Is Black Mass by John Gray.
For a long time I wondered whether John Gray is a Liberal or not. At the last general election he voted Liberal Democrat, but his views do not fit in easily into the political spectrum and I am not clear at all about how he will vote next time.
His independence from party political allegience gives him the interlectual freedom to go where he likes. For a long time I thought he may be a Conservative, in the past he really was one. Yet his critique of neo-liberalism - which he puts in the same camp of Naziism and Communism is a devestating one and it is hard to imagine he will be conservative again. However what I had in mind was a pre-Thatcherite Conservative attachment to sceptisim, which is something you can still ascribe to him.
Well there is a lot of ifs and buts, but in the end, I will judge from his own admiration of Isiah Berlin and JM Keynes, and my own political bias and call him a Liberal.
Black Mass reveals so much what is missing from contemporary political debate. On foreign policy no one is debating the decline of US and EU power, and the increase in power of China and Russia. It is assumed that the Liberal agenda can still be realised by the Eu and US working together, but even the US is rejecting Liberal values, notably over the use of detention without trial and torture. China and Russia do not believe in Liberal values to begin with of course.
That in itself is only a very small part of the arguments that spring to mind when reading this book.
Thursday 27 December 2007
Saturday 22 December 2007
Girlpower; The pseudo-feminism that ends at 30...
... and only then if you are good looking.
It was a welcome change listening to Today this morning to Germaine Greer being interviewed. The problem with Germaine Greer is that she often becomes the story herself, but in this case it was her opinions that I want to consider.
There are plenty of women who are enthusiatic about the "girlpower" of the Spice girls which surfaced many years ago. The way in which this "power" works is that if you dress in a sexy way, you can get men to do what you like. Well maybe if you are good looking anyway. And maybe you have to spend lots of money on clothes and make up, generating nice big profits for the companies that make these things. Girlpower comes at a cost. And if you are not sure you are good looking, then you may instead become anorexic and die. A rather different kind of girl power I would suggest.
Then of course what do you do as you get older? Girlpower, if it ever helped you before is no longer on your side. The senior jobs are occupied more by men, and at the top almost entirely by men.
Germaine Greer lamented the passing of socialism. In the past, feminists hoped that socialism would put the exploitation and inequality of women to an end.
The question now is how to acheive greater equality in a capatalist system. The problem is that capitalism has a dynamic of it's own that is hard to tame. Even Mrs Thatcher was on the receiving end of her own policies that supported capitalism. She wanted a return to "Victorian Values" - and she admired the Conservative Christain pro-censorship lobby personified by Mary Whitehouse. In fact Mary Whitehouse was mounted a rearguard campaign not only against the BBC but also against the forces of capitalism. In this endeavor she totally failed, the corporate world was more interested in profits than "morals" and has largely got it's way.
Liberals will no doubt raise a cheer for this, we never liked "Victorian Values". However the porn industry is not on balance a feature of a Liberal society to get proud about.
From my point of view, pornography that shows men and women enjoying having sex with each other is fine. More often it shows a more mechanical kind of sex, people who do not care about each other, often being exploited and coerced, and depicting rape scenes. A lot of porn today comes from the Third World, where women can be exploited.
Just as there is an anxiety about men who fantasise about having sex with children, then likewise the same applies to rape. If pornography makes these fantasies more vivid, then the concern should be greater still.
Yet pornography is so popular it is entering the mainstream of our culture. More comodification, plastic surgery and unrealistic depictions of women.
What can be done about it is hard to specifiy. In my opinion the values of untamed capitalism do not match the values of a liberal society, and sometimes they are very illiberal. Many liberals today are reluctant to agree to this, but a clear cut example would be that Liberals cannot support the racism of the fashion industry where Noami Campbell notwithstanding, very few models are black.
As Germaine Greer pointed out, she is getting on a bit now. She is still the feminist of choice as far as the media is concerned, I wonder who will be next?
It was a welcome change listening to Today this morning to Germaine Greer being interviewed. The problem with Germaine Greer is that she often becomes the story herself, but in this case it was her opinions that I want to consider.
There are plenty of women who are enthusiatic about the "girlpower" of the Spice girls which surfaced many years ago. The way in which this "power" works is that if you dress in a sexy way, you can get men to do what you like. Well maybe if you are good looking anyway. And maybe you have to spend lots of money on clothes and make up, generating nice big profits for the companies that make these things. Girlpower comes at a cost. And if you are not sure you are good looking, then you may instead become anorexic and die. A rather different kind of girl power I would suggest.
Then of course what do you do as you get older? Girlpower, if it ever helped you before is no longer on your side. The senior jobs are occupied more by men, and at the top almost entirely by men.
Germaine Greer lamented the passing of socialism. In the past, feminists hoped that socialism would put the exploitation and inequality of women to an end.
The question now is how to acheive greater equality in a capatalist system. The problem is that capitalism has a dynamic of it's own that is hard to tame. Even Mrs Thatcher was on the receiving end of her own policies that supported capitalism. She wanted a return to "Victorian Values" - and she admired the Conservative Christain pro-censorship lobby personified by Mary Whitehouse. In fact Mary Whitehouse was mounted a rearguard campaign not only against the BBC but also against the forces of capitalism. In this endeavor she totally failed, the corporate world was more interested in profits than "morals" and has largely got it's way.
Liberals will no doubt raise a cheer for this, we never liked "Victorian Values". However the porn industry is not on balance a feature of a Liberal society to get proud about.
From my point of view, pornography that shows men and women enjoying having sex with each other is fine. More often it shows a more mechanical kind of sex, people who do not care about each other, often being exploited and coerced, and depicting rape scenes. A lot of porn today comes from the Third World, where women can be exploited.
Just as there is an anxiety about men who fantasise about having sex with children, then likewise the same applies to rape. If pornography makes these fantasies more vivid, then the concern should be greater still.
Yet pornography is so popular it is entering the mainstream of our culture. More comodification, plastic surgery and unrealistic depictions of women.
What can be done about it is hard to specifiy. In my opinion the values of untamed capitalism do not match the values of a liberal society, and sometimes they are very illiberal. Many liberals today are reluctant to agree to this, but a clear cut example would be that Liberals cannot support the racism of the fashion industry where Noami Campbell notwithstanding, very few models are black.
As Germaine Greer pointed out, she is getting on a bit now. She is still the feminist of choice as far as the media is concerned, I wonder who will be next?
Monday 17 December 2007
Nick Clegg and the Liberal Left
One of the hard lessons of leadership contests is that you get nothing for coming second, even a very close second in the case of Chris Huhne, the candidate I voted for. I remember the same feeling when Charles Kennedy beat Simon Hughes in a previous contest, but at least I knew Simon would stand again (unfortunately I did not know he would cock it up, but that is another story).
Even so, Chris Huhne has won some notable victories. Nick Clegg has clarified that he does not support US education vouchers for school allocations. By coming a close second, Nick knows that Chris will have to be an integral part of the Liberal Democrats for many years to come.
Of course it may well be the case that the course Nick intended has not changed anyway. As in the previous leadership elections, the Liberal Left vote was split. Those closely associated with Simon Hughes in his last leadership election bid are the ones I would identify as Left Liberals, although many, including Simon, would not use that description. Some of these MPs are so studied in collective responsibility it may well be that they are no longer on the Left anyway.
It was with mixed feelings that I noted that most of Simon's MP supporters backed Nick Clegg. On the one hand, they may have handed him victory, given the closeness of the contest. On the other hand, Nick may have made committments to them on issues to do with public services that reassured them that "Top down privatisation" is not on the agenda.
I think there will at least be a change in the rhetoric which will not be welcome. Ming Campbell and Chris Huhne accused Labour and Conservative parties of being "The conservative parties". Nick Clegg accused them in a more apolitical sense of being "Tweedledum and Tweedledee".
Comments like these say a lot about the politcal instincts of the leadership candidates. Clegg's position betrays a fear of the Lib Dems being perceived as on the left of Labour, but if on the other hand we are position ourselves as a centre party, how does such a party put across what it stands for in the middle of "Tweedledum and Tweedledee"?
So the concern is will the party make enough sense to the electorate that we can persuade people to vote for it?
Nick Clegg will hopefully come up with some answers to that over the next few months.
Even so, Chris Huhne has won some notable victories. Nick Clegg has clarified that he does not support US education vouchers for school allocations. By coming a close second, Nick knows that Chris will have to be an integral part of the Liberal Democrats for many years to come.
Of course it may well be the case that the course Nick intended has not changed anyway. As in the previous leadership elections, the Liberal Left vote was split. Those closely associated with Simon Hughes in his last leadership election bid are the ones I would identify as Left Liberals, although many, including Simon, would not use that description. Some of these MPs are so studied in collective responsibility it may well be that they are no longer on the Left anyway.
It was with mixed feelings that I noted that most of Simon's MP supporters backed Nick Clegg. On the one hand, they may have handed him victory, given the closeness of the contest. On the other hand, Nick may have made committments to them on issues to do with public services that reassured them that "Top down privatisation" is not on the agenda.
I think there will at least be a change in the rhetoric which will not be welcome. Ming Campbell and Chris Huhne accused Labour and Conservative parties of being "The conservative parties". Nick Clegg accused them in a more apolitical sense of being "Tweedledum and Tweedledee".
Comments like these say a lot about the politcal instincts of the leadership candidates. Clegg's position betrays a fear of the Lib Dems being perceived as on the left of Labour, but if on the other hand we are position ourselves as a centre party, how does such a party put across what it stands for in the middle of "Tweedledum and Tweedledee"?
So the concern is will the party make enough sense to the electorate that we can persuade people to vote for it?
Nick Clegg will hopefully come up with some answers to that over the next few months.
New Labour can't face the truth; UK defeated in Basra.
