a moment embedded in my memory I don't recall it bringing any scenes of wild joy at home (I was only 11). Personally, I've always been interested in politics but quite often from a historical perspective - I studied history at uni - and have struggled sometimes to find a political "tribe". After all Welsh girls don't vote Tory do they?!
Except this Welsh girl did and does, at least for the time being... I've watched David Cameron change the Conservative Party over the past 4 years and I hoped, prayed and voted for a Conservative Government with a mandate that would allow him to change this country. It was always an outside hope - opinion polls consistently pointed to the result we eventually got, a hung parliament with the Conservatives as the largest party - but I truly believed it was the only way the UK could move forward. Maybe that's the trouble with being a historian, you get a bit too wedded to the status quo because it is "historical" and not always because it's the best way of doing things!
Also, given Labour and Liberal noises throughout the election campaign, I can probably be forgiven for attaching virtually no value to Nick Clegg saying that he'd support whichever party gained a majority of votes and seats. The "Anti-Tory" voices were everywhere - much as I love Twitter there's been some very nasty abuse doing the rounds for anyone who even thought of voting Conservative - and a so-called "progressive coalition of the left" seemed by far the most likely outcome of any split vote. Plus "my" party have their own faults - Cameron's done well but there are still some hard-line right wingers hanging about (Lord Tebbit I'm looking at you) - so Lib Dem support for the Conservatives seemed about as likely as hell freezing over. I kind of felt that was a shame - I've always had a soft spot for the Liberals - but at the end of the day I felt I had to pick a party and I chose the Conservatives.
I did that for a number of well-thought out policy reasons not just because I like David Cameron and think his wife's pretty... Firstly and fundamentally, I'm not a socialist in even the most moderate sense - socially liberal yes, but I'm a strong believer in capitalism, enterprise and a small state. Secondly, I'm mildly eurosceptic - I believe we get a lot of benefits from membership of the EU but the single currency and other aspects of European federalism just don't stack up in my head. Finally, I believe in a welfare state that supports its citizens when times are hard but encourages them to be pro-active as often as possible. So I read policies, watched debates and reaffirmed my pro-Conservative leanings. Then I put my X in the box last Thursday and sat back to watch the results - half in hope and half in fear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)