Debating the BNP

According to the mainstream parties of British Politics the main reason for not discussing anything with the BNP publicly (ie. on weekly platitude fest Question Time or the Daily Politics) is that it gives them a higher profile and legitimises them in the eyes of the wider public. The recent decision to review long-standing Labour Policy of no debate with the BNP is being discussed by Labour Party big-wigs in light of Nick Griffin's invitation as a panellist on QT and the BNP's success at the last European Elections.
It seems that since the last time they looked the BNP now has access to many more funds and an elevated media profile. They are now wondering whether or not they should acknowledge this and go face to face with regular James Blunt and bullshitter Nick Griffin MEP and his circus troupe of performing baboons (no offence to baboons).


I'm not going to do one of these posts about how awful it is that the Blackcoats are Haw Hawing in their cornflakes (witty) at the recent news of their election in a vote which meant nothing to anyone in a parliament which means nothing to anyone. I don't like the BNP, neither do you (most likely), let's move on.


It simply astounds me that so many in the mainstream of British Politics refuse to debate with them. While some in the ranks of the moderate even go so far as to say we should ban them. A combination of ignoring the problem until it goes away and banning/not taking into account those who don't agree with you smacks of the 5 year year old with his hands on his ears shouting LA LA LA at the top of his lungs until the problem decides to sort itself out.

Ask a Frenchman/woman to tell you the effects of ignoring a fringe party and he/she will cite the 2002 Presidential election in which National Front came second in the first round. Ask any Italian or German to tell you the effects of banning a fringe party and she/he will cite the terrorism engendered as a result. Suffice to say history should have corrected the silly illusion that we should ignore/ban the party.

Then why do the mainstream do this? What makes them spout inanities which amount to saying if you wish to debate with me you have to agree with me on this, this and this? Yes the BNP are wrong about race, yes they are wrong about Europe and so on and so bloody forth, but in my eyes the Conservatives are wrong on pretty much everything, why don't we ban the Conservative Party? Should you not be confident/secure enough in the strength of liberal democracy and pluralism that you can defend it against such idiocy?

You can only uphold liberal and pluralist democracy if you let it harbour its antagonists, or at least let them speak. Same goes for radical Imams and Revolutionary Marxists. Something Voltaire said about mildly inconveniencing himself for your right to speak and something else about God granting his wish that his enemies be made to look ridiculous spring to mind. These ideas go hand in hand. If you let them speak, it amounts to them giving you the stick to beat them with. That's the beauty of the system these shy democrats/pluralists represent, they just seem to have forgotten that.

Upon the news that the BNP were elected to the European Parliament the Conservative Party announced that it was glad that we don't have a system of Proportional Representation in Westminster. So they justify an unjust and outdated voting system by saying that it stops the BNP being elected to Parliament. It's not as if we would end up with the instability and centrifugal forces of the Weimar Republic, many of the French Republics or Post-War Italy should we finally be given an opportunity to cast a FAIR and CONSEQUENTIAL vote. I'd rather not be talked to like a moron when in fact it's obvious the Tories simply don't want to change a system which advantages them.

But it's not only the Tories being pathetic about this. Labour have gone from bad to worse. Not only have they dropped plans for PR but they recently proposed (to the delight of the BNP) new legislation to prioritise locals in the council flat selection process based on a MYTH propagated by the BNP itself. Also their near silence on Europe has been infuriating and has played right into UKIP's and the BNP's hands.

Another problem in not addressing the problem of the BNP is that it makes it impossible to acknowledge the isolation felt by many disaffected voters in the outskirts of London and the North of England from the political system. Thus their needs are not taken into account and their misconceptions not addressed. Which is certainly not healthy, nor is it fair.


The problem is that if the mainstream continues in its policy of simply ignoring the BNP and using it as a smokescreen for their own incompetence and lack of imaginative and forward looking policy, the BNP can only flourish as the party of change, albeit regressive unchallenged change.

France 1968/ Iran 2009?

I was re-watching The Dreamers the other night. It is a film, as many of you are probably aware, set during the May 68 riots in France. What started off as localized student protests, spread through the whole country and threatened to topple the Gaullist hegemony. This of course electorally proved to be wrong, yet it is safe to say that despite not being toppled Gaullism certainly was shaken. The film shows symbols such as a tidy middle class girl’s bedroom, a kitchen table, a Delacroix painting, even a toothbrush being appropriated by the idylls of a Revolutionary youth, or at least disentangled from the General’s vision des choses.

Three things sprung to mind upon watching this film when considering the establishment which was being challenged. Firstly France at that period possessed nuclear capabilities. Secondly it was governed by a very conservative figurehead who acquired power in what can only really be called a coup. Thirdly the ideology which underpinned this movement was nationalist, souverainist and sought to redefine France along traditional lines with an emphasis on technological and economic betterment.

When we consider the protest movement it was defined as originating mainly from intellectual and student circles (emanating from the baby boom generation) escalating as time went on to the working classes. Then by its relatively short lifespan and then finally by its lack of structure and coherent leadership. That is to say that despite the various Maoist student organizations and la gauche spontex (as it was rather aptly called) and the trade unions, the fragmentation of ideology and leadership was evident for all to see. It was also defined by its lack of instant results (there was no revolution).

There are incredible similarities which can be drawn with what we saw recently develop in Iran. Obviously I do not have the pretence to assume that I understand the ins and outs of Iranian politics, but I feel I have a fair grasp and the comparison may be flawed in certain aspects (with regards to Iran’s nuclear program, its leadership and of course the rigging), but I feel that it certainly does bear some weight. Many of the descriptions of France's establishment and the protests in 1968 have a striking resemblance to modern day Iran.

Both situations arose from public disapproval at an injustice/abuse of power and they also both represent a generational change in civil society’s approach to the individual and the role of the government's relation to said individual. They both escalated and were brutally repressed. The dust seems to have settled and it seems pretty clear that Ahmadinejad will remain in power, much in the same way that De Gaulle did.

It will be interesting to see the reverberations of this popular upheaval in the years to come. Despite the fact that De Gaulle remained in power for the following 2 years and that his dauphin became President after him, the foundations of the society which he sought to build and transform had been shaken and inescapably altered. Thus can we say that l’esprit de 68 which changed the way many people in France approached their leaders, and in fact themselves, will be present in Iran as l’esprit de 09 (if you will)?