It is right that British troops are leaving Basra. Indeed they should leave Iraq altogther.
But New Labour will not admit to the real reason as to why they have to leave; that the UK has been defeated.
It is because they dare not loose face, the defence minister got what he deserved on the Today program this morning. John Humphries has been to Iraq himself and seen how terrible it is out there; no one is going to pull the wool over his eyes. Unfortunately for defence minister Bob Ainsworth, the Today program allocated a full length timeslot for this interview, so there was nowhere to hide. John Humphries put it to Bob Ainsworth that terrible though Saddam Hussein was, life for the average woman in Basra was better than it is now. This is patently the case, but if the minister were to simply admit to something that is common sense, his position would become untenable as a minister. So he uncomfortably alternated between proclaiming how wonderful it is that Saddam Hussain is gone, but things are not perfect, how the army and police are ready to take over, although their police chief claims the direct opposite (a circle he could not square, no matter how hard he tried). It was a long painful interview, most unconvincing.
Only when Bob Ainsworth admitted that the British presence was becoming a problem did he hint at the truth. If I was interviewing him, I would have said "Oh yes? And how long has the British troop presence been more of a problem than a solution?". No doubt he would have waffled on, but the answer would be obvious; long before today. Another question could have been "So if you admit that the British troop presence has become more of a problem than a solution, then that must prove that we have been defeated in Iraq, and then the comments from the police chief about how desperate the situation is for him makes sense; you left because you had no choice, whether the Iraqis were ready or not".
No doubt when Basra descends further into chaos, there will be those who would say our troops should have stayed longer.
I claim the opposite. I would claim it shows that our troops were wasting their time. They gave the insurgents the opportunity to practice their craft. What better training could they possibly have?
Our troops should have left years ago. In fact they shouldn't have gone in in the first place.
But New Labour will not admit to the real reason as to why they have to leave; that the UK has been defeated.
It is because they dare not loose face, the defence minister got what he deserved on the Today program this morning. John Humphries has been to Iraq himself and seen how terrible it is out there; no one is going to pull the wool over his eyes. Unfortunately for defence minister Bob Ainsworth, the Today program allocated a full length timeslot for this interview, so there was nowhere to hide. John Humphries put it to Bob Ainsworth that terrible though Saddam Hussein was, life for the average woman in Basra was better than it is now. This is patently the case, but if the minister were to simply admit to something that is common sense, his position would become untenable as a minister. So he uncomfortably alternated between proclaiming how wonderful it is that Saddam Hussain is gone, but things are not perfect, how the army and police are ready to take over, although their police chief claims the direct opposite (a circle he could not square, no matter how hard he tried). It was a long painful interview, most unconvincing.
Only when Bob Ainsworth admitted that the British presence was becoming a problem did he hint at the truth. If I was interviewing him, I would have said "Oh yes? And how long has the British troop presence been more of a problem than a solution?". No doubt he would have waffled on, but the answer would be obvious; long before today. Another question could have been "So if you admit that the British troop presence has become more of a problem than a solution, then that must prove that we have been defeated in Iraq, and then the comments from the police chief about how desperate the situation is for him makes sense; you left because you had no choice, whether the Iraqis were ready or not".
No doubt when Basra descends further into chaos, there will be those who would say our troops should have stayed longer.
I claim the opposite. I would claim it shows that our troops were wasting their time. They gave the insurgents the opportunity to practice their craft. What better training could they possibly have?
Our troops should have left years ago. In fact they shouldn't have gone in in the first place.
Friday 7 December 2007
I am not anti-American but...
... but I do not like the term anti-American.
To be "anti-American" sounds like a form of racism. To those who use the term, it suits their agenda very well. How wonderful it is to have a term that conflates criticism of the US government with an insinuation that to do so is racist.
The irony is that the US government uses the term as a justification for them to be anti-everyone else. No one seemed to make a fuss about the US being "anti-French" in the run up to the war in Iraq. Yet with the benefit of hindsight we can now see that the US would have benefitted greatly if they had listened to the French in the first place and not invaded Iraq.
This morning on the Today program I heard it reported that a US government scientist predicted that the US will not reduce emisions of greenhouse gasses for the forseeable future. The US is currently scuppering international agreement on reducing greenhouse gasses. We know that the US president, George W Bush is a fundamentalist Christian who believes in the apocalypse and from his point of view in this context the matter of global warming is irrelevant.
With no leadership from the world's biggest polluter, the consequences of US policy are likely to be disasterous. On top of that, his foreign policy has also been a monumental disaster, bringing us closer to World War 3. Failure in Iraq was predictable, and his plans for Iran - possibly now on hold for an election year - are also very alarming. In addition, the sweeping away of civil liberties so that prisoners can be held for the duration of the "war on terror", ie forever, in Guantano, and where "terrorist" suspects are sent to other countries to be tortured, we see that the US is moving in the direction of a totalitarian state. I choose my words carefully, I am not saying it is a totalitarian state, it has a long way to go before it gets there, and may change direction in the meantime. But the signs are onimous all the same.
Anti-American?
Well I still admire Bob Dylan, Martin Luther King, Al Gore, Joseph Stiglitz and many others. And my distaste for Mrs Thatcher does not make me anti-British.
"Anti American" is a propaganda term, and we should stop using it, and dispute the term when others do use it.
To be "anti-American" sounds like a form of racism. To those who use the term, it suits their agenda very well. How wonderful it is to have a term that conflates criticism of the US government with an insinuation that to do so is racist.
The irony is that the US government uses the term as a justification for them to be anti-everyone else. No one seemed to make a fuss about the US being "anti-French" in the run up to the war in Iraq. Yet with the benefit of hindsight we can now see that the US would have benefitted greatly if they had listened to the French in the first place and not invaded Iraq.
This morning on the Today program I heard it reported that a US government scientist predicted that the US will not reduce emisions of greenhouse gasses for the forseeable future. The US is currently scuppering international agreement on reducing greenhouse gasses. We know that the US president, George W Bush is a fundamentalist Christian who believes in the apocalypse and from his point of view in this context the matter of global warming is irrelevant.
With no leadership from the world's biggest polluter, the consequences of US policy are likely to be disasterous. On top of that, his foreign policy has also been a monumental disaster, bringing us closer to World War 3. Failure in Iraq was predictable, and his plans for Iran - possibly now on hold for an election year - are also very alarming. In addition, the sweeping away of civil liberties so that prisoners can be held for the duration of the "war on terror", ie forever, in Guantano, and where "terrorist" suspects are sent to other countries to be tortured, we see that the US is moving in the direction of a totalitarian state. I choose my words carefully, I am not saying it is a totalitarian state, it has a long way to go before it gets there, and may change direction in the meantime. But the signs are onimous all the same.
Anti-American?
Well I still admire Bob Dylan, Martin Luther King, Al Gore, Joseph Stiglitz and many others. And my distaste for Mrs Thatcher does not make me anti-British.
"Anti American" is a propaganda term, and we should stop using it, and dispute the term when others do use it.
The public sector is getting desperate...
I am truly amazed that the government is giving the police effectively a pay cut, taking inflation into account. A profession that currently cannot go on strike.
I have a lot of sympathy for public sector workers. Particularly those who are employed to save people's lives, sometimes by putting their own lives at risk. The police, the armed services, the fire fighters, ambulance men, social workers, probation officers, nurses immediately spring to mind. Another profession I admire include the teachers, how they can put up with the abuse they get from children I will never be able to work out.
If any of these people get a pay cut, the message being sent out is that the work you are doing is not being valued; you are doing a bad job.
The problem is of course the concern that increasing public spending increases inflation. Everyone seems to be agreed on that, and if true public sector employees will never be properly rewarded for what they do.
Yet as far as the police is concerned, the saving in not backdating is only £40million. In terms of the overall national budget, a tiny amount. How can the government be so mean?
I guess the argument is that it all adds up. The squeeze on public sector pay will be across the board. If you make exceptions, like the police for example, then it won't work.
Personally I still think it is not persuasive. I listened to many silly interviews recently. On the issue of pay for the police, the government minister kept referring to what the police originally asked for, rather than what they agreed from the pay review board. I do not like interviewers interrupting, but there was certainly one needed here.
This morning I listened to a minister justifying a cut in the physics research budget of £80million by ignoring that it was happening altogether. I have some sympathy if it is true that over the years the funding had increased a lot - Today will not report on that when it happens - but all the same, how are research institutions supposed to plan ahead when the funding is so erratic?
Then I heard a senior member of the armed forces lamenting the underfunding of the military. Apparently inflation in the armed services is a whopping 7 - 8%, and of course we are overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As far as the military is concerned - for God's sake lets scrap Trident and not replace it. How on earth are we going to fund the military properly if inflation is 7%?
I dread to think about the future of the public sector. In the past when there was a funding crises, the Lib Dems said they would increase taxes. My instincts are to suggest the same again, but that would be a difficult sell at a time when so many people are in debt. We could tax the rich more - and the Lib Dem Green Tax Switch is designed to do that, but Lib Dem policy is also to tax the poor less so that the overall budget is tax neutral.
So we are looking at public sector cuts. Some cuts are worth it, such as abolishing compulsary ID cards, but I am not persuaded there are enough savings to reallocate resources to where we want them. Once the soft targets are gone, the prospects are of the kind of painful cuts in public sector pay we are now seeing.
I have a lot of sympathy for public sector workers. Particularly those who are employed to save people's lives, sometimes by putting their own lives at risk. The police, the armed services, the fire fighters, ambulance men, social workers, probation officers, nurses immediately spring to mind. Another profession I admire include the teachers, how they can put up with the abuse they get from children I will never be able to work out.
If any of these people get a pay cut, the message being sent out is that the work you are doing is not being valued; you are doing a bad job.
The problem is of course the concern that increasing public spending increases inflation. Everyone seems to be agreed on that, and if true public sector employees will never be properly rewarded for what they do.
