Sunday 30 September 2012

I'm Sorry. I'm So So Sorry


It’s not often a politician actually says sorry. It’s even rarer that they do it off their own bat, without being advised to do it by their cabal of advisors. But last week, Nick Clegg did just that, recording an abject apology for the Liberal Democrats’ U-turn on their tuition fees promise.

Of course this may have had something to do with both the upcoming Liberal Democrat conference in Brighton and the rumours of dissatisfaction among the Liberal Democrat  rank and file, who may be floating towards the more sceptical and outspoken Vince Cable. But whatever his reasons Clegg did seem genuinely sorry.

But Clegg should not believe that simply apologising and hoping that that will be an end of it will bring dissatisfied voters back into the fold. Whilst tuition fees is the thing everyone remembers - and if your central voter base is students raising tuition fees is really stupid, it is only a symptom of the larger problems facing the Liberal Democrats. There are still many outside the party (and inside it too I suspect) who believe that going into Coalition with the Conservatives was a bad idea, and a betrayal of party principles. These people seem to believe that the natural coalition partners for the Liberal Democrats would be Labour, as they share similar left wing principles.

But these people seem to have got confused about the position occupied by the Liberal Democrats on the political spectrum. The Liberal Democrats were formed out of a merger of the Liberals – who were always centre left - and the Social Democrats who were a Labour offshoot formed by dissatisfied members of Labour’s right wing. Thus while the Liberal Democrats could be said to be centre left – and thus a better fit for the Labour Party in a Coalition – they are actually more of a radical centrist party.

The other thing that people seem to have forgotten is that the current Liberal Democrat leadership is made up of so called “Orange Bookers,” those that contributed to The Orange Book: Reclaiming Liberalism.  The “Orange Bookers,” while adhering to more traditional Liberal principles, are seen to be more on the right of the Liberal spectrum compared to those members of the Social Liberal forum who are seen to be on the left of the party.

It must also be taken into account that the Liberal Democrats really had no choice. Thrust into a kingmaker scenario in 2010, they had three options. Support neither party and watch a minority Conservative administration rise and fall probably within a year thus giving the country weak government at a time of serious economic crisis, support Labour, and end up in a Centre-Left coalition, which still wouldn’t have been able to make up the numbers and would have had to rely on the smaller Nationalist parties to get stuff through, or support the Conservatives as the party with the most seats, and try to temper their excesses.

I’m not attempting to apologise for the Liberal Democrats’ actions (or lack of action as the case may be) but I am wishing to point out that they were not in the easiest of positions, and their alliance with the Conservatives, is not as unlikely as it seems.

And those of you who haven’t seen the Nick Clegg Apology Remix on YouTube. Go look it up now.

Sunday 16 September 2012

Freedom of Speech

There have been two things in the press this week that have raised the question of whether there is a limit to free speech, or whether or people should limit it themselves. There has been the anti-Islamic film that has caused such a furore in the Middle East and the photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge that have appeared in a French magazine.

People talk about Freedom of Speech as if it is something complete and absolute. They think that they are free to say whatever they like because in the UK we have “freedom of speech” compared to those nasty dictatorial countries like China and North Korea. However, in reality, even in the UK we don’t have complete freedom of speech, which is why we are able to lock up members of the British National Party and the English Defence League every time they distribute leaflets encouraging people to rise up and drive the foreign invaders into the sea. If it’s liable to cause vast amounts of offence, you can’t print it, say it or sing it.

There’s also the fact that having freedom of speech doesn’t give you licence to be an idiot or free you from having to think about the consequences of your actions. The Middle East is a chronically unstable region and has been for as long as I’ve been alive. The recent overthrow of dictatorial regimes and the introduction of democratic governments isn’t going to change that. The guy who came up with the anti-Islamic film which, I believe, paints a rather unfortunate picture of the Prophet Mohammed presumably knows this unless he’s been living under a rock for the last forty years. He knew what effect this film would have once news of it hit the Middle East and he made it anyway. If he didn’t, then the people he made it with should have told him. Either way he’s just gone and thrown a lit match onto the world’s biggest stack of gun powder.

As for the photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge that have appeared in a French magazine, it’s clear that someone needs to take a refresher course in media law. The editor of Closer argued that the pictures were “in the public interest”, the phrase always used in these situations and one that suggests the person uttering it needs to be reminded of the difference between things that are in the public interest and things that the public are interested in. The general public may wish to see topless photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge. It doesn’t mean they have a right to.

It will be – and in fact has been argued – that since the Cambridges are frequently in the public eye they are fair game. This doesn’t make any sense to me. Just because they are famous, doesn’t mean they are not entitled to a private life. They are in the public eye regularly because of who they are and what they do, and when it is required of them they co-operate fully with the needs of the media. In exchange for this, surely they are entitled to some privacy when they ask for it?

Freedom of speech is a very important weapon in the arsenal of democracy, and one which we should protect. But as with all weapons there is a risk that some people will be inclined to abuse it. When that happens there are consequences and those are rarely, if ever, pretty.