Iran's leaders may have won the physical battle but it certainly lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the Iranian people (well most of them). It’s not so much about Mousavi not becoming President (he was not that much of a poster child for liberalism anyway), figureheads rarely capture the movement they represent, they merely ride it, it’s about what the protests represent and their reflection upon civil society. The vast underbelly of popular discontent which swelled in the streets of Tehran and other cities across the country will have to be dealt with. Considering the overwhelming youth of the movement and the loss of legitimacy of the Government and the Ayatollah, tear gas and snipers on rooftops will not quell such a societal demographic shift in attitudes and convictions. The appropriation of symbols such as the Azadi Square and the idea of Martyrdom with the murder of Neda Agha-Soltan further shows the potency of this movement.

Progressive change does not come quickly nor easily. That platitude is evident enough. But Governments faced with strong civil societies can only survive upon legitimacy whether by force of their argument or the force of their weapons. It remains to be seen whether the latter was enough, and I remain hopeful that, as in France, it was not.

Personality Politics

Barack Obama on a recent television interview was said to be choked up and evidently angry (wagging finger and solemn air noted) at a decision, or at least a possibility, that the insurer AIG was going to give out big juicy bonuses to its gluttonous fat cats who lost all our money and are seeking to steal our tax money (*duly shakes fist at evil system in which he took part*). Anyway more to the point I couldn’t help notice that it was said as part of a joke (he coughed you see) and how it made the audience laugh, and us chuckle and feel warm inside. This level of showmanship, or oratory as it is more neutrally called, is reminiscent of many such greats as Abraham Lincoln, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton. We can acknowledge the importance of personality in Politics. Some of us go as far to say inanities like Winston Churchill won us the Second World War, or Barack Obama has cured America of its institutional racism or absolved the US of all its sins (me included, I remember crowing that Gordon Brown was the savior of social-democracy). It can lead to gross errors of judgment or pseudo personality cults whose effects we fall more often then not victim to.

Firstly it seems to me that the fore-front of personality in politics has become more pronounced due to mass media development and the deepening of individualism. The entrenching of Presidentiable in French politics, the smooth managerialism of British and German politics, attest strongly to this. As does the comic but occasionally affable style of George Bush II or the soaring preachy rhetoric of Obama. Personality politics has always been around, these are just modern depictions, but the call of the hand of history, has never seemed so wide in possible repercussions.

A small example of this would be Boris Johnson. Pure persona, you think of Boris (note first name terms, like Tony or Cherie or even Dave) you think mumbling tit, rides a bicycle. At least in the past we had nicknames like the Mac, the Iron Lady or something of the sort, but they were just as bad really. Ultimately they give you a show which is within the narrative of the latest political soap opera, or personality interplay. This is of course a touch overly dramatic and selective, but the trend is undeniable. As we can see that showmans such as Mitterand, Schroeder or Clinton, were simply maintainers of the status quo, delivering little more but the same as the parties on their right. While thundering showmen such as Thatcher, Reagan, De Gaulle, and so on, use their tremendous personalities to project their mostly unsound policy agenda. A perfect example of this was one of the campaign posters of Segolene Royal during the last election which was entitled La France Presidente. Her incompetence was not made apparent until the PS decided to shun it's reasonable candidate DSK for an emotive egomaniac who ended up losing to someone of the same emotional exuberance.



This can be noted as one of the long stream of personality aggrandizement which can only further legitimize personal rule, or certainly centralize power further behind a series of masks. While it’s increased legitimacy will further chip away at the authority of the elected legislative figure, or the less media savvy of the political bunch, until all we're left with is only one democratic organ to take on the executive and a media who more often then not share the same agenda as the man or woman in charge. Robin Cook for example was a perfect candidate for Labour leadership, but most wouldn’t even consider him because he didn’t fit the persona (while it would seem his credentials and his beliefs would have more say in this). Some could argue the same for Gore, DSK, Kinnock, but the fundamental point is that it helps to have a larger than life personality or an ego the size of the tundra. Ultimately can we say that Gore, Kerry, Smith, Bayrou, Kinnock would have been better? I could place a fair wager that they would have been (this is of course only pure speculation).


Not to say that Pol Pot, Stalin or Hitler await us. Yet we can’t overlook the fact that the smooth salesmanship of political power is there solely to convince us when in fact it should be there to serve us. It is the modern equivalent of blue blood or brute force, which coerce us into accepting authority. That we can justify things which are clearly so reckless by saying that history will judge us shows to us that the current constellation of political power within our democratic systems is flawed and that we should be wary of its concentration. And it seems unlikely that Cameron, Obama, Sarkozy or even Zapatero want to change that.

PS: between Action and Denial

No one needs to be reminded of the sorry state of the PS in France. The loss of the Presidential election last year once again sent the party into the introspective mode which has dogged it since MItterand left office in 1995. What can be done to save a party which is unable to stand it´s ground in front of one of the most muddled and moraly corrupt Governments of the Vth Republique? Not much since it seems that little clear ideological direction has been seen since the Jospin administration, and little leadership since the loss of the Presidentials in 1995. The most striking example of this was the last election, which showed more clearly then ever the constraints placed upon Segolene Royal as she stood for President and the problems with the left in France. The problems which the PS faces are three fold, on the level of the party (both in structure and conjuncture), on the national level, especially in the context of being in opposition to Nicolas Sarkozy and on a ideological level (as the party seems to have fallen to the general marasme of the center left Parties within Europe).

