Originally published on The Bubble Columns, available here.
Unless you hid under a rock for the first six months of this year, you’ll know that elections can be complicated things. What always amazes me is that, largely thanks to the media, the political issues themselves usually matter less than the people who argue about them, and both are subject to copious levels of spin. In Britain this spring almost every billboard in every town featured a party leader staring down at us beside some sort of slogan explaining why they were either Satan’s lovechild or God’s gift; party political broadcasts costing more than Ireland’s current bank balance begged us not to condemn our country to the other parties’ reigns of terror; Facebook and Twitter became political weapons. Thank God, most of us said, we didn’t have TV adverts as well.
If you’ve seen any of those cringe-worthy American adverts where an ‘authoritative, genuine family man’ type talks about how his values make him different, you’ll understand just how painful that could have been with, say, Gordon Brown. But there is an alternative path for political TV advertising, and the Spanish have demonstrated that it can make you shudder for entirely different reasons. According to a new advert by the Young Socialists for the regional elections in Catalonia, “Voting is a pleasure”: so much so that the young voter actually has an orgasm.
You’d never see that in the middle of Emmerdale, now, would you?
Responses have, predictably, varied. Alicia Sanchez-Camacho, candidate for the conservative Popular Party of Catalonia, called it an “attack on the dignity of women”. Even within the Socialist Party of Catalonia, opinion is divided: health minister Leire Pajin called for responsibility and respect for women from all political parties, while the leader Jose Montilla (who is standing for re-election) supported the ad claiming that “if it encourages people to vote, it’s a good thing”. Honourable mentions must go to Socialist equality minister Bibiana Aido, whose biggest concern was not the ad’s potential sexism or suggestive content, but deception: “If it was true, electoral participation would go up greatly, but I think we are dealing with a misleading advert.” Still, the best response by a country mile came from Joan Herrera, leader of the Green coalition in Catalonia, who admitted it would be “very difficult to reach orgasm voting for any of the candidates, myself included”. Honesty is the best policy, I suppose.
I don’t think I need to explain why this is my favourite news story of the week. But the best thing about this advert is that it isn’t the only controversy of this election. Sanchez-Camacho, who was so critical of the ad, is probably glad the electorate have someone else to focus on: a videogame which depicted her flying on the back of a seagull and bombing immigrants as recently removed from her party’s website. Yes, you did read that correctly. The game was removed after a few hours amid party claims that the developers had made a mistake – the bombs were apparently meant to fall on the gangs who traffic the immigrants into Spain – but only after the website had crashed due to overwhelming popularity (and you thought Call of Duty was serious). On the same day another candidate, Montse Nebrera, appeared in only a towel at the end of an ad which seems close to soft porn; before that the Catalan Solidarity for Independence Party recruited a porn star to appear at their rallies. It’s starting to look like the candidates are in a race to get their whole campaigns banned for offensive content.
I’m the first person to advocate increasing political participation. My thoughts have always been that apathy is so serious in so many countries, including Britain, with young and minority demographics presenting the lowest electoral turnouts, that it makes sense to use every available medium to engage them in public affairs – but I meant Facebook and education, not porn and prejudice. Catalonia’s election campaigns are symptomatic of a failure becoming endemic in Western societies: something is going very wrong when people are so disinterested in political affairs that officials have to use sex and xenophobic shoot-em-ups to lure them in, or, when officials think they need to use them because they don’t think people will respond to anything else. If it’s the former, we need to ask ourselves why we’re not more interested in our rights, but politicians should also think about why people care so little; someone, after all, is to blame for our disillusionment with politics. If it’s the second option which is true and the officials are right, that’s a damning indictment. If they’re wrong, people who misunderstand their voters to that extent shouldn’t be representing them.
Above all, I just don’t see how it will work. If parties and activists want to encourage people to vote, they need to do it by making them aware of issues and how they will affect people’s everyday lives, so that they can form opinions and act on them. Otherwise, no amount of misleading sexual advertising or look-at-us-we’re-down-with-the-kids-homie games will fill the apathetic void at the heart of most modern democracies.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, 24 November 2010
Wednesday, 17 November 2010
The Bubble Columns: The Renault Zoe and the Zoe Renaults
Originally published in The Bubble Columns, available online here.