Yet as far as the police is concerned, the saving in not backdating is only £40million. In terms of the overall national budget, a tiny amount. How can the government be so mean?
I guess the argument is that it all adds up. The squeeze on public sector pay will be across the board. If you make exceptions, like the police for example, then it won't work.
Personally I still think it is not persuasive. I listened to many silly interviews recently. On the issue of pay for the police, the government minister kept referring to what the police originally asked for, rather than what they agreed from the pay review board. I do not like interviewers interrupting, but there was certainly one needed here.
This morning I listened to a minister justifying a cut in the physics research budget of £80million by ignoring that it was happening altogether. I have some sympathy if it is true that over the years the funding had increased a lot - Today will not report on that when it happens - but all the same, how are research institutions supposed to plan ahead when the funding is so erratic?
Then I heard a senior member of the armed forces lamenting the underfunding of the military. Apparently inflation in the armed services is a whopping 7 - 8%, and of course we are overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As far as the military is concerned - for God's sake lets scrap Trident and not replace it. How on earth are we going to fund the military properly if inflation is 7%?
I dread to think about the future of the public sector. In the past when there was a funding crises, the Lib Dems said they would increase taxes. My instincts are to suggest the same again, but that would be a difficult sell at a time when so many people are in debt. We could tax the rich more - and the Lib Dem Green Tax Switch is designed to do that, but Lib Dem policy is also to tax the poor less so that the overall budget is tax neutral.
So we are looking at public sector cuts. Some cuts are worth it, such as abolishing compulsary ID cards, but I am not persuaded there are enough savings to reallocate resources to where we want them. Once the soft targets are gone, the prospects are of the kind of painful cuts in public sector pay we are now seeing.
Nativity plays - the strangest debate of all?
I have a shocking revelation to make; when I was at school I did not do a nativity play.
Where is this evil school you may ask. Well perhaps I better not reveal too much, but I went to a dubious primary school in rural Essex, followed by a former grammer school not too far from sinful Southend. About 30 years ago.
Thats right 30 years ago. And no one was making a fuss about it then.
Why not? Well I guess as far as the general public was concerned, we did not have the paranoa that many have to today about the rise of militant Islam. And as far as the teachers were concerned, I would guess that they simply weren't that bothered.
If I am right about teachers not being that bothered back then, then it makes sense that they are even less bothered today. As our society has become more secular, that makes sense.
But why consider a reasonable explanation when you have a political/religious agenda to satisfy?
So we have a bazarre debate on this matter today. This morning on the Today program, Trevor Phillips spoke perfect common sense to reassure everyone that the vast majority of ethnic minority people are perfectly happy for Christians to celebrate Christmas and hold nativity plays and have no desire to stop this from happening - indeed many are Christians themselves and are fully involved in it.
What is bazarre is that no one is speaking against him and putting the other side of the argument. Maybe because there is no one?
I cannot think of anyone. So how on earth did this debate ever get started when there is only one side of the argument being put?
I once heard on the radio some extracts of the nativity plays, and they were very entertaining. There are moments when 8 year olds begin there acting endeavors where the results are lets say extraordinary. It left me thinking that nativity plays are harmless fun. I would be surprised if they have much bearing on whether those children will grow into Christians. And it is not exactly one of the 10 commandments that we should have to do this.
I know Christians like to hype up Christmas, although the momentum in do so has been taken over by commercial intersts. Personally I do not find the Christmas story particularly significant. For some Christians it is important because being a Christian is an exercise in believing the literal truth of the Bible. It matters to them that there were 3 wise men, and the rest of the assembled cast. For me I ask the question; how does believing this make you any more of a moral being than you would be otherwise? The answer would appear to be that it makes no difference at all.
On the other hand, the sermon on the Mount really is one of the main highlights in the Bible. The compassion is striking, and the poetry of the words are beautiful. Whether you are a literal Christian, a metaphorical Christian, or like me not a Christian at all, this is one part of the Bible that does deserve attention. Maybe there are extracts from the other holy books that also deserve more attention?
Where is this evil school you may ask. Well perhaps I better not reveal too much, but I went to a dubious primary school in rural Essex, followed by a former grammer school not too far from sinful Southend. About 30 years ago.
Thats right 30 years ago. And no one was making a fuss about it then.
Why not? Well I guess as far as the general public was concerned, we did not have the paranoa that many have to today about the rise of militant Islam. And as far as the teachers were concerned, I would guess that they simply weren't that bothered.
If I am right about teachers not being that bothered back then, then it makes sense that they are even less bothered today. As our society has become more secular, that makes sense.
But why consider a reasonable explanation when you have a political/religious agenda to satisfy?
So we have a bazarre debate on this matter today. This morning on the Today program, Trevor Phillips spoke perfect common sense to reassure everyone that the vast majority of ethnic minority people are perfectly happy for Christians to celebrate Christmas and hold nativity plays and have no desire to stop this from happening - indeed many are Christians themselves and are fully involved in it.
What is bazarre is that no one is speaking against him and putting the other side of the argument. Maybe because there is no one?
I cannot think of anyone. So how on earth did this debate ever get started when there is only one side of the argument being put?
I once heard on the radio some extracts of the nativity plays, and they were very entertaining. There are moments when 8 year olds begin there acting endeavors where the results are lets say extraordinary. It left me thinking that nativity plays are harmless fun. I would be surprised if they have much bearing on whether those children will grow into Christians. And it is not exactly one of the 10 commandments that we should have to do this.
I know Christians like to hype up Christmas, although the momentum in do so has been taken over by commercial intersts. Personally I do not find the Christmas story particularly significant. For some Christians it is important because being a Christian is an exercise in believing the literal truth of the Bible. It matters to them that there were 3 wise men, and the rest of the assembled cast. For me I ask the question; how does believing this make you any more of a moral being than you would be otherwise? The answer would appear to be that it makes no difference at all.
On the other hand, the sermon on the Mount really is one of the main highlights in the Bible. The compassion is striking, and the poetry of the words are beautiful. Whether you are a literal Christian, a metaphorical Christian, or like me not a Christian at all, this is one part of the Bible that does deserve attention. Maybe there are extracts from the other holy books that also deserve more attention?
Capitalism's anti-democratic credentials
The famous book by Francis Fukuyama; "The end of history" argued that liberal democracy had "won", communism was defeated, political conflict will die down and everywhere will eventually turn to the US model of government, with relatively minor differences.
Since then many have assumed that a globalised capitalist economy will bring democracy everywhere.
Yet we saw the shambles of the Russian elections recently, and now we see in the African - European summit in Portugal, that African nations are pronouncing that Europe is losing it's influence. African nations prefer to trade with China who do not make demands on human rights.
Russia and China provide an alternative model of economic development. Historically we saw how Pinochet combined an authoritarian state with capitalism, and after many years that succumbed to democracy. Mrs Thatcher also combined capitalism with an authoritarian state. She did not do away with democracy altogther, but she did undemine it.
Today Russia and China prove that you can have an authoritarian state and capitalism. Instead of capitalism bringing democracy, the signs from Africa are that that they are also being influenced by the Chinese way of thinking.
To be fair, the Chinese economy is due for a crash, having grown unsustainably for so long. However the same is true in Europe and the US too, for different reasons and where there has been less growth.
It is not in my nature as a liberal to want to see economic turmoil. But there is much to fear of the consequences if the Chinese model continues to succeed. If Africa is thinking of turning away from democracy and human rights, what about the rest of the world?
Since then many have assumed that a globalised capitalist economy will bring democracy everywhere.
Yet we saw the shambles of the Russian elections recently, and now we see in the African - European summit in Portugal, that African nations are pronouncing that Europe is losing it's influence. African nations prefer to trade with China who do not make demands on human rights.
Russia and China provide an alternative model of economic development. Historically we saw how Pinochet combined an authoritarian state with capitalism, and after many years that succumbed to democracy. Mrs Thatcher also combined capitalism with an authoritarian state. She did not do away with democracy altogther, but she did undemine it.
Today Russia and China prove that you can have an authoritarian state and capitalism. Instead of capitalism bringing democracy, the signs from Africa are that that they are also being influenced by the Chinese way of thinking.
To be fair, the Chinese economy is due for a crash, having grown unsustainably for so long. However the same is true in Europe and the US too, for different reasons and where there has been less growth.
It is not in my nature as a liberal to want to see economic turmoil. But there is much to fear of the consequences if the Chinese model continues to succeed. If Africa is thinking of turning away from democracy and human rights, what about the rest of the world?
Politcal Parties must be state funded
It is the policy of the Liberal Democrats to support the state funding of political parties. Although the party hierarchy is rather coy in saying so. Within the Liberal Democrats there is a lot of opposition to this policy.
But lets look at the options.
Even after passing some rather draconian and much welcome laws, there is still a culture of corruption in Labour. Whoever the new general secretary of the Labour party is will have to put that right. But this puts Labour in a spot; can they really compete with the Tories in their financing, and how would they feel about being more dependent on the unions than ever?
There is less pressure on the Tories. They are even more dependent on wealthy individuals and company donations, but as long as they keep to the law, they are sitting pretty. However they are still vulnerable to charges that doners can but influence.
For the Liberal Democrats the situation is clear. The bias in the system is so bad, particularly against us, we MUST change it.
The status quo is a shambles, and needs reform.
The popular solution as far as the electorate is concerned is to limit large donations, make parties reliant on membership funding.
I see this as a partial solution. It is good that parties are funded by members. But there are 2 problems.
First is that this puts in a bias in favour of the Tories. Their members are richer and will pay more. The beauty about democracy is that everyone's vote is equal, whether you are a millionaire or a cleaner. But when it comes to funding - and possible influence on the political parties, then the millionaire has the greater say.