LEADERSHIP CRISIS

One big issue is leadership, as any party which seeks to lead the country needs a leader, this much is clear. This the PS seems incapable of doing. Even during the Jospin years, he had Martine Aubry and Francois Hollande tugging for creative control like high school students in some newly formed band. The same for Segolene Royal, who had to contend with the ever more entrenched Elephants du PS. The party splinters itself into different factions, forming short lived coalitions with one another, while plotting the downfall of rival coalitions. To become leader you have to put yourself forward to contend with les Fabiusards, les Delanoistes, Les Royalistes (funny coincidence, no?), and so on and so forth with each prominent member of the Party. Each one incapable of imposing him/herself in case he or she gets kicked out of the band as it were. Some say this is due to the void left by Mitterand, since he was leader for such a long time. But for god´s sake that was 14 years ago! It´s a rather cheap excuse to hide the fact that the party has too many bloated egos at the same time, while the old guard seem incapable of accepting fresh blood such as Hamond or Royal (who are either ignored or derided). This is further worsened by the actual structure of the party. For example there is no official opposition leader in Parliament or in the Party. Even more confounding is that the General Secretary for example is not the candidate for the next election. You cannot have two imposing personalities at the head of a Party, it simply does not work. As the last election showed it can even destroy a marriage (Royal/Hollande). The party clearly has too many personalities bobbing around clawing for political influence and stature, while the structure is repellent to any form of functional hierarchy.

THE BAYROU AND SARKO EFFECT

The PS does not offer an credible alternative to the currrent administration, yet it seems even incapable of fronting a credible opposition to Sarkozy. This is in part due to it´s incapacity to find a clear leader and message, but also there are Sarkozy and Bayrou to contend with.
You know the left in France is in trouble when a former member of the ruling party is providing the main opposition to Sarkozy. Though Bayrou and his center party (the MOdem) seem to epitomise more a Gaullist resistance, then a center left one. Not only that but Bayrou hopes to form a coalition with the PS at the next election (only Royal seems to have warmed to that idea). He was even invited, half jokingly half seriously, to form une motion for the next Party Convention in November. He is capable of fronting an opposition to Sarkozy, in light of his imposing presence within his party (though the fact that his party is largely his creation does help), and the vaccum left by the introverted PS.
Sarkozy also has managed to blur ideological lines to such an extent and fire highly symbolic yet minimaly important legislation (to appear at once as the trend setter but also as the reformer) that the PS simply does not know how to react. A good example of this was the creation of the RSA, which is a more effective substitute for the RMI. It would have been a perfect opprtunity to call out in unity and agree with the content, but disagree with the way it was financed (since the middle class will have to shoulder most of the burden, as opposed to the rich who are protected by a fiscal shield). The party would have presented itself as a coherent and cooperable opposition, while disagreeing with Sarkozy´s economic policies. Instead we got nothing. Nor does it help that this is traditional left wing territory, but Sarkozy is an expert at reaching to both sides of the political spectrum. The effect is worsened by the poaching of high flying former members of the left such as Kouchner and Hirsch. While the constant atmosphere of debate within the UMP, and still being able to maintain a clear leadership (as seen with Edvige) can only but weaken external opposition in the public eye.
The PS is incapable of fronting an opposition to Sarkozy, even in the light of some truly contemptible behaviour (Corsica, need i say more) and worrying legislation (Edvige for one). This is not helped by Bayrou, who benefitting from a small and operational party, has managed to provide a revival of the center in France, while spliting the party over the idea of an alliance.


LEFT WITHOUT A COMPASS

Yet this weakness is reflective of the lull in which most of the center left European Parties find themselves. The situation in Germany is very similar. With the SDP incapable of deciding wether to stay firmly on the left or move towards the center (it seems to have decided the latter for the forthcoming elections), while slowly it´s electorate is eroded by Die Linke on it´s left and the CDU from it´s center. The same can be said with the French Socialists. They are uncertain which way to turn. Whether to consolidate themselves with their base (as Aubry and Fabius clearly favour) so as to eat away at the 10-12% who voted for leftist extremists parties such as the LO or the PCF in 2007. Or whether to move to the center to either ally themselves with or engulf the Modem and the center (as Royal and Delanoe clearly favour). This trend is increasingly obvious throughout the whole of Europe. It´s visible in the failing left wing governments of the UK and Spain, and in the failings of recent elections in Italy and Germany, while it is painfully clear in France.


The PS needs to sort out the structure of it´s party. Favouring clear and established opposition: such as a the creation of a formal speaker in the Assembly and combining the posts of General Secretary and Presidential Candidate. This would impose a leader who can succesfully occupy the spectrum and present itself as opposition, while going some way to silence dissention within it´s ranks. I think an alliance with the Modem would be counter productive, since the party can simply move towards the centre and eat away at the Bayrou electorate, instead of relying on the man himself (who cannot be trusted). In very much the same way Sarkozy did with the UDF last year. Not moving towards the center would be stupid and short sighted since, the harder left will always vote for the lesser of two evils au second tour and that will always be the PS over UMP. As for the ideological move there are no easy answers, but drawing on the examples of Blair and Zapatero, I think would be a good start. That, twinned with the ideas put forward for the creation of a participatory democracy (cf Segolene Royal), would put the party at the forefront of innovative politics in a France already tired of (but at the moment resigned to) Sarkozy.

A few questions to David Davis

- Why did you not speak up before the actual vote as opposed to after? Considering this matter is something which apparently is dear to your heart and you are Shadow Home Secretary.
- Since you were partly the architect and a keen supporter of 28 days, not to mention the fact that you support the Death Penalty, doesn't this show that you're not really that big on civil liberties?
- Would you accept a seat on David Cameron's shadow cabinet, should you win the by-election, considering (as he has said) he is unlikely to repeal it if he wins the next election?


- Do you want the electorate of your constituency to vote solely on the issue of 42 days, considering most of the public support that particular piece of legislation?
- What possible difference is this going to make, what are you going to accomplish, since the bill already passed in parliament and you face no plausible opposition for your seat (labour has decided not to challenge you)?


- Why did you feel the need to resign considering your party was against the Government's proposals? Doesn't this show that you don't think David Cameron was strong enough in his opposition to 42 days detention?
- Do you have any leadership ambitions, and wasn't this whole thing about trying to further your own political agenda as opposed to defending our liberties?
- Isn't it odd that the Conservative Party is not funding your campaign? Doesn't this show that David Cameron has seen beyond your pretense and is worried that you are trying to steal his job?

I, like Davis, am against 42 days detention, but find his motives questionable and dishonest at best. This kind of blatant publicity stunt over such an important and sensitive issue further weakens the faith that the general public have in politicians , not only that but makes a mockery of the ideals we are all trying to defend by opposing this piece of Government legislation. Though I do thank him for exposing the cracks within the Conservative Party and wish him the best when it comes to damaging his party in the future.