There’s a classic series of books called The Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams in which one of the major characters, a visiting alien, had “skimped a bit on his preparatory research” and chosen what he believed would be a nice, inconspicuous name. Ford Prefect only realised after choosing this name that it was actually one of the most popular cars in Britain. As Adams joked in later interviews, he’d “simply mistaken the dominant life form”.
That’s all very well if you’re from a small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse, but for we terrestrial beings it may not always be so funny. At least that’s the claim of the lawyers in a recent court case in France, where the parents of two girls called Zoe Renault have just lost a legal challenge to prevent Renault from naming a new electric car… yep, you guessed it.
The two families have argued that their daughters – and to an extent all women with the same name – could be subject to a lifetime of mockery for sharing the name of a car, beginning with playground teasing and developing into comments in bars along the lines of “Can I see your airbags?” and “Can I shine your bumper?” (at which point, I hope, there were repressed giggles around the courtroom). David Koubbi, representing the families, told the Associated Press that “There’s a line between living things and inanimate objects” which is defined by the first name: the simple message for Renault was “first names are for humans”.
It’s a message, however, which has fallen on deaf ears. The all-electric Zoe ZE (Zero Emission), expected to be launched in 2012, was apparently named for the original Greek, meaning “life”, to emphasize the car’s environmental credentials. In his ruling, the judge accepted that for this reason, the word was simply a common noun, rather than a name; he also saw no evidence that it would cause the girls “certain, direct and current harm”. Koubbi claims that this logic is perverse, and the families intend to appeal the ruling as soon as possible.
The same lawyer is representing other Zoes across France attempting to challenge the name, claiming that it impinges their rights. A 23-year-old Zoe Renault told Le Parisien earlier this year that she couldn’t bear to be associated with the car for the rest of her life and hear such sarcastic remarks as “Zoe’s broken down again” or “we need to get Zoe overhauled”. The question is: are all these Zoes being overly sensitive?
Names are a part of our identity. They’re one of the ways that we separate ourselves from everyone else, and central to our sense of self. The connotations of our names will follow us around too, especially if they include a level of irony or humour. I, for example, am from Yorkshire, and my surname is also a cake, traditionally associated with said motherland and eaten on bonfire night. A cake I can’t stand, which is apparently mildly amusing to a few people. Zoe Renault is considerably more obvious, and after a while the mockery would conceivably begin to be irksome.
In addition, France as a nation takes names very seriously – until not so long ago parents were legally required to choose from a list of agreed, acceptable children’s names (probably to preserve the French nomenclature from the evil influence of Anglo-Saxon). This is no longer the case, but officials can argue against parental choices if they feel it may result in the child’s harm or ridicule: perhaps one day Zoe Renault could become one such name.
Still, perhaps the time, effort, expense and above all , the added publicity involved in a legal challenge just isn’t worth it. Parents attempting to protect their children are one thing, but the adult Zoes? In announcing to the whole world that you’re so sensitive to mockery that you would go to court to prevent any potential for it, you leave yourself open to so many people who enjoy poking fun at people just to get a reaction. Anyway, as a reason to tease someone, isn’t “the one who didn’t want a car named after them” just as bad as “the one with the car named after them”?
Naming machinery, be it cars, ships, or Eddie Stobart lorries after women is nothing new. Now, whilst I would have the deepest sympathy for a little girl called Titanic, at least Zoe Renaults across France won’t have to listen to jibes about their carbon emissions. Their electric personalities, however, may still be fair game.
There’s a classic series of books called The Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams in which one of the major characters, a visiting alien, had “skimped a bit on his preparatory research” and chosen what he believed would be a nice, inconspicuous name. Ford Prefect only realised after choosing this name that it was actually one of the most popular cars in Britain. As Adams joked in later interviews, he’d “simply mistaken the dominant life form”.
That’s all very well if you’re from a small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse, but for we terrestrial beings it may not always be so funny. At least that’s the claim of the lawyers in a recent court case in France, where the parents of two girls called Zoe Renault have just lost a legal challenge to prevent Renault from naming a new electric car… yep, you guessed it.
The two families have argued that their daughters – and to an extent all women with the same name – could be subject to a lifetime of mockery for sharing the name of a car, beginning with playground teasing and developing into comments in bars along the lines of “Can I see your airbags?” and “Can I shine your bumper?” (at which point, I hope, there were repressed giggles around the courtroom). David Koubbi, representing the families, told the Associated Press that “There’s a line between living things and inanimate objects” which is defined by the first name: the simple message for Renault was “first names are for humans”.
