Category: Politicae Britannicae

Tasteless money-grabbing

Posted on by David Landon Cole

The Tories have failed to prevent an £8.3m bequest to them being overturned on the grounds of mental illness. The details are unimportant; while I feel that it’s unfortunate that the Conservatives felt the need to contest what seems, prima facie, a clear, if tragic, case. It is not, though, the Conservatives that, in this instance, I am accusing of ‘tasteless money-grabbing’; rather, it is the system that forces parties to go after every last penny.

I am no advocate of state funding of parties, but the financial situation of the parties is parlous, opening them to undue influence from single individuals. A good start would be for the parties to stop advertising on billboards. Quite apart from, as Adlai Stevenson put it, that “the idea that you can merchandise candidates for high office like breakfast cereal is the ultimate indignity to the democratic process”, I’m not sure that it’s effective; the image a party presents is developed over the parliament preceding an election, not in the few short weeks leading up to it. It may even be self-defeating, as people are probably smart enough to realise that if political parties believe they can secure votes with a clever logo or a catchy slogan, they’re probably not going to be doing detailed, community-based policy formulation.

A rather better solution would be for the parties – all parties – to focus on membership. We could all learn a useful lesson from Howard Dean, who, with average donations of less than US$80 in the famously moneyed world of American politics, beat the previous Democratic record for single-quarter donations by US$4.5m (the previous record of US$10.3m having been held since 1995 by one William Jefferson Clinton). Beyond the financial factor, I am of the opinion that one friend saying that they are a member of a party and are voting for it is worth more than a party political broadcast and that a knock at the door – which requires motivated people to do the knocking – is worth more than an election address.

Of course, to do that, you have to show that it’s worth the party member’s while; I’d suggest, for various reasons that we’re all familiar with, that this is not happening at the moment.

xD.

The decline and fall of The Independent

Posted on by David Landon Cole

If you consider yourself of the leftwing persuasion and want a high-brow newspaper, you’ll take The Guardian; its opposite number, identifying more firmly with the Tories than Guardianistas do with Labour, would be The Daily Telegraph. At the bottom end of the scale (well, just above The Daily Star) would be The Sun for the right and The Daily Mirror for the Left. The middle-brow for the right can choose between The Daily Mail and The Daily Express, which I know is like choosing between syphilis and cholera.

The middle-brow gap on the left has been filled, it would seem, by the Independent. I hope it does not try to ape the Express or the Mail; there can be good news coverage without being as dry as the FT. As it happens, I agree with Jeremy Paxman about the Indie – “if any paper chooses not to be part of the pack, it’s the Indie”. Although the Indie is not running with the pack, it can still be headed over an unfortunate cliff. I rather suspect that Mr Blair’s attack on the Indie is because of its rather trenchant attacks on the former PM, particularly as it is a non-Tory newspaper. A point that both Blair and Paxman have made is the need to separate hard news reporting, features and opinion. Unfortunately, the Independent frequently puts Robert Fisk on the front page.

Fisk is a serious journalist and one of the few westerners to have had a media interview with Osama bin Laden (in fact, on three occasions, in 93, 96 and 97, which suggests that he’d cottoned on to the man’s importance before the formation of the Bin Laden Issue Station in 96); his writing is engaging, polemical and usually pretty factual. It is, though, his personal account; Fisk is on record as not believing it possible to be objective, and that therefore you should be subjective as a reporter. While it might be very worthy of the feature section and his opinions perfect for the later pages, it should not be at the front of a newspaper.

The perception is made worse amongst bloggers because of the verb ‘to fisk‘; I don’t think it’s entered mainstream usage, though.

The Guardian has been doing very well out of an imagined community built around Comment is Free and it has influence beyond the number of its readers, as does the Telegraph; the Sun has sheer weight of numbers and both it and the Mirror have the advantage of speaking to the perceived bases of the Labour and Tory parties. It is no surprise that I consider the Mail and the Express to be execrable, but not just for their jingoistic, occasionally factless, rabble-rousing ‘news’, but because their journalists are not – in my opinion – as good as those on the Sun or the Mirror; they are stuck in their mindsets and ways with no appreciation for that situation and no desire to leave it1.

It might be possible for the Independent to have more of a magazine feel about it and still have a purpose as a daily newspaper; however, it seems to be going the way of the Mail and the Express with features such as ‘Personality: What makes you the way you are?‘ which has the ominous line:

What kind of personality are you? Take this test to discover the truth.