Ponderings on a Polarised America

Tony Fabrizio a Republican Strategist for McCain has said that

One strategy for McCain is (...) to make it not about micro-policy but about ideological differences. Given Obama's record, this will be easy.

This throws into light some very interesting occurrences which have happened in the past two weeks or so, which are the result of a paradigm shift within the American political landscape. The latter Clinton years, though rife with partisanship, as well as the Bush years were defined with the two main parties easily slipping into the same political territory. That is to say it was defined by, as many have come to call them, the Republicrats. This odd political breed though bitterly partisan are easily seen as sparring on similar territory. The Clinton 08 campaign as well as the Giuliani 08 campaign can be seen in many ways as the last stand of such politics. The failure of the Neo-Conservative movement has thrown this balance off kilter and has incited a Democratic Revival and Ideological emboldening, not seen since the mid 80s or the brief hysteria of RFK. However this time they might take it to the White House. Obama's nomination is historic in itself and his ascension to the White House would have unparalleled consequences socially, politically and economically.


Up against him is the eccentric, if not slightly schizophrenic, candidate McCain. Who has gone from being seen as a liberal voice within the Republican Party, as well as a possible running mate for Kerry in 2004, to a hard-line Republican. He supports the Bush tax cuts, which he once criticized, he has hopped into bed with the Evangelicals , he so loathed and has pretty much abandoned his green credentials which he used to tout. Though his personality change is not the topic of this post, it reflects the ideological polarisation of American Politics, which has been picking up speed in the past year or so. Though his candidacy lacks the momentum of the gargantuan and hugely grassroots movement Obama has assembled around him, his candidacy has been fired up in opposition to it. He intends to present himself as a Republican through and through, with small government, gun-ho and bellicose credentials to boot. When he delivered his speech on the same night as Obama's victory, his soundbite for the evening was "No you can't". Which echoes the clear Conservatism of this campaign.



The Democratic Primaries managed in many ways to incite this debate within American Society. With a woman and a African American leading the contest from early January, it started by in a sense establishing its "liberal" credentials. The populist leanings and bleatings of Clinton in the last months of her campaign, and Obama's soaring speeches which have been compared to those of Kennedy and King, also added to this. The party is now strongly defined by strong liberal leanings. Gone are the days when the Democrats were toeing Republican Party line. Whether Obama likes it or not the party has swung to the left, and in comparison to McCain he will seem like a big Government, pacifist and "progressive" candidate. His candidacy has become the archetypal liberal campaign, as Anne Coulter would say, and for once she's not entirely wrong.

The reason for this seems two fold. Firstly the party has rallied itself around a new and ground breaking candidate, who goes beyond anything the democrats could have hoped for. This is because in style Obama is personable like Bill Clinton, affable like Kennedy and revolutionary like Martin Luther King. He is void of the baggage of the past and is not divisive, unlike his opponent Clinton. And Secondly he also has picked up on a wave of discontent which has been born out of the Iraq war, the loss of disposable income felt by most Americans, and the recent antipathy towards the Republican Agenda after 9/11 (again unlike most leading Democrats, including Hillary Clinton). The dissatisfaction which most Americans now feel gives the Democratic Party an opportunity to be more radical as it were and possess what in 2004 would be considered an "unpatriotic" agenda. One last thing I believe that the drawn out primary season has helped the party to rediscover it's identity and to an extent expose fully the divisions in the party. Therefore it will be easier to understand and to an extent try and pacify the factions within the party. Unlike McCain who seems to have won, without putting up much of a fight, due to the lack of choice within a much more fragmented party. Which explains the sudden shift from McCain to Bush III, so as to preserve the disintegrating coalition of business elites and the religious right, which it can't seem to move beyond.

The debate is raging through American Society as the forces of Conservatism and Liberalism collide headlong, and the contest has galvanised huge swathes of the population. Some states which historically have always been "safe", that is to say defined by a political stripe, are up for grabs. Which again shows how this Primary season has unsettled and rattled the political and stale consensus of the past 25 years or so.

How will this play out? No one knows, since both camps are at about even in every national poll, though it would seem that Obama has the edge. Except for the poll published by FOX news which puts McCain largely ahead, but anyone with half a brain should take anything published by that network with a pinch of salt.

The independents and the lower classes are undecided and the election will clearly be decided on those two demographics. McCain and Obama are even with independents. But McCain is largely ahead with the lower classes, which is something Obama needs to work on, though clearly his agenda would benefit them more. This shows that this disconnect has more to with the colour of his skin and seeming elitism (since Clinton had the edge over McCain when it came to these voters). However should this fail it would be interesting to see if Obama's campaign which has been twinned with a campaign for registering the young and disenfranchised voters (who historically sympathise with the Democrats) would be able to cancel out this working class Republicanism.

Either way this injection of dynamism and energy into a political debate has to an extent helped America smash glass ceilings and the political stalemates of the past 8 years. This very public debate on issues of race, gender and morality, showed the world an element of maturity twinned with a renewed optimism which many felt had eluded America for a very long time . The election trail is going to be fascinating to watch.

LisbOFF

The Irish Vote last week was the only referendum to be held in all of the 27 countries of the EU as to whether or not the Lisbon treaty should be adopted. The fate of one of the most important and innovative texts of the European Union was left in the hands of a nation of around 6 million people (representative of just around 1% of the EU population), and the treaty was rejected by 53.4% to 46.6%. Mostly because voters were uncertain about what the treaty actually meant and what it stood for. Declan Ganley head of minority party Libertas was heard on Saturday heralding the defeat of the treaty as a slap in the face of much reviled Eurocrats. He went on to say "This is democracy in action... and Europe needs to listen to the voice of the people". This is reflective of mainly three things: the ignorance of the population at large as to the objectives of the European Union and the Lisbon treaty, the distorted and infuriating diatribes of the right wing/nationalist forces as well as the dangerously passé and archaic mechanisms of European Politics.

