A Double Edged Sword

David Cameron’s long awaited speech regarding a potential EU referendum may have seemed to him like his only available option. With the Conservatives’ Euro sceptic right wing becoming increasingly vocal, he really had no choice but to try and placate them. But he may soon find that this speech was a double edged sword.

To see the likely outcome of his decision to make this speech, one needs only to look at the history of the Labour party in the ‘70s and ‘80s. Just as David Cameron is now stuck between the Europhiles and Euro sceptic wings of the Conservative Party, Harold Wilson, James Callaghan and Michael Foot all found themselves trapped between the more moderate right wing of the Labour Party (the Roy Jenkins wing) who believed that the party had to modernise and move with the times and the hard left trade union wing (the Tony Benn wing) who were pushing for increased socialism and radical policies like unilateral nuclear disarmament.

Callaghan and Foot’s unwillingness to crack down on the militant left led to more moderate members of the Labour Party (led by the so-called Gang of Four) splitting off to form their own centre left party (the Social Democrat Party), which in turn led to the eventual creation of the Liberal Democrats. This exodus put Labour out of power for over a decade, allowing Margaret Thatcher to lead the Conservatives to three successive terms in office. Even after the moderate Neil Kinnock became its leader in 1983, memories of the Labour Party’s civil war kept them out of power till 1997, when Tony Blair fulfilled the legacy of Kinnock and the late John Smith by moving Labour to the centre once more.

Every Conservative leader since Thatcher has had his own version of the divisions that crippled the Labour Party, but this was a particular problem for William Hague and Michael Howard and is now a major problem for Cameron. All three of them engaged in attempted “modernisations” of the Conservative party, moving them away from the toxic “nasty party” image that become prevalent when the right wing of the Conservative party was dominant during the Thatcher years. But all three of them have rapidly discovered that this easier said than done, thanks to the tenacious nature of Thatcher’s ideological children, who maintain a stranglehold over the party base.

Herein lies Cameron’s problem. Whichever way he campaigns on the European issue – the elephant in the room at every Tory party conference just as the unions are at Labour’s – one half of his party will be unhappy. If he campaigns to leave the EU (which seems unlikely) then the more liberal end of his party will kick up a stink. But if he campaigns to stay in, which he has said he will, then the far right will make their displeasure clearly felt.

There are also two other factors to consider. If he does campaign to leave, then in the event of another hung parliament in 2015 the Liberal Democrats will probably refuse to join another coalition, leaving Cameron out of office. But if doesn’t, then UKIP – already wriggling their way up the polls – will be waiting in the wings to scoop up dissatisfied Conservatives.

It’s quite easy to feel sorry for Mr Cameron. Whichever way he now goes, it doesn’t look like a political happy ending.

Sad but hardly Unexpected.

The slow demise of the British High Street is sad, very sad indeed. But it is hardly unexpected. The last fortnight saw the loss of another three big chains - Jessops, HMV and Blockbuster – but honestly, it was only a matter of time.

Online shopping has always been a boon for agoraphobics, or people without much time on their hands. One click of a mouse and your good will be on your doorstep within 48 hours. But over the last few years its many advantages have become apparent to everyone else as well.

 Many people have waxed lyrical over many column inches about the brilliant service in HMV or the technical knowhow of the Jessops staff. But regardless of how fantastic the guys in the shop may be that doesn’t do anything to dampen the annoyance of trailing all the way into town or out to a shopping centre and discovering that the item you wanted isn’t in stock.

Online you can find this out without even having to leave your own home. You can order it and pay for it without having to change out of your pyjamas.  While you may still have to go into a shop to collect it, at least you’ll know that it’s there when you arrive.

HMV in particular is a great shop and most of my music collection comes from there. While I still know some people who like to buy physical CDs  - either for the cover art or just because a physical CD feels nicer – the majority of my friends have moved to getting their music online either from iTunes or from Spotify. There is a very good reason for this.

Even the most devoted fan of a band will not like every song that they put out. I know that there are bands where I only love a couple of songs that they do. If I want to get a specific song on my iPod I don’t want to have to pay upwards of ten pounds to get a CD in order to get that one song, while ignoring the rest. But on iTunes I can download the specific song for basically peanuts. It has nothing to do with not liking the band, or not liking music. It’s just that I don’t like everything that they do.