Second is that the money coming in will not be enough. The Liberal Democrats are currently locked in a vicious circle. If you phone membership, you cannot get through. You can leave a message, but when you get a reply your phone is switched off because you are at work ... it is all very inefficient and the outcome is fewer members. Fewer members means less income. Less income means underfunded membership services.
On a related issue Operation Black Vote (OBV) claims that the Lib Dems are doing the least of all the political parties on attracting black members. When they say it, the implication is that the Lib Dems don't care. Absurd when you consider that our policies have been consistantly the best of all on race relations. The reality is that we cannot match what the Tories are doing as we do not have the resources that they do.
Funding political parties is not about funding gimmicky electioneering - although some money gets spent in that direction. For political parties to connect to the electorate they need the resources to do it.
Those who want membership funding only will see the demise of the political parties as serious organisations.
Many people would appear to want that, but they do not appear to be thinking about the alternatives to democracy; dictatorship or anarchy. You can have that now if you vote for it, but no one does, so is the demise of political parties really such a good idea?
I am aware of the objections;
1/ Why reward parties after they have behaved so disgracefully?
Well if you think they have behaved disgracefully, don't vote for them. That will hurt them. Funding political parties properly in relation to their popularity will still leave them in competition with the other parties. The reward in politics comes from being elected into office, and state funding makes that process fairer.
2/ I do not want my taxes being spent on the BNP.
From a Liberal perspective we would prefer the BNP not to exist. The reason they do exist is because people vote for them. In a democracy you have to be fair. If the BNP go too far and break the law by inciting hatred, then they will be banned. The essence of democracy is that parties give you a choice, some of which you would veehmently disagree with.
On current levels of support, most of the funding will go to parties opposed to the BNP, so the BNP will not benefit from this.
3/ In fact I do not want my taxes spent on anyone.
Well do you want a democracy? If not, why not vote for anarchy or dictatorship? It is true that independents do not get funded, but they could start a political party as well. The problem with independents is that they can believe in anything regardless of the contradictions, and in an election campaign it is hard to scrutenise them properly.
Anyway, what do you think?
But lets look at the options.
Even after passing some rather draconian and much welcome laws, there is still a culture of corruption in Labour. Whoever the new general secretary of the Labour party is will have to put that right. But this puts Labour in a spot; can they really compete with the Tories in their financing, and how would they feel about being more dependent on the unions than ever?
There is less pressure on the Tories. They are even more dependent on wealthy individuals and company donations, but as long as they keep to the law, they are sitting pretty. However they are still vulnerable to charges that doners can but influence.
For the Liberal Democrats the situation is clear. The bias in the system is so bad, particularly against us, we MUST change it.
The status quo is a shambles, and needs reform.
The popular solution as far as the electorate is concerned is to limit large donations, make parties reliant on membership funding.
I see this as a partial solution. It is good that parties are funded by members. But there are 2 problems.
First is that this puts in a bias in favour of the Tories. Their members are richer and will pay more. The beauty about democracy is that everyone's vote is equal, whether you are a millionaire or a cleaner. But when it comes to funding - and possible influence on the political parties, then the millionaire has the greater say.
Second is that the money coming in will not be enough. The Liberal Democrats are currently locked in a vicious circle. If you phone membership, you cannot get through. You can leave a message, but when you get a reply your phone is switched off because you are at work ... it is all very inefficient and the outcome is fewer members. Fewer members means less income. Less income means underfunded membership services.
On a related issue Operation Black Vote (OBV) claims that the Lib Dems are doing the least of all the political parties on attracting black members. When they say it, the implication is that the Lib Dems don't care. Absurd when you consider that our policies have been consistantly the best of all on race relations. The reality is that we cannot match what the Tories are doing as we do not have the resources that they do.
Funding political parties is not about funding gimmicky electioneering - although some money gets spent in that direction. For political parties to connect to the electorate they need the resources to do it.
Those who want membership funding only will see the demise of the political parties as serious organisations.
Many people would appear to want that, but they do not appear to be thinking about the alternatives to democracy; dictatorship or anarchy. You can have that now if you vote for it, but no one does, so is the demise of political parties really such a good idea?
I am aware of the objections;
1/ Why reward parties after they have behaved so disgracefully?
Well if you think they have behaved disgracefully, don't vote for them. That will hurt them. Funding political parties properly in relation to their popularity will still leave them in competition with the other parties. The reward in politics comes from being elected into office, and state funding makes that process fairer.
2/ I do not want my taxes being spent on the BNP.
From a Liberal perspective we would prefer the BNP not to exist. The reason they do exist is because people vote for them. In a democracy you have to be fair. If the BNP go too far and break the law by inciting hatred, then they will be banned. The essence of democracy is that parties give you a choice, some of which you would veehmently disagree with.
On current levels of support, most of the funding will go to parties opposed to the BNP, so the BNP will not benefit from this.
3/ In fact I do not want my taxes spent on anyone.
Well do you want a democracy? If not, why not vote for anarchy or dictatorship? It is true that independents do not get funded, but they could start a political party as well. The problem with independents is that they can believe in anything regardless of the contradictions, and in an election campaign it is hard to scrutenise them properly.
Anyway, what do you think?
Tuesday 4 December 2007
Bush off the hook over Iran
It is true that George Bush looks rather silly at the moment over Iran. Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president had calculated that he could go ahead with his nuclear power program, and the US would not dare to stop him. For the next 12 months at least, his gamble has paid off.
Originally when the US invaded Iraq, they imagined that Iraq would become a prosperous liberal democracy, and then they could march on to Syria and Iran. Iran was the more important target, since it produces more oil.
Since the US bit off more than it could chew in Iraq, an invasion of either country looks absurd. The next best option as far as the hawks were concerned appeared to be to bomb Iran into submission.
But how would that work? Ahmedinejad does not seem to be persuaded that it can acheive anything, and by doing what the US does not want, his prestige in the region has grown.
Well next year is election year in the US, and it is hard to believe that Bush would really want to do anything silly in Iran, undermining the Republican candidates for president in doing so.
Historically when the intelligence services did not deliver what Bush wanted to hear about Iraq, he specifically undermined the intelligence services by creating his own intelligence service, the Office for Speical Plans (OSP) that reported what he wanted to hear, unlike the CIA. The OSP became the cheif source for claims about Iraq's WMD.
Now all of a sudden, the CIA is "trusted" again, and even Dick Cheney is falling into line.
Logically you would have thought everyone would be delighted, Iran is not on the verge of becoming a nulcear power. But there are still some hawks who are screaming, and do not trust the CIA. They still want to attack Iran, regardless of whether they intend to obtain nuclear weapons are not.
I think they will have to wait until they get a new president, 2008 is not going to be their year. 2009 could be a different matter entirely.
So does Iran want nuclear weapons? I suspect every country in the region wants them. Partly for their own security concerns, and partly for the prestige of having them. In the case of the UK, with no security threat, we have nuclear weapons purely for the prestige of having them. Already Isreal, Pakistan, India and China have nuclear weapons, and are potential threats to Iran. And the US is a clear and obvious threat as well. The US would not have behaved in the way it has done had Iran had nuclear weapons, as we see in North Korea.
So we do need to consider how to stop more states in the region from getting nuclear weapons, in case they fall into the wrong hands.
How do we do that? Answers on a postcard please!
Originally when the US invaded Iraq, they imagined that Iraq would become a prosperous liberal democracy, and then they could march on to Syria and Iran. Iran was the more important target, since it produces more oil.
Since the US bit off more than it could chew in Iraq, an invasion of either country looks absurd. The next best option as far as the hawks were concerned appeared to be to bomb Iran into submission.
But how would that work? Ahmedinejad does not seem to be persuaded that it can acheive anything, and by doing what the US does not want, his prestige in the region has grown.
Well next year is election year in the US, and it is hard to believe that Bush would really want to do anything silly in Iran, undermining the Republican candidates for president in doing so.
Historically when the intelligence services did not deliver what Bush wanted to hear about Iraq, he specifically undermined the intelligence services by creating his own intelligence service, the Office for Speical Plans (OSP) that reported what he wanted to hear, unlike the CIA. The OSP became the cheif source for claims about Iraq's WMD.
Now all of a sudden, the CIA is "trusted" again, and even Dick Cheney is falling into line.
Logically you would have thought everyone would be delighted, Iran is not on the verge of becoming a nulcear power. But there are still some hawks who are screaming, and do not trust the CIA. They still want to attack Iran, regardless of whether they intend to obtain nuclear weapons are not.
I think they will have to wait until they get a new president, 2008 is not going to be their year. 2009 could be a different matter entirely.
So does Iran want nuclear weapons? I suspect every country in the region wants them. Partly for their own security concerns, and partly for the prestige of having them. In the case of the UK, with no security threat, we have nuclear weapons purely for the prestige of having them. Already Isreal, Pakistan, India and China have nuclear weapons, and are potential threats to Iran. And the US is a clear and obvious threat as well. The US would not have behaved in the way it has done had Iran had nuclear weapons, as we see in North Korea.
So we do need to consider how to stop more states in the region from getting nuclear weapons, in case they fall into the wrong hands.
How do we do that? Answers on a postcard please!
Monday 26 November 2007
Charles Kennedy speaks at our AGM
As secretary of Hackney Lib Dems, I have to organise the AGM. In fact I organise a lot of what we do in Hackney.
Last year I started too late, so this year I am determined not to repeat the error.
I wanted a speaker who would get a lot of our members to come along. I wanted a venue that could hold a lot of people. And it all came together. Charles Kennedy agreed to come. And thanks to Meral, we secured the Alevi Centre, a superb venue for our event.
As organiser I did feel anxious, but it was a great success. Charles was delayed by a vote in the commons, but Brian got things started, and when Charles did arrive he gave an excellent speech.