It's important to remember that the actual vote in Ireland was meant to be an easy thing, most were more worried about the Treaty not being passed in the UK's upper House, or even in the Spanish Congress. But no one was really worried about the Irish referendum until a few bothersome polls showed the no camp gaining ground about a week or so ago. And then again there only were faint worried whispers within the international press and the hallways of the European Parliament two days before the actual vote.
So should we be worried that a State like Ireland, which has established fairly strong European credentials, has rejected the treaty? I don't think so, because firstly the turnout was very low indeed with only 53.1% turning up at the polls and secondly most voted "no" because they did not understand the actual text and thought it might affect issues such as abortion. That in itself is not an anti-Europe vote, but more a pathetic squeal of nationalism galvanising a backdrop of apathy and uncertainty.
How could such voters be so ill informed? After all there is a wealth of articles and numbingly simple "the Lisbon Treaty explained" 10 point summaries available so easily on the internet and in the media. It seems so mind bogglingly odd that no one knows what it's about. In fact it seems to me that most hide behind the length the Treaty to mask their laziness and ignorance, but that's my angry defeated opinion. A more pondered approach however would show that, in fact, as well as being slightly lazy, the population were mostly fed these Soviet/Evil Empire/EU Comparisons ad nauseam (apparently Barosso is the new Stalin)by a frighteningly biased media, who happily dispense of fact for opinion, while the more liberal press and the prominent proponents of the treaty kept quiet, for some odd reason or other (most probably arrogance). The information out there was unlikely to swing it in favour of the the "Yes" vote.

It's not so much the Irish "No" which makes a Europhile's blood boil, but the snide look of victory on the faces of the "no" camp, which make for a sickening spectacle. Declan Ganley (Libertas) was not the only smug half wit celebrating in Dublin on Friday, but his speech was particularly poignant. In that he said this was a victory for democracy and the people of Ireland. He went on to say that he wanted a collective of nations, not some Federal State administered by a number of Belgians and Germans, using some overly convoluted and undemocratic text to undermine national sovereignty and democracy (see summaries are not that hard).
What he seems completely incapable of realising is that should the treaty have been passed, largely undemocratic areas of the actual European Union would have been sorted out. With for example the creation of a more visible and accountable figurehead, a parliament with greater jurisdiction, greater powers to European Courts, not to mention a more prominent role on the world stage (something which Ireland could only dream of), and so on. So by opposing such measures, he is leaving the EU in flux more then anything, still undemocratic and with no significant progress made.
Another thing he said was that the text was too long. But I guess that would be normal because a man of such simplistic reasoning simply cannot even begin to process the difficulties and the vast tasks/undertakings which the EU has to deal with. Hence the need for a developed and pluralistic bureaucracy to cope with such demands. While at the same time it has to deal with being tugged at on all sides, by these pathetic nationalisms, which in fact create more opt outs and exceptions, clauses and fine detail. People overlook the fact that that in itself MAKES THE TREATY MUCH LONGER AND MORE DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND. One of the main reasons it has become so complicated is because morons like the head of Libertas make it so.
One last argument is this idea that somehow countries have not benefited from European integration. In all of the three pillars of the EU, the Union helped innovate, create and rationalise many areas in which European countries (especially Ireland which has benefited much more then most) were lagging behind and are now able to compete on the world stage. Without the stability and economic prosperity which the European Union has given us, the values of Democracy and Freedom which so many within the "No" camp claim to be defending would simply not exist. Though of course it has not been perfect and the Union has not solved all national problems, it is undeniable that it has been a huge and indispensable asset to us all and still has a lot to offer.



However it is easy to sit back and blame ignorance and others for the recent failings of the EU. Blame lies strongly with the Europhiles and the way European Politics is conducted. Brown and Cowen should have stood up and explained the treaty in detail and not avoided all questions. When they don't, it gives the impression that the transparency of the European Union is very limited and is likely to continue to be, once more power seeps into the European Parliament and Council. Thanks to them and the apparent rejection of democracy (though last time I checked national congress was elected, but hey...)by not having referendums, Brussels has never seemed more detached from the streets of Belfast, Dresden and The Hague, and never has it seemed so self serving. No wonder they rejected it. I'm not protesting at the lack of referendums (I don't believe in them), but a lack of discourse is dishonest and disheartening, not to mention defeatist. It's like saying "I know what's best for you and for us, but I'm not going to tell you because you won't understand". This kind of patronising behaviour by the Governing Class shows a dangerous lack of belief in the principles of democracy and overlooks the good which can come from of an informed and intelligible public debate.

Should we have more pro-active European MEPs and supporters on the forefront of politics today this problem would not have presented itself. The EU needs to be more honest and open, it needs to challenge and defend as opposed to hide and litigate, it needs to assuage fears, not encourage them. The Lisbon Treaty will pass, as did it's predecessors even when they were rejected a first time, but that does not mean that the EU can continue the way it is. Otherwise I fear the worst, there is nothing more scary then a nationalist backlash.

A Chameleon, a car salesman and a bleach blond fop take over CCHQ... what happens?

"La rupture, ce sont souvent des réformes transgressives en symboles mais marginales sur la substance."


Many have heralded the recent Tory fortunes as the signs of a New Conservative Era, signs that New Labour has run out of steam and that the Cameron brand is a viable alternative to the current administration, brimming with new ideas and hope. I must admit that when the local election results were announced a few weeks ago, I was gripped by an intense panic, for the first time since I have been politically active it well and truly seemed that New Labour was dead in the water and that Cameron was effectively going to be the next prime minister, the Tories were on the road back to Downing Street. But now that the dust has settled, that New Labour have been rattled and the smirks on the Tory front benches have grown wider, my panic was lessened, replaced however by a growing sense of disgust, at once at the misfortunes of Labour and the complete hypocrisy of the Conservative Party.

Watching the Conservative Party today one would think they have entered the realm of Narnia, surely we're looking at the wrong party. I couldn't help thinking as I watched David Cameron address the Prime Minister in the Commons that I was watching some kind of freak show, as the Leader of the opposition criticized the Prime Minister for his removal of the 10p tax band and his abandonment of the poor. What made me sick however was at once his complete inconsistency with what he had voted for the previous year and his complete incapacity to promise it's reinstatement should he help his party return to power in 2010, despite his rebirth as a man with a social conscience, sticking up for the little guy. It was as if I was on the mother of all come downs and someone had stuck U2 on, I had to stop watching as my stomach nor my nerves could take it.