The High Street is a great thing. The concept of being able to do all you shopping in one trip is a great idea and it can at times make for a pretty good day out with friends. But the advantages of online – being able to check availability, comfort, speed, not having to carry it all home – will always outweigh the advantages of doing your shopping in person on the high street.

I will miss the High Street if it goes, and I do hope that something will be done to try and save it. But no-one should act surprised as if this hasn’t been coming for a very long while.

 

 

A Family Streched Far and Wide

A lot of negative things have been said about the internet and social networking at one time or another, such as it being an evil influence over children or creating a generation of young people who do not know how to function in the real world or maintain real relationships. However, very little is said about the single most important benefit of the internet.

It brings people together.

The advent of online forums and social networking sites means that people who share interests can meet to discuss whatever it is that interests them. To paraphrase a popular saying, you like Doctor Who? There’s a forum for that. And in time the relationships that began because of a shared interest in a TV show or a computer game can blossom into real, active friendships.

I had this brought home to me this morning, when I was informed of the unexpected death of an online friend. This was a person who I had never met in real life, who I had spoken to one on one only a handful of times. But it still hurt, because they were still my friend. They liked the same things I did; we appreciated the same aspects of our chosen fandom. I might never have met them, but there was still a real person behind the username.

As I mentioned above, some claim that the internet and social networking has a damaging effect on our abilities to form real solid relationships. In my opinion this statement couldn’t be more wrong. Before I came to university, some of the closest relationships that I had were with people that I met online. They showed me that it wasn’t wrong to like the things that I liked, and in fact helped me enjoy them more, because I now had someone to share them with. These were some of the first people who told me that my writing was good and that I had talent and without them I would probably not being doing the course I am doing today.

And when I was ill and stuck at home these were the people who helped make things bearable. Who offered advice and words of comfort or simply a smiley emoticon. They brought a little light into the darkest days of my life.

The public perception of the internet denizen is of someone with no friends. But again, that is completely untrue. Thanks to the internet, I have a network of friends, stretching the whole world over. Without the internet I would never have met them, nor would I be the person that I am today.

So in conclusion, I would just like to raise a toast and say goodbye to the person I mentioned earlier. I may never have met you in real life, but you were still my friend. And I will miss you.

The Do-Nothing Congress Did More!!

To say that the 112^th US congress was unpopular would be an understatement. One of the most polarised congresses in US history it is no surprise that it is also one of the most unpopular. While Democrats must of course share some of the blame, the majority of it,   must fall at the feet of the current house majority, the Republican Party.

A party which seems to be on the verge of collapse, with the vocal Tea Party minority, forcing the majority moderates to the right – through a combination of filibusters, and the threat of primary challenges – the Republican Parties attitude this congress can best be summed up by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell that the job of this congress “must be to deny President Obama a second term.” That’s right, folks. The jobs of Republicans in the 112th Congress was not to debate legislation, or pass laws or represents the people who voted for them. It was to deny the President a second term.

But nowhere was the political polarisation of the last congress more apparent than during the “fiscal cliff “ negotiations at the end of the last year. The fiscal cliff for those of you not obsessed with US politics was a set of tax rises and spending cuts that would kick in on the first of January if a deal was not reached. Was a deal reached in time?

Well yes.  But it was a retroactive deal. The deadline went sailing merrily by without a House vote, due to the unwillingness of the Republican Caucus to accept any deal put across by Democrats. Despite the fact that going over the fiscal cliff would most directly and adversely affect the middle and low income voters who put them in their seat, the Caucus refused any deal that meant higher taxes for millionaires and big businesses. They preferred letting America go over the fiscal cliff than doing right by their constituents.

The job of any politician be they an MP, a Representative or a Senator, or whatever is to serve the general public. It’s not a case of they elect you, and then you get to do what you like until the next election. You have to serve your constituency and vote and act according to both your conscience and what will affect those you serve.

In short unless you’ve actually been elected as the Representative for Koch Industries, your job is not to serve them. Your job is to serve the people of the Washington 1^st or the Colorado 5^th or whatever. While there may be times when voting with your party is the right thing to do, you should never vote in lockstep. If you think what your party is doing is wrong, then vote against them. Don’t worry about what your whips will say. Think about what you will be able to say during the next election season.

I would like to think that the 113^th Congress will be a little less partisan and a little more sensible. Unfortunately just three days into the term that seems unlikely. But we’ll see what happens.