Monday 10 September 2012

Deadlocked

British politics has reached a stalemate. It’s deadlocked. It’s at an impasse. From the outside the House of Commons is packed with rows upon rows of identical upper middle class men and women, more and more of them never having had a job outside of politics, “professional politicians” rather than people who have stood out of a sense of responsibility. Parties that once stood for something now stand for nothing more than holding power, the dreams and desires of yesteryear subsumed into the malaise of Westminster.

And when people do stand up for something they believe in – for the NHS, for Education, for a chance to make the world a better place if only for a while – they either get vilified by the media or they get taken over by idiot would-be “anarchists” who use it as an excuse for property damage, reducing the protests’ talking points to five inches at the bottom of the page. Is it any wonder no one cares any more, when they feel their MPs don’t represent them and that their voice is worthless?

Our political system doesn’t help. Thanks to first past the post, only Labour and the Tories have any chance of winning, with the Lib Dems taking most of the seats that are left. And while it used to be possible to tell the difference between the two, since the rapid swing away from the far left by Labour in the late eighties and the firm pull back to the centre by the Tories in the mid-nineties, it is now hard to tell whether Labour is continuing the policies of Thatcherism, or if the Conservatives are continuing the policies of New Labour. Attempts to change our electoral system, - to bring in a newer and fairer system of elections –have been defeated thanks to the apathy of the electorate and the efforts of the two major parties to ensure that the systems that put them in power continue to keep them there.

So what now? Should we simply accept this, shrug and move on, waiting for the day the entire house of cards comes crashing down. Or is there still room for the believer, the dreamer, the radical? Is there still room in our political system for people who don’t just want to carry on doing the same old things, but actually want to change them? Is there room for people who want to try new things and really attempt, not only to change the lives of those who are alive right now, but to change the world for the better for the sake of generations yet to come?

I can’t honestly say that I know. But I hope that there is. But what I do know is that our system can’t sustain itself as it is right now. Sooner or later things will come to a head and that head will be violent. The riots have shown that. But I also know that the system can change if only a few people are willing to try. And some people already are; which is why the various grassroots political movements are beginning to grow.

Maybe there is a little hope. Maybe one day we can break the deadlock. And I hope when that happens, that I will be around to see it.


Sunday 2 September 2012

Not the Wild Wild West


July 20th 2012 – Aurora, Colorado shootings

August 5th 2012 – Wisconsin Sikh Temple Shooting

August 24th 2012 – Empire State Building Shooting.

That’s three major shooting incidents – major enough to get on the news anyway – in just over a month and I’m sure there were more that I didn’t get to hear about. From this the topic of this week’s blog post should be fairly obvious. Gun Control.

 But don’t worry. This isn’t some overblow “Liberals are coming to take mah guns” cry for a complete end to gun ownership in the US. If people want to go and shoot drinks cans in the back garden that’s their thing. What this is about is finding some way for people to be able to do that, while protecting innocent people.

The first thing that has to happen is that there has to be a dialogue. Whenever there is a gun tragedy in the United States one of the first things you’ll hear is people calling for a debate on gun control. The second thing you’ll hear is that people agree with that, but that now is not the time, now is a time to grieve. I can understand that. The problem is that this is used as an excuse to bury the debate. The “proper” time for a debate never seems to materialise.

This may be something to do with the fact that gun ownership is part of the American consciousness. It’s wrapped tight around the collective notion of what being American means. I’m not just talking about the second amendment, I’m talking about movies and TV shows, which don’t seem complete without a gun and seeing Policemen walking down the street armed. There’s a frontier mentality still prevalent in the US, a belief that they are still trying to tame the West. They don’t seem to understand that that time has passed. The rest of the world has realised it. The US hasn’t.

I understand why some Americans think they need guns in order to protect themselves from and if need be overthrow a dictatorial government. I understand, but I don’t agree. In the first place, if the Army is on the side of the government, there’s not much civilians can do against the might of the 101st Air Assault brigade, not to mention the winged power of the United States Air Force.  The best they could do would be to force a guerrilla war scenario. See Syria. But secondly this doesn’t mean that gun ownership can’t be licenced.

I went to Beaulieu Motor Museum on Thursday and one of the things it makes clear is that in the early days of driving and cars, there were no driving licences. People simply bought cars and away they went. Driving licences were bought in when the number of car related deaths went up. This didn’t mean that all the cars were taken away; it simply meant they were regulated and people had to pass a test to prove that they were competent and wouldn’t be danger to themselves or others before they were allowed to drive one.  The same could be done with guns. You could be required to sit tests to prove that not only can you handle and care for a gun properly, but that you were mentally sound enough to possess one.

It has been reported that the perpetrator of the Colorado massacre met with mental health professionals before the shooting. Yet he was still allowed to buy four different guns. Under tighter regulations this would have been prevented.

As I have said above, if Americans want to own guns then that’s fine. But they need to wake up to the need for regulations, before we have to add yet another tragedy to the ever increasing list.