What people seem to forget is that the negative effect the removal of the 10p tax rate has upon lower incomes is in the process of being corrected, which is by the by a lot more then any Conservative administration would do. For god's sake they were against it's creation in 1999, as they were against the minimum wage and various forms of tax credits for the poor. How dare they launch such an attack on Labour when in fact they honestly could not give a toss about lower income earners. The worst affront was the seeming incapacity to back up this outcry, with any meaningful policies or proposals: this was cheap point scoring by a most sinister PR man.

Now this doesn't mean Labour are absolved for their mistake. The mistake which they tried to cover up and backtrack on, was a clear sign of a party which has lost touch with it's purpose and is falling behind on the promises it made in 1997, 2001 and 2005. Labour has accomplished much in the last 11 years, it has made an outstanding effort to reduce poverty in this country, increase equal opportunity and in the process has managed to combine this with modern and mostly effective supply side policies. But Brown is low on ideas and originality, his time has come I feel, but I'll save this for a later post. The Conservatives, who despite giving us a new way of approaching State intervention and monetary policy, fed the illusion of freedom to us for 18 years on the twin opiums of greed and nationalism, while plundering our social services and making sure that one child in three was born in poverty: I don't think any of us should forget that on polling day in May 2010, when we cast our votes.

Cameron may be charming, with his weak chin and his "call me dave" airs, while his eminence grise, Osborne, may be professional and brutally intelligent. But this Notting Hill brigade which rides bicycles and tries to reduce it's carbon footprint, while hugging hoodies at the same time, is but a complete pretence upheld by a most brutal and dogmatically monetarist party, who view their so called "natural role" as the leaders of this country, as some kind of celestial providence.

Cameron has done nothing to modernise his party into the centre ground. They seem to have little to show for their apparent adherence to the third way, their policy output beyond giving a couple of tax cuts to the rich and opposing Government proposals, not for the general good, but to score a few points, is a vain attempt to cover up their complete and utter policy vacuum. What surprises me most is the general public's complete lack of awareness as to this. Cameron has simply painted over the cracks of the party and benefited hugely from the popular fallout of Labour since the botched election plans last autumn.

His party is still hugely anti-Europe, it can barely hide it's elitist leanings behind the rather weak attempts to defend the 10p tax band, nor can they say they have any proposals to modernise the NHS and better our education system, beyond the tediously overused phrases of "waste management" and "rationalisation", which can only be interpreted as tax cuts and neglect (the effects of which I don't feel I need to remind anybody of) since they have proposed ABSOLUTELY nothing and Labour with it's audits and managerial emphasis on public services is doing it's best to rationalise anyway.


Alan Duncan MP and Tory front bencher, said to Labour Health minister Alan Johnson last Thursday that Labour "are just as bad as us". This clearly shows where the part is at, so to speak. Benefiting hugely from public disaffection with Brown and effectively being considered a protest vote last month, as opposed to an aspirational one, Cameron and his Etonian chums may grin and smirk, but we should all hope and pray that this rather farcical and frankly offensive freak show which is the Conservative "Manifesto" will be revealed for what it is sooner rather then later, and these absurd and mostly redundant Labour/Conservative comparisons dropped. Before these buffoons and PR men enter Downing Street and realise they have nothing to offer but silly smiles and comic appearances on topical game shows, and we all suffer as a result.

Rear View Mirror

Hindsight is an odd thing. I found these rather overly emphatic scribbles nearly a year after the Presidential Election in 2007. The first one was written before le premier tour and the second a l'entre deux tours.




The case for Segolene Royal... (21rst April 2007)

Though I may not have the right to vote in this upcoming election, I have through much deliberation come to the conclusion that France should vote Segolene Royal this Sunday and in the second round. I have come to this conclusion for three main reasons: firstly, her consistent programme, her accessibility,and thirdly, she is the only one capable of beating Sarkozy.

Throughout her whole campaign she has retained a consistent line in her programme, though sometimes tinted by odd populism (which is inherent to being a politician) such as all the french should learn la Marseillaise and brandishing French flags. She is not however prone to outbursts of machoism and one-upmanship which characterises the election trails of karcher brandishing Sarkozy or the "virile" Bayrou. She has kept a strong modern socialist programme which is much more palatable then the vacuum of Bayrou (who doesn't know his right from his left) or the liberal-dirigiste-multiculturaliste-nationaliste muddled promises of the candidat UMP.
She may not be a fantastic orateur but one thing she does have is an interaction with the people which Sarkozy (who hasn't stepped anywhere remotely banlieux since the riots) or Bayrou could only dream of... To put it simply she hasn't cut herself off from a whole part of the French population. She has the capacity to debate with people which is at once refreshing and bold since her programme is a systhesis of the wishes of the french people (from all backgrounds and origines). She has been criticized many a time for a lack of consistency but in the last month she has turned up trumps proposing a very concrete programme and a vision of France which is at once forward looking and pragmatic. She hasn't got the arrogance of Bayroux or Sarkozy who assume that their ideas are the ones the french need, she has made herself open to debate and rid herself of the shackles of the French socialist party ideology, while allying herself with intelligent and strong men of the left such a Strauss-Kahn. People say she hasn't revolutionised the Socialist party into a "nouveau party socialist" but as I said before she is not constrained by the party and to add to it, the French left once in power seem to be a lot more pragmatic then the right.

Finally France needs Segolene Royal because Sarkozy is dangerous and she is the only one who can beat him. Anti-Sarkozysme has become a past time in France for a whole part of the population, no other man in French history has been so popular and yet so loathed. He has many assets, but his authoritarian nature ("misnistre de l'identite nationale et de l'immigration" for one) and lack of communication beyond police shields and angry words to a whole half of the french population, makes the prospect of a Sarkozy presidency unthinkable. A president should be capable of communicating to the whole French people, he doesn't have that capacity nor does he wish to. She has the depth and strength to beat him, unlike Bayrou who is as Le Pen so correctly put it a "bulle sondagiere".
She has many faults and she is in no means representative of all my beliefs but she appears to be the best and the only one who won't sink France lower then it has already sunk, and who offers a real alternative to Gaullism which has cursed France since the great man was president himself.In conclusion France needs her.