I asked him to speak on civil liberties, and he particularly emphasised the shocking statistics on Stop and Search, and how ethnic and religious minorities are unfairly targetted by the police.
This is the second big event I organised this year. Earlier I invited Chris Huhne over for our garden party, and now I have to think about next year ...
I have some ideas, I hope they come off.
Last year I started too late, so this year I am determined not to repeat the error.
I wanted a speaker who would get a lot of our members to come along. I wanted a venue that could hold a lot of people. And it all came together. Charles Kennedy agreed to come. And thanks to Meral, we secured the Alevi Centre, a superb venue for our event.
As organiser I did feel anxious, but it was a great success. Charles was delayed by a vote in the commons, but Brian got things started, and when Charles did arrive he gave an excellent speech.
I asked him to speak on civil liberties, and he particularly emphasised the shocking statistics on Stop and Search, and how ethnic and religious minorities are unfairly targetted by the police.
This is the second big event I organised this year. Earlier I invited Chris Huhne over for our garden party, and now I have to think about next year ...
I have some ideas, I hope they come off.
Monday 12 November 2007
US power is in decline - but where does that leave liberalism?
Prior to the war in Iraq, there were many happy outcomes expected by the US administration from the war.
A democratic Iraq would be grateful to the US and would elect a friendly government. Isreal would be safer. Iraq's prosperity from it's considerable oil reserves would refund the US for the war, and would help bring prosperity to the country. In fact oil would be cheaper, and the world less dependent on Saudi Arabia, an unreliable ally after the 911 bombings by Saudi terrorists. Surronding countries would start to notice that liberal democracy brings stability and prosperity. Public opinion in the Middle East would shift. Most of those who previously admired Osama Bin Ladan would give up on that, and idolise George Bush instead.
Liberals who opposed the war, and who banged on about international law would look pathetic. Who cares about the lies about WMD? The people of Iraq would be free.
Instead the nature of the defeat has even taken liberals by surprise. At various times there appear to be moments of victory. The initial invasion was swift. Saddam's henchmen get caught or killed, including his sons. People voted in democratic elections. Saddam Hussein gets caught. Then he is executed. And now the surge is "working".
Yet these are all false dawns.
The national government can barely hold together. It doesn't have much power anyway. The police and the army are infiltrated. The Kurdish region is a de facto independent state, and may draw Turkey into a bloody conflict. Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia are exploiting the opportunities to spread their influence (Iran being the big winner of course). Even if the fortunes of Al Qaeda are up and down, the religious extremists and criminal gangs are terrorising the population, many of whom are leaving as refugees.
Iraq today must be one of the worst countries in the world to live.
All this has little to do with international law. It was striking at the Lib Dem conference that even Paddy Ashdown was arguing that in Liberal interventions, the first thing you do not do is introduce democracy. In a democracy in a divided country, the people vote for the extremes in order to get the best deal in any settlement.
In the case of Iraq, it was the Sunnis who previously had control under Saddam Hussein. As a minority, they stood to lose everything within a democracy. Majority rule is unacceptable to them, and they will fight the Shia to the bitter end.
The battle is not as unequal as it may seem. Under Saddam Hussein, the army was run by the Sunnis, and they know about military tactics. This makes them superior as a fighting force, despite the bravery of the Mehdi army.
Democracy more often divides rather than unites.
This has been noticed of course.
The EU is not such a wonderful club to join anymore. Previously it looked like an opportunity to become prosperous. Instead the anxiety is that the new countries will level down the prosperity of the EU, and introduce ethnic and religious minorities that do not "fit in". East Europe and the Islamic world are starting to take offence. Maybe they are not so keen to join.
The new emerging powers in the world sho no sign of adopting liberal values, notably Russia and China.
Some of us may want to rely on the US for upholding Liberal values. But as John Gray has pointed out, the paradox of their Liberal Imperialism in Iraq has acheived the opposite.
--
The (US) administration continues to insist that the president must be free to determine what counts as torture. Vice president Dick Cheney, asked on a radio program whether he was in favour of a "dunk in the water" for terrorist detainees replied that he was, declaring that the question was a "no brainer for me". Techniques of "water-boarding" - a form of torture used by the Kymer Rouge in Cambodia, and whose use against Americans in the second world war resulted in a Japanese officer being sentenced to fifteen years hard labour - are not prohibited and can be practised routinely by the US. The same is true for sleep deprivation, a method of torture used in Guantanamo that was employed by the NKVD in Stalinist Soviet Union to generate "confessions" in the show trials of the 1930s. Torture techniques involving sensory deprivation which were used by the Chinese on American POWs in the Korean war have also been used on Jose Padilla, an American citizen arrested as an enermy combatant and arrested without charge on a naval brig in South Carolina from mid 2002 until January 2006. By any internationally accepted standard of what constitutes torture, the world's pre-eminant liberal regime has committed itself to the practice as a matter of national policy. Along with this there has been a shift away from the consitutional traditions that curbed American government in the past. The vote by the Senate on 28th September 2006 that allowed the president the authority to determine what counts as torture also suspended habeas corpus for people detained as terrorist suspects, denying them their right to know the offense with which they have been charged and to challenge their detention in court. Henceforth anyone charged with involvement in terrorism - not only foreign nationals but US citizens - can be detained without charge and held indefinitely. In effect this put the executive above the law while placing citizenry outside it. Taken together with the Patriot Acts, which permit surveillence of the entire American population, the US has suffered a loss of freedom that has no parallel in any mature democracy.
--
Democracy is far from defeated of course. The US, western Europe, Australia remain prosperous, and India is marching ahead. Even in Africa, democratic regimes appear to be more prosperous for now.
The US budget deficit is funded largely by the Chinese, who is a strong ally of Iran who feels they can resist the US come what may. US oil comes largely from Venezuala, the profits of which undermine US foreign policy in South America.
Some will see the decline of US power as a good thing. That the US had so much power pre-Iraq war, much of it illusionary as we now know was not a good thing in itself, but neither is the emergence of China and Russia, who do not even pretend to believe in the same values. And their is little sign that the EU is growing in influence.
One major flashpoint for the future is Taiwain. China is in all liklelihood calculating when to invade. No need to rush, events are taking their course. The US is still very powerful in having a very powerful military with no equal in the world. No much use was it in Iraq, but still a concern for China no doubt.
So we simply do not know when the confrontation will take place, or what the consequences will be. I suspect this will be a defining moment in world history, when it arrives.
A democratic Iraq would be grateful to the US and would elect a friendly government. Isreal would be safer. Iraq's prosperity from it's considerable oil reserves would refund the US for the war, and would help bring prosperity to the country. In fact oil would be cheaper, and the world less dependent on Saudi Arabia, an unreliable ally after the 911 bombings by Saudi terrorists. Surronding countries would start to notice that liberal democracy brings stability and prosperity. Public opinion in the Middle East would shift. Most of those who previously admired Osama Bin Ladan would give up on that, and idolise George Bush instead.
Liberals who opposed the war, and who banged on about international law would look pathetic. Who cares about the lies about WMD? The people of Iraq would be free.
Instead the nature of the defeat has even taken liberals by surprise. At various times there appear to be moments of victory. The initial invasion was swift. Saddam's henchmen get caught or killed, including his sons. People voted in democratic elections. Saddam Hussein gets caught. Then he is executed. And now the surge is "working".
Yet these are all false dawns.
The national government can barely hold together. It doesn't have much power anyway. The police and the army are infiltrated. The Kurdish region is a de facto independent state, and may draw Turkey into a bloody conflict. Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia are exploiting the opportunities to spread their influence (Iran being the big winner of course). Even if the fortunes of Al Qaeda are up and down, the religious extremists and criminal gangs are terrorising the population, many of whom are leaving as refugees.
Iraq today must be one of the worst countries in the world to live.
All this has little to do with international law. It was striking at the Lib Dem conference that even Paddy Ashdown was arguing that in Liberal interventions, the first thing you do not do is introduce democracy. In a democracy in a divided country, the people vote for the extremes in order to get the best deal in any settlement.
In the case of Iraq, it was the Sunnis who previously had control under Saddam Hussein. As a minority, they stood to lose everything within a democracy. Majority rule is unacceptable to them, and they will fight the Shia to the bitter end.
The battle is not as unequal as it may seem. Under Saddam Hussein, the army was run by the Sunnis, and they know about military tactics. This makes them superior as a fighting force, despite the bravery of the Mehdi army.
Democracy more often divides rather than unites.
This has been noticed of course.
The EU is not such a wonderful club to join anymore. Previously it looked like an opportunity to become prosperous. Instead the anxiety is that the new countries will level down the prosperity of the EU, and introduce ethnic and religious minorities that do not "fit in". East Europe and the Islamic world are starting to take offence. Maybe they are not so keen to join.
The new emerging powers in the world sho no sign of adopting liberal values, notably Russia and China.
Some of us may want to rely on the US for upholding Liberal values. But as John Gray has pointed out, the paradox of their Liberal Imperialism in Iraq has acheived the opposite.
--
The (US) administration continues to insist that the president must be free to determine what counts as torture. Vice president Dick Cheney, asked on a radio program whether he was in favour of a "dunk in the water" for terrorist detainees replied that he was, declaring that the question was a "no brainer for me". Techniques of "water-boarding" - a form of torture used by the Kymer Rouge in Cambodia, and whose use against Americans in the second world war resulted in a Japanese officer being sentenced to fifteen years hard labour - are not prohibited and can be practised routinely by the US. The same is true for sleep deprivation, a method of torture used in Guantanamo that was employed by the NKVD in Stalinist Soviet Union to generate "confessions" in the show trials of the 1930s. Torture techniques involving sensory deprivation which were used by the Chinese on American POWs in the Korean war have also been used on Jose Padilla, an American citizen arrested as an enermy combatant and arrested without charge on a naval brig in South Carolina from mid 2002 until January 2006. By any internationally accepted standard of what constitutes torture, the world's pre-eminant liberal regime has committed itself to the practice as a matter of national policy. Along with this there has been a shift away from the consitutional traditions that curbed American government in the past. The vote by the Senate on 28th September 2006 that allowed the president the authority to determine what counts as torture also suspended habeas corpus for people detained as terrorist suspects, denying them their right to know the offense with which they have been charged and to challenge their detention in court. Henceforth anyone charged with involvement in terrorism - not only foreign nationals but US citizens - can be detained without charge and held indefinitely. In effect this put the executive above the law while placing citizenry outside it. Taken together with the Patriot Acts, which permit surveillence of the entire American population, the US has suffered a loss of freedom that has no parallel in any mature democracy.
