Posted by: jdrhanson on: September 6, 2011
One radio pundit over the weekend commented that if you were a Sunday Telegraph reading Tory then last weekend’s edition was hardly worth getting out of bed for, due to the sheer quantity of bad publicity being experienced by the coalition government, and more specifically by the Conservative leadership. With criticism of the government’s planning laws, a hefty support of Nadine Dorries’ abortion amendment and talk of further aggravation between the coalition partners, one might be forgiven for thinking that David Cameron’s administration is going through something of an existential crisis. Worryingly for Ed Miliband, however, one only has to dig a little deeper to realize this is far from the truth.
Despite a persistently sluggish level of economic growth denting the government’s fiscal credibility, a precarious diplomatic situation in Libya (not to mention Syria) and the political strain of both the muddled reaction to the recent riots and the new pressure of the Lib Dems’ differentiation strategy, the government remains steadfastly united on the vast majority of issues and is even making an unexpected surge in the polls. One such survey at the weekend put the Tories just two points behind Labour, a statistic that must surely turn up the heat yet again on Ed Miliband’s tenure as leader.
I have always been of the school of thought that believes the coalition will last the distance until 2015, and similarly I have always maintained that 2011 will prove the most politically turbulent year of the parliament. Alongside May’s divisive local election and referendum results and the increased scrutiny over George Osborne’s growth plans, the year has also thrown up a multitude of unexpected dilemmas for the government to deal with. Be it the riots, the hacking scandal or divisions over the NHS, wealth taxes and free schools, the coalition has had a tricky year.
Yet remarkably it has emerged relatively unscathed. True, Cameron has developed as a less idealistic and consensual style of leader (although some may argue that is a good thing) and the component partners of the coalition have drifted further apart on key issues (similarly, not entirely negative) but they remain joined at the hip on the key issue of deficit reduction, radical on portfolios such as welfare and education and increasingly appear resilient (or at least, the Tories do) to electoral decline as their polling figures refuse to fall any lower than a highly respectable 35%. So if this really is Cameron’s lowest ebb then he’s got nothing to worry about.
Posted by: jdrhanson on: August 15, 2011
Ever since he was first elected Tory leader in 2005, David Cameron has talked of his commitment to rebuilding the culture of family values in British society. Up until now this has seemed rather fanciful, perhaps at best a cynical attempt to appease the socially conservative wing of his party, however following the recent riots and the shocking scenes of youth after youth being paraded before the courts, his obsession for restoring the traditional family finally sounds relevant.
The fact of the matter is – the vast majority of the rioters committed such crimes because they have been badly brought up. I simply do not accept that circumstances and environment alone dictate the moral make-up of people, as the vast majority of hard-pressed inner-city kids have a strong sense of ethics despite having endured under-privileged beginnings. The problem arises from bad parenting, which can occur among any of the classes, but is particularly prevalent where a child is born, to use a crude term, as an accident (by a young mother who failed to have protected sex and declined the option of an abortion). In such circumstances the parents (or more commonly, the parent) are hideously unprepared for bringing up a child.
They may be able to provide love on the most basic level, but without a present father many of their children will lack a crucial paternal influence. Additionally, these parents, often as young as 14 or 15 will not have finished developing into adults themselves. It is worrying to even consider the fact that many of the rioters last week will have been young mothers and fathers themselves, however this has been proven to be the case. I simply do not accept that a teenager is socially developed enough to raise a child as well as somebody ten years older. On top of this, a young parent who is often still in education and may be some way off earning a stable wage is in no financial position to cover the cost of raising a child.
The solution to this is often over-complicated. Rather than address the absence of father figures by promoting community leaders to replace biological dads or tackle the problems of under-age sex by developing young peoples’ self esteem, the focus needs to be on driving down the number of teenage pregnancies. Now, I do not propose some radical injection of social conservatism in which teenage sex is discouraged, because the fact of the matter is kids will always have sex and as the years go by they’ll probably engage in even more of it. The challenge is making sure that they are properly protected so as to prevent impregnation in the first place. It is here that we need simple but radical solutions such as a far greater amount of sex education in our schools, a social encouragement of contraceptive use, and a far greater amount of abortions where a teenager does become pregnant.