The end of one man's dream and a nation's nightmare? (26th of April 2007)

From the day the results were shown everybody said Sarkozy will win hands down. With a historically high score nothing seems capable to stop this man from holding the keys to the coveted Elysee Palace. Segolene Royal, though she herself receiving a high score in the first round, has been told many a time that she will not be able to "rassemble" around her a sufficient amount of people to beat Sarko on the 7th of May. With an electoral base of around 40% the left in France has never had a tougher challenge. All the sondages gave Sarkozy a hands down victory against Royal ranging between 55-45 or 53-47 in favour of Sarko.

Things now however do not seem so sure with the results of a recent poll showing the gap between the two becoming smaller (49-51 in favour of Sarkozy). This slide coming from the sudden surge in optimism of a reinvigorated left throwing away the dark shadow of 2002 and combating more fervently against the negative and populist election slogans of a politically muddled Sarkozy, who finds it normal to quote Jaures and Blum in his speeches, when he knows nothing of the words compassion, humanity and dialogue.

Madame Royal is also gaining ground on the electorate of M. Bayrou. Unlike Sarkozy, she is perceived as a more centrist candidate. To add to this the manner in which she wishes to woo the UDF electorate is one of discussion and debate, unlike M.Sarkozy's threats and masochist flexing of political muscle, which shows clearly the different ways in which the Presidential hopefuls wish to govern France in the future. One can therefore understand why the Bayrou electorate is expected to vote in favour of Royal.

The election day is looming closer and closer, France will have to make a choice between two visions of the future. One in which intolerance, violence, "false promises" and "deception" (as Sarkozy said himself about the post election period), reign or one in which compromise, dialogue and hope will be King (pun not intended). The choice is clear.

He has no IDea

There is supposedly a plethora of reasons for having ID cards. However once confronted over this Government ministers tend to mumble embarrassed into their chests something about illegal immigration, fighting terrorism and utility, then run off feigning moral "conviction" and introducing them via a wasteful consumer lead system.


The Cards will be made compulsory for Airport Workers, guest workers and students who open a bank account after 2008, a voluntary scheme has also been set up. Should the trial prove successful and the Brown administration is re-elected in 2009/10 ID cards will be made compulsory for anyone over the age of 16. This is not a popular party line, but unlike the Government backed Lisbon Treaty it's not a good one either.




The idea that somehow a plastic card with your fingerprints, details and biometric data will stop illegal immigrants and strengthen borders is laughable. The only conceivable use in that context is to make public services not accessible to them, which is clearly not humane. Nor would ID cards have stopped Mohammad Sidique Kahn, Shehzad Tanweer, Germain Lindsay and Hasib Hussain blowing up London Buses and Tubes on 7/7 since they would have had them anyway. All but one was born and bred in the UK and the other was naturalized at the age of five. As for utility and identification, a passport, driver's license or student card should suffice to prove one's identification (after all the data on a passport is difficult to forge).


Jacqui Smith and Ed Miliband have also trumpeted Crime prevention as a reason. This argument does have some weight, in that not only could it prove useful in a Criminal investigation but it would also prove a disincentive to crime. However to use the often stated and tired phrase (though no less relevant) one ought to be considered innocent until proven guilty,...we cannot ignore what is a cornerstone of our judicial system and our moral compass. A system of collecting data from serial offenders and more serious criminals should be adopted as in Scotland, a blanket data collection system is not right and should be deemed unconstitutional.

In terms of Data safety it is important to remind people of the gargantuan nature of the State bureaucracy. It is a regular and expected occurrence that data is lost, whether under Thatcher, Blair, Brown or even (heaven forbid) Cameron, data will be lost, it would be ridiculous to label an executive "incompetent" because of a bureaucratic mix up. The most recent case involving the loss of 20 million people's benefit data is one among 30 in 2007. There is no strict impermeability because of possible bureaucratic irregularities and mistakes, but also the leaking into the private sphere for criminal or business ends.

It seems to me that the Government should scrap the plan, as it is not necessary, nor is it preferable. Gordon Brown wants to prove that he has substance and conviction, he should therefore break with some of these ridiculous and misguided Blairite vestiges (extended detention time, flouting of constitutional conventions among others) to establish his own view on freedom, rights and the balance of power... a passion of his he has talked up many times. He should distinguish himself from his predecessor by focusing on civil liberties and reforming the legislative/executive process. A healthy refocus of government priority and agenda should be addressed to push back the tide of Care Bear Conservatives and the Callaghan/Major comparisons. New Labour has nothing to fear by proposing an alternative to the old party line on constitutional and rights legislation, or in fact challenging it, since it is a passion of our Prime Minister and is an area where Labour can contrast with the weak chinned Cameroons.

An Idealist, a humanist and an individual walk into a bar... what happens?

A walk through Coptic Cairo made me wonder about the conflict between respect, change and individualism. I walked down an obscure alleyway, tempted by the delicious taste of discovery and the ornate entrance, as I stepped through this dark passage I reached a door with beams of bright light shining through. I pushed it and walked out, I waited for my eyes to adjust and for my senses to adapt to the intense heat coming from the cruel sun and the burnt earth. I had fallen upon a cemetery. A Christian one. As I looked up streched before me were the silhouettes of a mosque and a synagogue. I looked back down and saw industrial red brick tombs being used by young dust covered children playing football with a brown paper bag, as goalposts. I saw grey, delapidated, buildings between these tombs from which came the sounds of life, a veiled woman cooking, an old man in a long blue Galabeyya bending over to pick up his walking stick, a young girl wearing a torn Minnie mouse shirt sucking a lollypop skipping past me. This as stricking as it may be, didn't make me contemplate these notions. I saw two young women walk past me, as i sat on a stone bench covered in cardboard under a tree, one was veiled, the other was not.


To a westerner's eyes one was a sign of progress, the other was a sign of an archaic and unfair tradition. But maybe it isn't what we think, maybe the young girl wears a veil by choice, after all most women veiled in Egypt apparently choose to wear it, or at least want to. But at the very base of it the symbolism and the meaning of the veil, even on the most subconscious level is that of submission, of conformity and tradition. How do you respect someone who practises something which is a tool for repression? Do we respect the human, realising the inner-potential of that individual and forcefuly encourage them to throw away the chains of oppression, because they deserve better? or on the other hand do we, regardless of wether or not we respect her choice to wear the veil, let things be, because it is a cultural trait, and as a westerner i'm using my western values to judge her's which are dissimilar, and anyway it's not my business? or can she "free" herself through her sheer strengh of caracter and the power of self determination which is inherent to all humans? Respect for a human, respect for a person or tolerance, they appear incompatible. However it is possible and necessairy if we all are to reconcile the three and resolve conflicts.