--
Democracy is far from defeated of course. The US, western Europe, Australia remain prosperous, and India is marching ahead. Even in Africa, democratic regimes appear to be more prosperous for now.
The US budget deficit is funded largely by the Chinese, who is a strong ally of Iran who feels they can resist the US come what may. US oil comes largely from Venezuala, the profits of which undermine US foreign policy in South America.
Some will see the decline of US power as a good thing. That the US had so much power pre-Iraq war, much of it illusionary as we now know was not a good thing in itself, but neither is the emergence of China and Russia, who do not even pretend to believe in the same values. And their is little sign that the EU is growing in influence.
One major flashpoint for the future is Taiwain. China is in all liklelihood calculating when to invade. No need to rush, events are taking their course. The US is still very powerful in having a very powerful military with no equal in the world. No much use was it in Iraq, but still a concern for China no doubt.
So we simply do not know when the confrontation will take place, or what the consequences will be. I suspect this will be a defining moment in world history, when it arrives.
US power is in decline - but where does that leave liberalism?
Prior to the war in Iraq, there were many happy outcomes expected by the US administration from the war.
A democratic Iraq would be grateful to the US and would elect a friendly government. Isreal would be safer. Iraq's prosperity from it's considerable oil reserves would refund the US for the war, and would help bring prosperity to the country. In fact oil would be cheaper, and the world less dependent on Saudi Arabia, an unreliable ally after the 911 bombings by Saudi terrorists. Surronding countries would start to notice that liberal democracy brings stability and prosperity. Public opinion in the Middle East would shift. Most of those who previously admired Osama Bin Ladan would give up on that, and idolise George Bush instead.
Liberals who opposed the war, and who banged on about international law would look pathetic. Who cares about the lies about WMD? The people of Iraq would be free.
Instead the nature of the defeat has even taken liberals by surprise. At various times there appear to be moments of victory. The initial invasion was swift. Saddam's henchmen get caught or killed, including his sons. People voted in democratic elections. Saddam Hussein gets caught. Then he is executed. And now the surge is "working".
Yet these are all false dawns.
The national government can barely hold together. It doesn't have much power anyway. The police and the army are infiltrated. The Kurdish region is a de facto independent state, and may draw Turkey into a bloody conflict. Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia are exploiting the opportunities to spread their influence (Iran being the big winner of course). Even if the fortunes of Al Qaeda are up and down, the religious extremists and criminal gangs are terrorising the population, many of whom are leaving as refugees.
Iraq today must be one of the worst countries in the world to live.
All this has little to do with international law. It was striking at the Lib Dem conference that even Paddy Ashdown was arguing that in Liberal interventions, the first thing you do not do is introduce democracy. In a democracy in a divided country, the people vote for the extremes in order to get the best deal in any settlement.
In the case of Iraq, it was the Sunnis who previously had control under Saddam Hussein. As a minority, they stood to lose everything within a democracy. Majority rule is unacceptable to them, and they will fight the Shia to the bitter end.
The battle is not as unequal as it may seem. Under Saddam Hussein, the army was run by the Sunnis, and they know about military tactics. This makes them superior as a fighting force, despite the bravery of the Mehdi army.
Democracy more often divides rather than unites.
This has been noticed of course.
The EU is not such a wonderful club to join anymore. Previously it looked like an opportunity to become prosperous. Instead the anxiety is that the new countries will level down the prosperity of the EU, and introduce ethnic and religious minorities that do not "fit in". East Europe and the Islamic world are starting to take offence. Maybe they are not so keen to join.
The new emerging powers in the world sho no sign of adopting liberal values, notably Russia and China.
Some of us may want to rely on the US for upholding Liberal values. But as John Gray has pointed out, the paradox of their Liberal Imperialism in Iraq has acheived the opposite.
<<>>
Democracy is far from defeated of course. The US, western Europe, Australia remain prosperous, and India is marching ahead. Even in Africa, democratic regimes appear to be more prosperous for now.
The US budget deficit is funded largely by the Chinese, who is a strong ally of Iran who feels they can resist the US come what may. US oil comes largely from Venezuala, the profits of which undermine US foreign policy in South America.
Some will see the decline of US power as a good thing. That the US had so much power pre-Iraq war, much of it illusionary as we now know was not a good thing in itself, but neither is the emergence of China and Russia, who do not even pretend to believe in the same values. And their is little sign that the EU is growing in influence.
One major flashpoint for the future is Taiwain. China is in all liklelihood calculating when to invade. No need to rush, events are taking their course. The US is still very powerful in having a very powerful military with no equal in the world. No much use was it in Iraq, but still a concern for China no doubt.
So we simply do not know when the confrontation will take place, or what the consequences will be. I suspect this will be a defining moment in world history, when it arrives.
A democratic Iraq would be grateful to the US and would elect a friendly government. Isreal would be safer. Iraq's prosperity from it's considerable oil reserves would refund the US for the war, and would help bring prosperity to the country. In fact oil would be cheaper, and the world less dependent on Saudi Arabia, an unreliable ally after the 911 bombings by Saudi terrorists. Surronding countries would start to notice that liberal democracy brings stability and prosperity. Public opinion in the Middle East would shift. Most of those who previously admired Osama Bin Ladan would give up on that, and idolise George Bush instead.
Liberals who opposed the war, and who banged on about international law would look pathetic. Who cares about the lies about WMD? The people of Iraq would be free.
Instead the nature of the defeat has even taken liberals by surprise. At various times there appear to be moments of victory. The initial invasion was swift. Saddam's henchmen get caught or killed, including his sons. People voted in democratic elections. Saddam Hussein gets caught. Then he is executed. And now the surge is "working".
Yet these are all false dawns.
The national government can barely hold together. It doesn't have much power anyway. The police and the army are infiltrated. The Kurdish region is a de facto independent state, and may draw Turkey into a bloody conflict. Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia are exploiting the opportunities to spread their influence (Iran being the big winner of course). Even if the fortunes of Al Qaeda are up and down, the religious extremists and criminal gangs are terrorising the population, many of whom are leaving as refugees.
Iraq today must be one of the worst countries in the world to live.
All this has little to do with international law. It was striking at the Lib Dem conference that even Paddy Ashdown was arguing that in Liberal interventions, the first thing you do not do is introduce democracy. In a democracy in a divided country, the people vote for the extremes in order to get the best deal in any settlement.
In the case of Iraq, it was the Sunnis who previously had control under Saddam Hussein. As a minority, they stood to lose everything within a democracy. Majority rule is unacceptable to them, and they will fight the Shia to the bitter end.
The battle is not as unequal as it may seem. Under Saddam Hussein, the army was run by the Sunnis, and they know about military tactics. This makes them superior as a fighting force, despite the bravery of the Mehdi army.
Democracy more often divides rather than unites.
This has been noticed of course.
The EU is not such a wonderful club to join anymore. Previously it looked like an opportunity to become prosperous. Instead the anxiety is that the new countries will level down the prosperity of the EU, and introduce ethnic and religious minorities that do not "fit in". East Europe and the Islamic world are starting to take offence. Maybe they are not so keen to join.
The new emerging powers in the world sho no sign of adopting liberal values, notably Russia and China.
Some of us may want to rely on the US for upholding Liberal values. But as John Gray has pointed out, the paradox of their Liberal Imperialism in Iraq has acheived the opposite.
<<>>
Democracy is far from defeated of course. The US, western Europe, Australia remain prosperous, and India is marching ahead. Even in Africa, democratic regimes appear to be more prosperous for now.
The US budget deficit is funded largely by the Chinese, who is a strong ally of Iran who feels they can resist the US come what may. US oil comes largely from Venezuala, the profits of which undermine US foreign policy in South America.
Some will see the decline of US power as a good thing. That the US had so much power pre-Iraq war, much of it illusionary as we now know was not a good thing in itself, but neither is the emergence of China and Russia, who do not even pretend to believe in the same values. And their is little sign that the EU is growing in influence.
One major flashpoint for the future is Taiwain. China is in all liklelihood calculating when to invade. No need to rush, events are taking their course. The US is still very powerful in having a very powerful military with no equal in the world. No much use was it in Iraq, but still a concern for China no doubt.
So we simply do not know when the confrontation will take place, or what the consequences will be. I suspect this will be a defining moment in world history, when it arrives.
Why no debate about the leadership candidates cars?
Funny isn't it how during the last leadership election, the media made a big thing about the candidates cars.
But this time ... nothing!
No doubt Chris Huhne and Nick Clegg have appropriate cars this time, so nothing to write about.
Last time it was Ming who was caught out. The Liberal Democrats consider global warming the most important issue of all, so how can Ming drive a Jag?
Well the logic took over, and he got rid of it ... carefully.
But it is worth considering how this impacts on another Lib Dem theme, one pushed by the very powerful Centre Forum. What about aspiration?
If you are amitious and successful, then of course you want a Jag - assuming you fit the stereotype.
So where does selling your Jag fit in to aspiration?
All this talk of aspiration leaves behind others who also contribute to society.