The truth about my personality? I thought that was why I had a psychiatrist…

That article featured not in the magazine or review, but in the run-of-paper. My objection – and I’m rather sad about this, because the Independent used to be my newspaper of choice – is that you are not going to get a serious psychological analysis from a daily newspaper that costs seventy pence and that people who look for serious psychological analysis from a seventy pence daily newspaper are not going to give you the weight of the Guardian, particularly when the market is cornered by the Express and the Mail.

xD.

1 – Yes, Melanie Phillips. Having changed once your political position does not mean you will change again. I’ve heard it said that journos for the Sun are the best in the business and grasp stories more quickly than anyone else. That may be so; however, it seems to me (in my admittedly limited experience) that they grasp the story sufficiently for them to be able to write a story on it – the in-depth knowledge is not there and their news reporting is not factual. Equally, a newspaper is not just the factual reporting. Compare the comment and analysis in a tabloid to that in a broadsheet; compare the letters pages.

PS: An interesting link: http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/060817macdonald/

The myth of victims’ rights

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Many blog inches have gone to discussing the case of Learco Chindamo, the murderer of Philip Lawrence. The opposition to Chindamo’s being able to stay in the UK could be charitably described as shrill. Kris Stoke Newington‘s entire post reads

Hang on. This killer does not have a British passport and because of his murder conviction can never get one, yet somehow it is his “human right” to remain in the UK at the end of his sentence?!

It is all a little bit like The Daily Mail. Fortunately, the Ministry of Truth has pointed out some of the Mail‘s, ahem, oversights. Iain Dale asks a simple question in response to the Human Rights Act being cited in allowing Chindamo to remain in the UK – “What about THEIR human rights?” – what about the human rights of the family of the victim, Philip Lawrence.

There is an immediate and very strong answer from none other than Tim Worstall:

[H]e [Chindamo] won an argument under the Human Rights Act that he was entitled to respect for a family life and that removal in his case would be disproportionate. But this was secondary to his case under EU law. Under articles 27 and 28 of the EU Citizens Directive 2004, which took effect last year, an EU citizen can be expelled only on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.

So all the criticism of the Human Rights Act in this case is misplaced.

Nevertheless, people are attacking the Act more and more often and the ghastly spectre of victims’ rights has started to rear its head. There are some things that should be called victims’ rights; amongst these are effective investigation by the police, speedy resolution of the case, support from the counselling part of the police, financial compensation and keeping the media at arms’ length; not all of these apply in every case, and there may be more.

Victims do not, IMHO, have rights against the person who committed a crime and their rights to appropriate treatment and sensitivity certainly do not extend to the penal process. This is for three reasons.

Rights are not zero-sum; that is to say, there is no logical necessity for the duty of care that state owes a victim of crime resulting in that person having rights against the criminal. Put another way, we do not demand ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ or ‘a lifetime of vengeance for a life cut short’.

Secondly, victims are not special. In the case of Chindamo, I fail to see, if he is such an unpleasant character (which I dispute based on the evidence available) why I should be pleased that the problem is removed to Italy. I do not see why, judicially, a second crime on a person should be feared any more than a first crime on second else.

Thirdly, they lead to unacceptable variations in the law. If someone were to steal a Snoopy stuffed toy, you might say that it was a minor offence. If someone were to steal my Snoopy stuffed toy – my companion since birth – I would be devastated and probably be demanding blood. If I, or I think any person other than a dessicated calculating machine, were the victim of crime, they would immediately become biased to such a point that they could not make a neutral decision; they are partial.

xD.

David MacLean

Posted on by David Landon Cole

I was delighted to see this EDM submitted about David MacLean, the MP for Penrith and the Border. Mr MacLean suffers from multiple sclerosis and, while I don’t think I agree with any of his politics, for newspapers to attack him for using his MP’s allowance legitimately to allow him to effectively represent his constituents is pretty low. The text of the EDM is

That this House salutes the bravery with which the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border has for several years defied the onset of multiple sclerosis so crippling that a less determined person would have been confined to a wheelchair long ago; endorses the decision of the House of Commons Department of Finance and Administration to approve his purchase of an outdoor vehicle, from the appropriate Parliamentary allowance, to enable him to negotiate the largest rural constituency in England; and accordingly condemns the journalists and broadcasters who sensationalised this story for playing down, and in some cases not even mentioning, the devastating effects of his illness and his refusal to give in to it.