Finally, we must stop glamourising single mothers to the extent that many young girls become fearless of the prospect of teenage impregnation. Of course society must support and sympathise with parents who become single mothers or fathers after the birth of their child, through a death, divorce or separation. However we must actively discourage the birth of any child (with a few notable exceptions) who may enter the world without both parents present.
David Cameron has a chance to implement real change, but he must use socially liberal means to achieve a socially conservative end.
Posted by: jdrhanson on: May 27, 2010
When Vince Cable resigned yesterday as Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats, he claimed he was doing so to ‘focus’ on his role as Business Secretary. Fair enough, but what he has delivered is actually a blessing in disguise for a party in limbo. To tell the truth, the Lib Dems have spent their entire 22 year existence as a divided entity. For years, they have papered over the cracks of the ideological split that runs through them, hoping that by the time they actually have power to exercise the divisions that remain from the Liberal/SDP merger of 1988 will be forgotten. They have not. And worse still, they have obtained power in the unlikeliest of ways (a coalition with the Conservatives) far sooner than even the most optimistic party loyalist could have imagined. The result of this is unprecedented strain on the split that is best embodied by the two components of the party’s name, on the one hand, the ‘Liberals’ and on the other, the ‘Democrats’.
Let’s start with the ‘Liberals’. Nick Clegg himself is perhaps the best embodiment of this free-market approach to politics. The Liberals represent the right of the party, and sit firmly in the centre-ground of British politics. They take a pragmatic approach of policy (hence the hasty marriage of convenience with the Tories) and, rather like a Liberal fore father John Locke, view tolerance as a pragmatic response to diversity. The publication of the ‘Orange book’ in 2004 symbolized the re-emergence of this wing of the party, and having spent years ‘to the left of Labour’ under Charles Kennedy’s leadership, Nick Clegg’s election in 2007 embodied, at least, a minor shift towards the classical liberal model. It is little surprise that it is a contributor to the ‘Orange book’ – David Laws, who has been handed the job of George Osborne’s hatchet man in the new cabinet.
On the other side of the divide, the fiercely democratic remnants of the SDP remain keen to stay firmly on the left of British politics. Best embodied by the likes of Chris Huhne and Simon Hughes, it was this contingent of social democrats who were most resistant to the coalition with the Conservatives, and it was this grouping who insisted on preserving the party doctrine of gaining the approval of every man and his dog before entering into such a pact. Traditionally, the ‘savage cuts’ of Clegg have been a far cry from the tax and spend ethos of the party’s left wing. Scrapping trident, the mansion tax and opposition of nuclear power are all bastions of this particular ideological sect.
This divide conjures up a problem for the party. On the one hand, some might argue that every party has its own internal divisions, and this is true. However, whereas the other major parties contain divisions within one key political philosophy (conservatism, socialism etc), the Lib Dems are a party with members from two different ideologies – liberalism and social democracy and one must question the staying power of a political force so deeply split. So heading into this summer’s deputy leadership contest, the party has a chance to decide what exactly it stands for. Will it elect an ‘orange’ who will cow-tow to Clegg’s pragmatic opportunism, or will they keep him in check by electing a candidate of the left. The decision (and the division) is theirs.
Posted by: jdrhanson on: May 17, 2010
Trust – it’s a two way thing. So when Cleggeron talk about ‘new politics’ they do not simply mean reforming the voting system, coalition governments and fixed term parliaments, they mean restoring the bond of trust between the electors and the elected. Their task could not be harder.
Why? Because more than anything the one thing for which the New Labour government was unquestionably guilty of was destroying the trust that the public have in politicians. However, the trust did not evaporate because of the expenses scandal – for allegations of corruption and sleaze have for centuries been an essential component of British politics, neither is it due to the way in which Tony Blair betrayed the very principles upon which the Labour Party was constructed in order to turn his operation into an election winning machine, not even the fact that Blair mislead the British people on major international issues such as the Iraq war. Rather, the age old trust which has now disintegrated did so due to the hideous lack of trust shown in return by the government. As I outlined in my opening, trust is a mutual feeling or it is nothing.