Carers of the disabled can do a valuble job, and maybe do it for the love of it. But when politicians talk of aspiration, where to they fit in?
I believe that those who are public spirited, and often working in the public services are natural liberals. They may not want a flash car or the latest designer clothes. But ofthen they contribute more to society than those who do.
Now that the scope for enrichez-vous is diminishing as we have to learn to live within the environmental limits of the planet, and as the global balance of power shifts from west to east, we need to think carefully about how liberalism is going to appeal in our changing society.
But this time ... nothing!
No doubt Chris Huhne and Nick Clegg have appropriate cars this time, so nothing to write about.
Last time it was Ming who was caught out. The Liberal Democrats consider global warming the most important issue of all, so how can Ming drive a Jag?
Well the logic took over, and he got rid of it ... carefully.
But it is worth considering how this impacts on another Lib Dem theme, one pushed by the very powerful Centre Forum. What about aspiration?
If you are amitious and successful, then of course you want a Jag - assuming you fit the stereotype.
So where does selling your Jag fit in to aspiration?
All this talk of aspiration leaves behind others who also contribute to society.
Carers of the disabled can do a valuble job, and maybe do it for the love of it. But when politicians talk of aspiration, where to they fit in?
I believe that those who are public spirited, and often working in the public services are natural liberals. They may not want a flash car or the latest designer clothes. But ofthen they contribute more to society than those who do.
Now that the scope for enrichez-vous is diminishing as we have to learn to live within the environmental limits of the planet, and as the global balance of power shifts from west to east, we need to think carefully about how liberalism is going to appeal in our changing society.
Saturday 3 November 2007
A question of terrorism
It is not a pleasent experience, but it is useful to find out what the other side think. So sometimes I read the Sun. And sometimes I visit the Fox News website and listen to Bill O'Reilly.
For a while Bill O'Reilly has been (sadly) getting the better of Liberals by asking them; "Do you want us to win in Iraq?"
It seems like a yes or no answer. Say yes, and you support George Bush. Say no, and you want US troops to get killed and defeated.
The correct answer of course, is whether you like it or not, the US is already defeated in Iraq, and should pull out and stop wasting the lives of their troops.
And now there is a film with Meryl Streep, and the question "Do you want us to win the war against terrorism?" is described as "quintessential" and "unanswerable". I am sure Bill O'Reilly is loving this, as it is his question.
But predictably in his latest broadcast he decides to sound angry - he is good at that. What he argues is common sense as far as it goes. "If you do not want us to win the war against terrorism, you are a Moron".
In one sense he is right. If we can do away with terrorism, life would be so much better. The point however is that the question misses the point. The "war against terrorism", like the "war against drugs" cannot be won. There is no endpoint to this war, whether we like it or not.
We can do things to lessen it. We can invest more in police work, we can improve relations with those communities that mights otherwise habour terrorists, support the moderates to marginalise the extremists. Or we can aggravate it, clamp down on civil liberties, persue an aggressive foreign policy.
The myth that "evil can be destroyed" is an attempt to create Utopia. Evil has always existed, it is Utopian to imagine that it can ever be destroyed. An attempt to "Destroy Evil" was made in Iraq, and all it did was create even more evil than existed before, remarkably.
So why the difficulty in answering the question? Partly it is the penchant for Bill O'Reilly to target the weakest Liberals, often celebrities, or the tiny number of people who make up the far left, like Rosie O'Donnell.
And partly I think because the US has a culture of optimism. You cannot say that something cannot be done, that something is insoluble.
Such optimism is disasterous. The US invaded Iraq, and no siginificant US politician would dare say that regardless of international law, you simply cannot get away with doing this, it cannot be done.
Optimism or pessimism in themselves are neither good or bad. They are appropriate when connected to realism, to be realistic is more important than anything else.
And currently the US political establishment could do with some more pessimism before they bomb Iran.
For a while Bill O'Reilly has been (sadly) getting the better of Liberals by asking them; "Do you want us to win in Iraq?"
It seems like a yes or no answer. Say yes, and you support George Bush. Say no, and you want US troops to get killed and defeated.
The correct answer of course, is whether you like it or not, the US is already defeated in Iraq, and should pull out and stop wasting the lives of their troops.
And now there is a film with Meryl Streep, and the question "Do you want us to win the war against terrorism?" is described as "quintessential" and "unanswerable". I am sure Bill O'Reilly is loving this, as it is his question.
But predictably in his latest broadcast he decides to sound angry - he is good at that. What he argues is common sense as far as it goes. "If you do not want us to win the war against terrorism, you are a Moron".
In one sense he is right. If we can do away with terrorism, life would be so much better. The point however is that the question misses the point. The "war against terrorism", like the "war against drugs" cannot be won. There is no endpoint to this war, whether we like it or not.
We can do things to lessen it. We can invest more in police work, we can improve relations with those communities that mights otherwise habour terrorists, support the moderates to marginalise the extremists. Or we can aggravate it, clamp down on civil liberties, persue an aggressive foreign policy.
The myth that "evil can be destroyed" is an attempt to create Utopia. Evil has always existed, it is Utopian to imagine that it can ever be destroyed. An attempt to "Destroy Evil" was made in Iraq, and all it did was create even more evil than existed before, remarkably.
So why the difficulty in answering the question? Partly it is the penchant for Bill O'Reilly to target the weakest Liberals, often celebrities, or the tiny number of people who make up the far left, like Rosie O'Donnell.
And partly I think because the US has a culture of optimism. You cannot say that something cannot be done, that something is insoluble.
Such optimism is disasterous. The US invaded Iraq, and no siginificant US politician would dare say that regardless of international law, you simply cannot get away with doing this, it cannot be done.
Optimism or pessimism in themselves are neither good or bad. They are appropriate when connected to realism, to be realistic is more important than anything else.
And currently the US political establishment could do with some more pessimism before they bomb Iran.
Will the US attack Iran?
Well the economic sanctions are now in place.
But what next?
It amazes me that the US Republicans are a party that knows what it wants, but not in Iran. The US administration is now caught. I suspect the dithering about whether to attack Iran is because they are having difficulty in working out how they can get a good outcome from doing this.
And yet if they sensibly calculate that nothing good can come from this, then how can they justify the way they encouraged public opinion to expect an attack in the first place?
Surely "chickening out" is what the Democrats do?
So in making a choice, they are dammed either way. But for how long can they go on without making a choice?
We still have a year of Bush rule, is he going to dither for that long? And what will they say about it on the campaign trail?
And what is Labour going to say? They supported the Isreali invasion of Lebonan, but things have changed since then. Will they support bombing Iran, or do they agree with Jack Straw that bombing Iran is "Nuts"?
Jack Staw lost his job soon after he said that of course.
But what next?
It amazes me that the US Republicans are a party that knows what it wants, but not in Iran. The US administration is now caught. I suspect the dithering about whether to attack Iran is because they are having difficulty in working out how they can get a good outcome from doing this.
And yet if they sensibly calculate that nothing good can come from this, then how can they justify the way they encouraged public opinion to expect an attack in the first place?
Surely "chickening out" is what the Democrats do?
So in making a choice, they are dammed either way. But for how long can they go on without making a choice?
We still have a year of Bush rule, is he going to dither for that long? And what will they say about it on the campaign trail?
And what is Labour going to say? They supported the Isreali invasion of Lebonan, but things have changed since then. Will they support bombing Iran, or do they agree with Jack Straw that bombing Iran is "Nuts"?
Jack Staw lost his job soon after he said that of course.
The Liberal Democrats and the Greens
The Lib Dems say that the Greens are Marxists. The Greens say that the Lib Dems are neo-Liberals.
Both are mostly wrong, but have an element of truth all the same. The Lib Dems need to sharpen up their critique of capitalism, even though fundamentally we are a capitalist party and rightly so. As Chris Huhne points out, the private sector is often seriously deficient in running the public services. We need to be clear about that, and we also object to the absurd distortions in wealth allocation and the damaging impact of the “externalities” of businesses that damage the environment and exploit the consumer and the workforce.
Even Green Marxists have a point that the advertising industry encourages us to consume more than we otherwise would, but from a Green point of view we should (generally speaking) consume less.
That said, John Stuart Mill made a similar point when he wrote in favour of the “stationary state”.
There are some Marxists in the Green party. However they did NOT go into coalition with Respect, and culturally they do not fit in with that kind of Old Left politics. The truth is that many Greens are Liberals, and it is because of our electoral system that we have to be competitive with them. And we better watch out. Becuase no doubt it is tempting to dismiss them as Marxists (and imply they are the same kind of Marxists as Stalin and Lenin). But of Lib Dem supporters, 30% say their second preference is the Green party. If we attack the Green party vociferously along these lines, it may imply that we are ourselves not just anti-Green, but also anti-green.
Historically the Greens did take our vote away in the 1990 (I think) Euro-Elections, finishing with 15% to our 6%. This was at the time of the merger between the Liberals and the SDP.
Personally I was worried that with our opinion poll ratings drifting down to 11% history could repeat.
Now that we are about to replace our leader with someone more popular, and with our ratings already drifting up to 18%, I think there is less danger of that now.
However the Greens threaten us more than anyone else, and we need to handle them with care. Not just in national opinion polls, but we also need highly motivated activists to help in our community politics. We need their Liberals to join us.
It is a shame we are in competition with them, but until we have a fair voting system, then the Greens should really join with us.
Both are mostly wrong, but have an element of truth all the same. The Lib Dems need to sharpen up their critique of capitalism, even though fundamentally we are a capitalist party and rightly so. As Chris Huhne points out, the private sector is often seriously deficient in running the public services. We need to be clear about that, and we also object to the absurd distortions in wealth allocation and the damaging impact of the “externalities” of businesses that damage the environment and exploit the consumer and the workforce.