It is telling that the list of signatories covers the spectrum from John McDonnell to Andrew Rosindell.

xD.

Amnesty, Star Trek and China

Posted on by David Landon Cole

This made me laugh – it came up on the irrepressible.info box from Amnesty on my blog.


If you click on the image, you’ll see the backstory – the BBC website is censored in China – but the idea of someone not wanting Star Trek fans to know that there was memorabilia to buy suggests a conspiracy on behalf of Comic Book Guy.

xD.

LSE SU Comms Officer Blog

Posted on by David Landon Cole

My friend Ali Dewji, Communication Sabbatical Officer at the LSE Students’ Union, has launched a blog at sucomms.blogspot.com. This is an excellent idea. It allows more contact with him, lets him show his reasoning for things and, if and when the Beaver Online starts up properly and assuming they link to the blog, may increase student information and involvement.

xD.

Erik Ringmar

Posted on by David Landon Cole

This just came to my attention by way of Facebook.

http://ringmar.net/forgethefootnotes/

Worth looking at. It would appear that the LSE are trying to censor Erik Ringmar, a professor of mine, for his speech to prospective students, in part by demanding he take down his blog.

Will post more when I know what’s going on…

xD.

The BNP

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Matt Sinclair echoes Norman Tebbit in saying that the BNP don’t fit on the right and by extension must be of the left.

Giving definitions such as ‘left-wing’ and ‘right-wing’ are not in and of themselves good, but only by the extent of the usefullness.

Is it useful to describe the BNP as right-wing?

I would say that people of the right are generally more attached to nationalist ideas. The left would emphasise class distinctions in its place. The main right-wing party in the UK is officially the Conservative and Unionist Party. While that is entirely probably a historical nomenclature, it is not unreasonable to say that the Conservatives are the more patriotic and more nationalist party. From Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ to Smethwick, the Conservatives have had the problem of nationalism extending to racism. If that is too far back in time, it might be worth pointing out that Lord Taylor suffered from racist campaigning against him when seeking a parliamentary nomination. One one issue-axis that is the most important to the BNP, it is fair to say that the right, as it manifests itself today, is closer to the BNP than the left. That doesn’t mean they are close to them; it means they are less far away than others. I think that’s why people say that the BNP are far-right.

That having been said, the right is generally in favour of lower taxes, less state intervention and so on. That can certainly not be said of the BNP. In short, describing them as right-wing isn’t useful; extending the positions that the right take to an extreme doesn’t effectively describe the BNP.

Is it useful to describe the BNP as left-wing?

They are more statist than the espoused ideals of the right. I do, however, question that anti-statism of the right. Certainly, there is an ideology (which I am not immune to), but the tendency to want to grow the armed forces and the police – the most coercive elements of the state – suggests that there are statist tendencies, at least among certain parts of the right. Equally, there are traditionalist points of view on the right (and I would add that the BNP are very keen on certain traditions).

Economically, they do have more in common with the left; a greater role for the state and so on. I think the question is why they favour it. I would venture that the BNP are in favour of nationalisation as a secondary means because they see potential support amongst former Labour supporters who want nationalisation. For instance, the BNP favour abolishing all taxes for farmers – a right wing position? – but I would suggest that this is either because they see farmers, in a Francoist manner, as essential to the nation, both economically and because they prefer the rural life or because they see support starting to grow in rural areas and are playing a populist card.

I’m in favour of nationalisation of certain industries because I believe that they are necessary to provide a certain minimum standard of living so that people can exercise their liberty as they see fit. I would venture that the BNP aim to create (what they consider) a perfect society and see nationalisation as a means of doing that. The Soviets sought to eliminate the private sphere; I think this is more manipulating the private sphere so people agree with you anyway. That having been said, the BNP are more in favour of people having more, smaller (farming) properties and explicitly say they are against expropriation. Taking left-wing policies to extremes does not effectively describe the BNP.

Extreme left wing and extreme right wing are, I think, terms that are more useful because of the word ‘extreme’ rather than the words ‘left’ and ‘right’. To say they are extreme-right brings allegations that all right-wingers are racists and that they are extreme-left that all left-wingers want to control society.