The United Kingdom it 2010 is more centralized than at any other point in the history of our nation. Devolution may have been one of the first acts of the Blair years, but it disguised the transferal of real power in the opposite direction. In every corner of the public sector, government interference has never been stronger. Targets, risk assessments and databases are now the day to day requirements of vocations such as teaching and nursing, thanks entirely to the centralized suspicion upon which New Labour revolved. It used to be said that socialists had an optimistic view of human nature, free from the fear of Thomas Hobbes’ ‘perpetual state of warre’. Yet more than its pro-capitalist economic policy or protectionist view of Britain’s status in global affairs, the New Labour project betrayed its fore fathers more fundamentally in its comprehensive distrust of the people who put it in power.
With its unelected spin doctors, cynical approach to public relations, roll call of government databases, removal of powers from teachers and nurses, restrictions on the authority of local councils, expansion of public surveillance, fear of public consultation on major constitutional and humanitarian issues such as the Lisbon Treaty and the Iraq War, even the patronizing proposition of home information packs, the past 13 years has been the most distrusting period of government in British history. Perhaps this is because ever since the election of Tony Blair as party leader in 1994, Labour used the proletariat as a means of obtaining power rather than a reason for exercising it.
If a government is to retain the trust of the public, it must show them trust in return. Successive Labour Prime Ministers failed to grasp this, and as such faith and respect for politics is at an all time low. So of course the rose-petaled love-in between Dave and Nick is a highly cynical ploy, and undoubtedly there will be horrific examples of deceit and dishonesty in the next 5 years of coalition government, but at least this new agreement is one based on freedom and the restoration of civil liberties, and for that we can be eternally grateful. The bond of faith between the government and its people can be, for now, at least partially restored.
Trust – it’s a two way thing. Learn that and Labour can return to government, ignore it and they will be consigned to opposition forever.
Posted by: jdrhanson on: May 10, 2010
In recent years it has been suggested that a political party must have a complete face transplant, rejuvenating its image with the simple election of a newer, younger leader if the old brand is to be made electable again. Ted Heath was symbolic of the Conservative Party’s move away from the Old Etonian set that dominated in the 1950s, and the grammar school boy returned the Tories to government in 1970. Similarly, Tony Blair’s distinct grasp of estuary English endeared him to middle England, and thus earned him the keys to number 10. Then of course, there is David Cameron, who quite openly accepts the title ‘the heir to Blair’ and who is still trying to drag his antiquated party kicking and screaming into the 21st century and the PR demands that it entails.
Yet with Labour so comprehensively rejected at the polls last week, is there a need for another Blair-esque re-boot? No. If the problem was simply Gordon Brown’s dour demeanor then the likes of the Milibands would have followed the calls of Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt back in January and given the Labour brand the last minute lick of paint it required. They held firm because they new the truth was grimmer. After 13 years of abandoning its core socialist values, and with the sheer scale of the deficit putting an end to any hopes of continuing the great spend of the Blair years, Labour has run out of ideas. It seemed throughout the campaign that the only policies they felt worthy of promotion (that is when they weren’t attacking the Tories) were the child tax credits and their deathbed conversion to the mildest form of proportional representation.
If that was their offer to the British people, it is little wonder that it was declined. The truth is, unlike the Tories in 1997, image is not the issue, it is the substance. Labour’s favourite attack on David Cameron is his lack of policies, and there is some foundation in that claim, but the Conservative leader has always had ideas, a vision, a great Utopian dream of ‘the big society’. By contrast, Labour has never run out of policies, simply any coherent vision.
So for those bearers of the red flag who hope simply that the debating capacities of David Miliband or the mild-mannered character of Alan Johnson will be enough to return them to power, they are misguided. What is needed is not a face transplant, but a lobotomy, and they can be hard to come by.
Posted by: jdrhanson on: May 9, 2010
The talks continue as the prospect of a formal Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition hangs in the balance, but one thing is certain – whether or not electoral reform is offered, there is enough already on the table to convince Nick Clegg to accept, whether or not it pleases his party.
Of course, the idea of the Liberal Democrats rolling over without any discussion over electoral reform is a non-starter. His reaction to yesterday’s ‘fair votes’ demonstration clearly shows that Nick Clegg is aware of the pressure he is under to insist upon at least a referendum on a form of proportional representation. However, Clegg like Cameron is a pragmatist, and although he is a strong supporter of PR, he is not unbreakably married to it. We know that the Tories have offered three cabinet seats to the Lib Dems: Home Secretary (Clegg); Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Vince Cable) and Secretary of State for Transport (probably David Laws), and in politics, nothing persuades like power.