Even Green Marxists have a point that the advertising industry encourages us to consume more than we otherwise would, but from a Green point of view we should (generally speaking) consume less.
That said, John Stuart Mill made a similar point when he wrote in favour of the “stationary state”.
There are some Marxists in the Green party. However they did NOT go into coalition with Respect, and culturally they do not fit in with that kind of Old Left politics. The truth is that many Greens are Liberals, and it is because of our electoral system that we have to be competitive with them. And we better watch out. Becuase no doubt it is tempting to dismiss them as Marxists (and imply they are the same kind of Marxists as Stalin and Lenin). But of Lib Dem supporters, 30% say their second preference is the Green party. If we attack the Green party vociferously along these lines, it may imply that we are ourselves not just anti-Green, but also anti-green.
Historically the Greens did take our vote away in the 1990 (I think) Euro-Elections, finishing with 15% to our 6%. This was at the time of the merger between the Liberals and the SDP.
Personally I was worried that with our opinion poll ratings drifting down to 11% history could repeat.
Now that we are about to replace our leader with someone more popular, and with our ratings already drifting up to 18%, I think there is less danger of that now.
However the Greens threaten us more than anyone else, and we need to handle them with care. Not just in national opinion polls, but we also need highly motivated activists to help in our community politics. We need their Liberals to join us.
It is a shame we are in competition with them, but until we have a fair voting system, then the Greens should really join with us.
Rememberance Day
The political and religious establishment gather together for Rememberance day. It is tempting as a radical, seeing such dignatories to switch off, but it would be wrong to do so.
It is not really about them. I am personally lucky to live at a time and in a place where I have not had to even contemplate going to war.
Yet in WW2, there was no choice. And as history shows, Naziism had to be defeated, it was the most poisoness ideology ever witnessed.
So when I forget about the rather conservative nature of the event, I find myself in awe of what my previous generation managed to do.
And lets be clear, it is right that the political and religious establish take part in this. It would be intolerable if they did not. And it is right the event is conservative in nature. Conservative means reluctant to change. And this is an event that honour people who died many years ago, it should not change.
Also we remember those who died in other wars, and some more recent ones. I was opposed to the war in Iraq. But I do not blame our armed forces for that. I sympathise for the intolerable circumstances they were put in, brought about by the real villians; the politicians who sent them there.
And then of course there are wars that do not involve the British. We do not have a day to remember them. No doubt it is not practical to do this, but minimising the amount of war in the world does not seem to be a high enough priority for the kind of establishment politicians we will be seeing on Rememberance day.
It is not really about them. I am personally lucky to live at a time and in a place where I have not had to even contemplate going to war.
Yet in WW2, there was no choice. And as history shows, Naziism had to be defeated, it was the most poisoness ideology ever witnessed.
So when I forget about the rather conservative nature of the event, I find myself in awe of what my previous generation managed to do.
And lets be clear, it is right that the political and religious establish take part in this. It would be intolerable if they did not. And it is right the event is conservative in nature. Conservative means reluctant to change. And this is an event that honour people who died many years ago, it should not change.
Also we remember those who died in other wars, and some more recent ones. I was opposed to the war in Iraq. But I do not blame our armed forces for that. I sympathise for the intolerable circumstances they were put in, brought about by the real villians; the politicians who sent them there.
And then of course there are wars that do not involve the British. We do not have a day to remember them. No doubt it is not practical to do this, but minimising the amount of war in the world does not seem to be a high enough priority for the kind of establishment politicians we will be seeing on Rememberance day.
Friday 2 November 2007
Turkey, Iraq and the Kurds
Historically Liberals have been sympathetic to the Kurds. They are a people without a nation, and how been oppressed by the governments of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
They have fought back, but the power of these states has always kept them at bay.
If you are denied constitutional protection as minority, and denied democratic rights, it seems reasonable that you have a right to fight back.
Recently there has been a breakthrough for the Kurds. Turkey wants to join the EU. Democracy and human rights have improved for the Kurds living in Turkey. Progress has been made.
Then the setback. Turkey is an ally of the US, but when the US invaded Iraq, Turkey was put in an impossible position. They do not want an independent Kurdish state in the region, because that may mean the Kurds in Turkey will want one too.
So relations with the US took a turn for the worse, and Turkish politicians once again stepped up the anti-Kurdish rhetoric.
Now of course Turkey is attacking the Kurdish part of Iraq and the PKK.
The PKK are a resistance organisation of the Kurdish people. In many parts of the world, including the UK, they are considered terrorists.
The PKK did not do well in the recent elections in Turkey, which could be taken as a good sign; that Kurds are moderating their views after the recent improvements they have experienced.
But the signs in Hackney (and maybe Turkey as well?) is that Kurds are rallying round the PKK again.
So how should Liberals propose intervening? Should we take sides as we have done in the past, or should we be impartial and try to aim for a political solution?
Tough call. I suspect there is a lot more to this than meets the eye, unfortunately...
They have fought back, but the power of these states has always kept them at bay.
If you are denied constitutional protection as minority, and denied democratic rights, it seems reasonable that you have a right to fight back.
Recently there has been a breakthrough for the Kurds. Turkey wants to join the EU. Democracy and human rights have improved for the Kurds living in Turkey. Progress has been made.
Then the setback. Turkey is an ally of the US, but when the US invaded Iraq, Turkey was put in an impossible position. They do not want an independent Kurdish state in the region, because that may mean the Kurds in Turkey will want one too.
So relations with the US took a turn for the worse, and Turkish politicians once again stepped up the anti-Kurdish rhetoric.
Now of course Turkey is attacking the Kurdish part of Iraq and the PKK.
The PKK are a resistance organisation of the Kurdish people. In many parts of the world, including the UK, they are considered terrorists.
The PKK did not do well in the recent elections in Turkey, which could be taken as a good sign; that Kurds are moderating their views after the recent improvements they have experienced.
But the signs in Hackney (and maybe Turkey as well?) is that Kurds are rallying round the PKK again.
So how should Liberals propose intervening? Should we take sides as we have done in the past, or should we be impartial and try to aim for a political solution?
Tough call. I suspect there is a lot more to this than meets the eye, unfortunately...
Sunday 21 October 2007
Liberal Democrats at the crossroads
The reputation of the Liberal Democrats has taking a battering recently. The demise of Charles Kennedy was painful to watch. However given that his colleagues were having to "cover up" for him over his alcohol addiction, I do not see that they had any alternative.
Then more recently we have seen the demise of Ming Campbell. There is no doubt that it is primarily the media who are to blame for his downfall, they are the ones that went on about his age. But the media want to shift responsibility, and are more interested in suggesting that it was the Parliamentary party who were to blame. As though every MP has to fall into line like a one party state. In fact the indiscretions of the Parliamentary Liberal Democrats were trivial affairs by comparison.
Oddly enough, I suspect Ming Campbell is probably more popular now than ever.
But we move on. I am optimistic that either candidate will be better at getting the message out to the electorate and will improve the fortunes of the party.
But there is still a choice to be made.
My ideal candidate is not standing.
She would be a good communicator (which was the real problem for Ming, the general public did not notice what he was saying).
She would be against replacing Trident.
In favour of a foreign policy that is more independent of the US.
She would be fully committed to improving pubic services.
She would appreciate that freedom is defined by more than the individual's relationship to the state, and that the externalities of markets can also be pernicious in how they effect the individual (global warming for example).
She would have a good understanding of non-economic values, such as education for education's sake, or for arts that can give people expression in life. A BBC that can take risks that private television companies will not take on.
She will encourage the many talented ethnic minority candidates to come through the party.
She will be very clear that global warming is the most important issue facing the world today.
She would want to demonstrate that she would improve the social fabric of society, the alienation of the poor and dispossesed is far worse in the UK as in many other European countries. Not only that, she will cooperate with the various communities to isolate the terrorist fringe, making sure good police work in intelligence locates the potential terrorists that threaten the way we live.
And of course, the leader doesn't have to be a woman, but it would be nice if she was.
Now none of the candidates believes in all of these things, but for now I think that Chris Huhne is the closest, he is smarter, a good communicator, and ideologically closer to the values I have outlined here.
Then more recently we have seen the demise of Ming Campbell. There is no doubt that it is primarily the media who are to blame for his downfall, they are the ones that went on about his age. But the media want to shift responsibility, and are more interested in suggesting that it was the Parliamentary party who were to blame. As though every MP has to fall into line like a one party state. In fact the indiscretions of the Parliamentary Liberal Democrats were trivial affairs by comparison.
Oddly enough, I suspect Ming Campbell is probably more popular now than ever.
But we move on. I am optimistic that either candidate will be better at getting the message out to the electorate and will improve the fortunes of the party.
But there is still a choice to be made.
My ideal candidate is not standing.
She would be a good communicator (which was the real problem for Ming, the general public did not notice what he was saying).
She would be against replacing Trident.
In favour of a foreign policy that is more independent of the US.
She would be fully committed to improving pubic services.
She would appreciate that freedom is defined by more than the individual's relationship to the state, and that the externalities of markets can also be pernicious in how they effect the individual (global warming for example).
She would have a good understanding of non-economic values, such as education for education's sake, or for arts that can give people expression in life. A BBC that can take risks that private television companies will not take on.
She will encourage the many talented ethnic minority candidates to come through the party.
She will be very clear that global warming is the most important issue facing the world today.
She would want to demonstrate that she would improve the social fabric of society, the alienation of the poor and dispossesed is far worse in the UK as in many other European countries. Not only that, she will cooperate with the various communities to isolate the terrorist fringe, making sure good police work in intelligence locates the potential terrorists that threaten the way we live.
And of course, the leader doesn't have to be a woman, but it would be nice if she was.
Now none of the candidates believes in all of these things, but for now I think that Chris Huhne is the closest, he is smarter, a good communicator, and ideologically closer to the values I have outlined here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)