It is a difficult question and it can be enlarged to a the conflict between liberal interventionism, classical idealism and pragmatism . But the very fact that this conflict of ideas can be distilled to the most real of situations, and manifest itself outside the artificialities of political speeches and party manifestos, shows how difficult a question it is, how real and serious the repercussions of regulation, legislation or even confrontation on veils, on racism and the deportation of fundamental clerics (for exemple) can be. It also shows how a non-blinkered approach must be practised if we are to live peacefully side by side.

It's too easy to choose one or the other. The consequences of respecting a human over their person (or vice-versa), or not even caring, are dangerous. The hard part and probably the appropriate and most effective solution would be a synthesis of the three. It's an incredibly hard balancing act, giving people and civilizations (even governments) enough space to change things for themselves, but at the same time giving them the tools and capabilities to progress in an otherwise stagnant situation, while making these acts beneficial to the givers. Yet it must be all three if progress is to happen.

Certain international situations have been mishandled because, i believe a lack of one or more of the notions which can bring about progress and respect. In the case of Iraq for exemple an outright invasion was a bad idea, the regime change in Iraq was not brought about or at least in part by an internal force, imposed regime change could never have worked, what lacks here is a respect for the person. In the case of China, we have a selfish interest in China, in terms of the economic profit we can draw from it, what lacks here in pushing forward a greater democratisation of China, a strong enough pressure within the international community to make China repect the human. What I'm trying to say is for there to be a progress and a willingness to make others do so, the condtions of respect for the human, the person and a personal interest must be met.

This dynamic would create a climate from wich we all benefit, a sort of cycle of progress, enlightenment and cooperation, but this process is incredibly difficult as one can all into the trap of favouring one of the notions too much. One can be tempted to be ethnocentric, one can fall into moral relativism and accept the status quo, or one can take advantage of the status quo to draw a profit from it. Many politicians have blinkered themselves because it is the easier way, the toughest challenge would be to keep the balance, maybe it's impossible.

International relations is so often entrenched in the game of power politics that even the best intentions turn out or turn into twisted compromise and deals. Surely the sheer exeptionality of Tony Benn becoming more left wing after being in both the governments of Wilson and Callaghan, highlights the perversion of politics on even the most hardened Idealists and Humanists. Or maybe it just highlights the inescapable truth that abandoning idealist convictions is an integral part of the maturing and empirical process during one's life? But it is important that we move away from this mentality. It is imperative to have hope and to fight, this is the clincher which makes all possible, which makes the interaction, of the notions of personal and human respect along with self interest, a reality.

A friend of mine once told "If everyone believe's in it (socialism) and fights for it, it can happen", though socialism is not what i'm defending here, I agree with her to a certain extent. The idea that belief and hope can make men do some of the worst things, clearly shows that it can make men do some of the greatest things, because nothing exists without it's opposite. I really do think it's possible, that people can educate each other and rise above the pettiness and greed of the human condition, while still benefiting from it, to truly respect each other and change, it can't be easy but we must fight and believe otherwise we will endlessly repeat the mistakes of our predecessors, we shall all be but a wave beating on the beach for eternity.

Grodon Brown's flaws (non-psychological)

The date has been announced. The cogs set in motion, all internal opposition (well credible) silenced, the keys to 10 Downing Street will almost certainly fall into the hands of our Chancellor Gordon Brown. He seems ideal. Modern enough to stay within the New Labour fold, a sufficient red streak within him to satisfy backbenchers and extensive cabinet experience. But the A.B.B. (anyone but brown) movement highlights certain discrepencies as to his seemingly moral and serious persona. Many skeletons in the closet of number 11 threaten to hinder his route to number 10.



His actions as Chancellor of this country show at once a worrying tendency within Mr.Brown to relinquish responsability and, to put it bluntly, lie. The latest pensions scandal clearly shows this, he knew in 1997 the cost of removing tax credits on share dividends would have on future pensions, yet did not alert the nation of the 150 billion pound gap that would ensue. The document which proves he knew only released (under the Freedom of information act) the day after his meeting with Treasury officials in April, that being the last oppotunity for him to be questioned about it before he becomes Prime Minister in July.
As for his 1997 promise not to tax over 40% of the nation's GDP in what he called a pledge for "sustainable investment", to keep inside this self imposed quota, Mr.Brown seems to have fiddled with the figures. He has managed to keep outside of the Budget spreadsheets P.F.I (Private finance initiatives) which in 2001 were worth an estimated 100 billion pounds. Considering the amount one can assume the underevaluation of tax withing GDP to be significant . The OCDE now estimates taxation to represent 42,4% of British GDP, this figure includes the P.F.I.s conviniently left out of the Treasury's estimates.

Tessa Jowell's plan to build a supercasino in Manchester was opposed by Gordon Brown, he is said to be moraly against this perversion. He even increased the tax burden on new casinos in Britain. Yet he has allowed an exeption for "smaller casinos" (the definition of small turning out to be rather large),as well as letting betting shops set up virtual betting and slot machines. Not surprisingly bigger casinos now want the same rights, will Mr.Brown stand in the way of extra tax money? or will his "morality" prevail?

Another flaw appears in his handling of Iraq. Mr. Brown has been hailed by his fellow Brownites as a more pragmatic man then his predecessor, someone who supports the United States but doesn't bow down to them. He voted in favour of sending British troops to Iraq, not only that but he very recently stated that Iraq was a "good idea". Yet rumours have circulated that in fact he is against the war in Iraq, the only reason he didn't publicly denounce the government's plans in 2003 was because he wanted to stay in Government. With his government standing and his influence within the party he could have thrown a huge, if not deadly spanner into the works of Blair's war machine. Speculation aside, this man was ready to compromise his beliefs for self promotion.

I'm not saying Gordon Brown is the anti-christ or that he's not fit for the job. Just he seems as entrenched in the game of politics and punctual thinking as his conservative opponent David Cameron, which is a shame.