For generations, not a single Liberal has sat around the cabinet table, and after a disappointing election night for Nick Clegg, the prospect of coming out of it presiding over one of the great offices of state, may be too tempting to turn down.
The reality is, the Conservatives can only be pushed so far. They are more than willing to form a minority government should the talks break down, and with a rainbow ‘progressive’ coalition looking increasingly unfeasible, the Liberal Democrat leader knows that a failure to agree a deal at a time of economic instability could lead to his party being severely punished at another election within the next 18 months. Therefore, how strong is Clegg’s hand? The truth is – not very.
So it is with that in mind that Clegg will know that the post of Home Secretary, even if he only holds it for a matter of months, could be the high-point of his political career. Nothing persuades like power, and Nick Clegg will likely put party principle second. Get ready to welcome Home Secretary Clegg.
Posted by: jdrhanson on: May 9, 2010
Gordon Brown’s infamous claim that there would be no more ‘boom and bust’ could well be his epitaph. The spectacular short sightedness of the claim has now been exposed, and economically the claim does not stand up. However, there is another type of ‘boom and bust’ that he has managed to confine to history – the boom of one political party dominating government for decades, followed by the bust of years and years in the political wilderness.
The last 30 years have been remarkable for the fact that during that time, there was only one occasion (1997) when a new party entered government. For 18 years, the UK knew only Conservative dominance, with the efforts of Thatcher appearing to once and for all establish Britain’s oldest party as ‘the natural party of government’. However, come 1997 the party looked on the verge of extinction – the boom was over and the bust was very much apparent. The Sun headline at the time of the 1999 Tory conference summed up the pain of this particular low point in the party’s time in the wilderness: ‘This party is no more…it has ceased to be…this is an ex-party. Cause of death: suicide.’
Yet whilst the Conservative Party was feeding off its own life-support machine, Tony Blair’s rejuvenated ‘New’ Labour was booming like it never had before. The depths of 1983 seemed but a distant memory, and with their main opposition seemingly unelectable, many must have thought their grasp on power could never end. However, as every physicist knows, what goes up must come down, and three days ago, the Labour party very much came down – losing almost 100 seats as Gordon Brown’s premiership was well and truly rejected.
However, this is no 1997. The Labour Party may have been ousted but they do not face the wilderness years experienced by Foot, Kinnock and Smith. Perhaps this is because Labour have had only 13 years to exhaust the electorate, as opposed to the 18 of Thatcher and Major, however more likely, the apparent lack of a new Conservative boom is down to the ghost of ’97. The British public are no fools. Never before had the people placed so much faith in one man than they did with Tony Blair in 1997, and never before has the hope and opportunity been extinguished so unceremoniously. In other words, they may be content to see Labour go bust, but they will not sanction a Cameron boom, for they have been stung by the legacy of Blair.
Back in 1997, the country was aware that the political landscape had changed for years to come. Now, in May 2010, with David Cameron on the verge of stepping into Downing Street, the future is less certain. Whenever the next election is: October 2010; May 2011 or even May 2015 – there is no certainty that Cameron will win it. The after taste of Blair and Brown has convinced the people never again to allow so much power to rest in the hands of so few, for so long.
So did Gordon Brown really end ‘boom and bust’? Well, in a way, he did, and we are better for it.
Posted by: jdrhanson on: May 9, 2010
‘A new dawn has broken, has it not?’ – The words of Tony Blair as the New Labour era was ushered in thirteen years ago. So it is with these words that I launch my own personal political blog, The Hanson Account, just days after the remnants of that New Labour experiment were so comprehensively rejected by the British public.
As a 17 year old politics student from Bristol, I have decided that the only way to get my view heard is by entering the flooded market that is the political blogosphere. I can only hope that this particular account of UK political events is in some small way perceptive to somebody out there! I will try not to make it purely a soap box for my personal views and pet causes, but of course I have no doubt it’ll turn into that soon enough! And what are my political beliefs? Well I’ll let you find out for yourself, but I’ll try to make this blog as impartial as possible.