In Denmark, there is a party simply called Venstre, meaning Left. They would be called rightwingers, espousing free market liberalism. They are known as the left because the Danish parliament was originally split between small landowners and large landownders; the former sat on the left, and Venstre are their successors. So far as I know, the issues of small- versus large- landowners are not currently major ones in Denmark. The point is that labels often grow from history, and are not invented to suit the needs of the day. Indeed, the modern terms of left and right come from where people sat in a chamber at the time of the French Revolution. Even if we decide that we must (perhaps for reasons of simplicity) use a single axis, Left-Right as it exists at the moment is not a useful one. Two axes would be more useful (see www.politicalcompass.org) and there’s a case for using more than two.

Usefullness here is in terms of describing them in political science terms and for the use of practical politics.

‘Violent, racist, homophobic, populist Holocaust-deniers’ seems to work.

Question is: what are we doing about it?

xD.

Not in my name

Posted on by David Landon Cole

I have just had the misfortune of watching Labour’s Party Election Broadcast for the local elections.

It mentioned not one policy. When I say not one policy, I don’t mean that it refrained from mentioning Labour policies and attacked the policies of other parties. It didn’t even mention the BNP, which even Margaret Hodge seems to think important. No, it had a cartoon chameleon to illustrate that David Cameron changes policy. It wasn’t even funny – it treated watchers as children. I still don’t know if it was some attempt at a joke. I have no objection to negative campaigning – attacking opposition positions is necessary – but this is pathetic. Pathetic, as in deserving of pity because someone thought this would be a good idea.

The basic message of the broadcast was that Labour doesn’t like David Cameron. Firstly, what a surprise; secondly, attacking policies by attacking the person ends up decreasing turnout. Oh, and he calls himself Dave, and should therefore be shot. It does not surprise me that people don’t vote, let alone for Labour, when the best we can do is a cartoon chameleon that doesn’t say anything.

There is a website – davethechameleon.com – but it’s probably worth noting that visiting this site will add to the hit counter of a bloody awful campaign.

Not in my name.

xD.

Constitutions of Continents

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Sadly, both Dead Men Left and Hold that Thought are barking up wrong trees when they come to Europe. DML argues for a left no and HtT for a left yes. I’m going to argue, in my usual flaccid and unconvincing style, that left-right issues are not really relevant for the constitution(al treaty) that goes to a referendum this Sunday in the Fifth Republic.

 

Dead Men Left makes a couple of mistakes, IMHO, in his piece. The first is to say

 

“Good Europeans vs. bad Americans is a model all internationalists should noisily reject. To dismiss – at a minimum – the 48% who voted against Bush in November 2004; to dismiss the many historic achievements of the US left; to write off any possibility of change in America that does not depend on external confrontation is to evince a profound, pessimistic conservatism.”

 

DML’s main point is right, but to say that the 48% who didn’t vote for Bush are somehow part of the radical left or even committed to another world is bollocks. They did, after all, vote for John Kerry. You remember. The one who based the personal part of his campaign on being in the military. You might remember which war he was in…

 

Secondly, Mandelson is very well described as oleaginous, but just because he likes something doesn’t make it bad. I am given to understand that he is partial to guacamole, which I consider an entirely reasonable position. The cynical point of view is that he would sell his own grandmother for power. The European Constitution means he doesn’t even have to do that, as it presents him with a lot more power. Now, while Mandelson having more power is probably as close to demonstrably bad as we could come, more power to someone is not necessarily bad. What if Make Poverty History were taken on board by the new common foreign minister as a leitmotif? While it may have become watered down, even Britain will support it and it would improve matters.

 

The point of the constitution is that it raises the stakes. There’s the usual bullshit of pandering to petty nationalism with pointless rhetoric about the EU being not a nation but a family of nations, but beyond that there are two big changes: the common foreign minister and the 1/3 veto.

 

If people are going to scream about the constitution, they might take the time to read it. If 1/3 of national parliaments vote against a European law, it goes back to the Commission. I do not deny that the EU has the potential to ride rough-shod over the European social model. The 1/3 provision means that, particularly given that people would appear to be more willing to participate in non party-politics based campaigns (viz. Make Poverty History, Stop the War, Social Forums &c.), a particularly odious piece of Eurolegislation could be effectively stopped by a concerted, transEuropean campaign.

 

The question should be not ‘does this accord with our political dogma’ but ‘is this good for us as lefties/righties/soggy centrists’. There is no bias inherent in the Constitution that cannot be undone by legislation coming from Brussels; the question is as to what nature this legislation will take if the Constitution is approved.