It’s a message, however, which has fallen on deaf ears. The all-electric Zoe ZE (Zero Emission), expected to be launched in 2012, was apparently named for the original Greek, meaning “life”, to emphasize the car’s environmental credentials. In his ruling, the judge accepted that for this reason, the word was simply a common noun, rather than a name; he also saw no evidence that it would cause the girls “certain, direct and current harm”. Koubbi claims that this logic is perverse, and the families intend to appeal the ruling as soon as possible.
The same lawyer is representing other Zoes across France attempting to challenge the name, claiming that it impinges their rights. A 23-year-old Zoe Renault told Le Parisien earlier this year that she couldn’t bear to be associated with the car for the rest of her life and hear such sarcastic remarks as “Zoe’s broken down again” or “we need to get Zoe overhauled”. The question is: are all these Zoes being overly sensitive?
Names are a part of our identity. They’re one of the ways that we separate ourselves from everyone else, and central to our sense of self. The connotations of our names will follow us around too, especially if they include a level of irony or humour. I, for example, am from Yorkshire, and my surname is also a cake, traditionally associated with said motherland and eaten on bonfire night. A cake I can’t stand, which is apparently mildly amusing to a few people. Zoe Renault is considerably more obvious, and after a while the mockery would conceivably begin to be irksome.
In addition, France as a nation takes names very seriously – until not so long ago parents were legally required to choose from a list of agreed, acceptable children’s names (probably to preserve the French nomenclature from the evil influence of Anglo-Saxon). This is no longer the case, but officials can argue against parental choices if they feel it may result in the child’s harm or ridicule: perhaps one day Zoe Renault could become one such name.
Still, perhaps the time, effort, expense and above all , the added publicity involved in a legal challenge just isn’t worth it. Parents attempting to protect their children are one thing, but the adult Zoes? In announcing to the whole world that you’re so sensitive to mockery that you would go to court to prevent any potential for it, you leave yourself open to so many people who enjoy poking fun at people just to get a reaction. Anyway, as a reason to tease someone, isn’t “the one who didn’t want a car named after them” just as bad as “the one with the car named after them”?
Naming machinery, be it cars, ships, or Eddie Stobart lorries after women is nothing new. Now, whilst I would have the deepest sympathy for a little girl called Titanic, at least Zoe Renaults across France won’t have to listen to jibes about their carbon emissions. Their electric personalities, however, may still be fair game.
Wednesday, 27 October 2010
The Bubble Columns: Are Miniskirts Anti-Social?
Originally published online in The Bubble Columns, available here.
In Britain, anti-social behaviour is the word on everybody’s lips. Whether you’re an elderly person raving for the return of national service, a young person wearing a hoodie and wondering why the security guards have such suspicious looks on their faces, or a politician pretending that you actually know what to do about the problem, the chances are that you’re somehow caught up in the national debate about how to deal with it. Still, it could be worse – you could live in Italy.
New powers handed down by Silvio Berlusconi’s government to combat what is deemed to be anti-social behaviour are being used in the seaside city of Castellammare di Stabia to ban revealing clothing, from miniskirts to low-cut jeans. Fantastically named mayor Luigi Bobbio claims that his policy is designed to “restore urban decorum and facilitate better civil co-existence”, enforcing what he perceives as standards of public decency across the city. Offenders could face fines between 25 and 500 euros.
This raises the question: exactly what is so anti-social about a miniskirt? If I can see what the wearer had for breakfast, chances are I’ll cringe on their behalf, but that’s just because it doesn’t look good. That said, I do appreciate that skimpy outfits may engender disapproval from certain people, but so does saying something they disagree with. They’re just different forms of expression, and just as the disapproval of others does not detract from your right to say something, nor does it detract from your right to wear something (even if you are Lady Gaga). And this is coming from someone who literally lives in jeans.
Issues of anti-social behaviour are apparently not the only ones behind this policy: a local parish priest has supported the plans, suggesting that they would also help fight the rise in sexual harassment. To think, here I was, “going all feminist” and thinking that was caused by outdated attitudes regarding the objectification of the opposite sex. Clearly, they all just need to stop turning their harassers on – and they say politics never solves anything.
Beyond this instance, though, there’s a deeper problem about the interpretation of the law. Across Italy other local authorities have used these powers to ban wooden clogs, feeding stray cats, kissing in cars, sandcastles and the use of lawnmowers at weekends, none of which exactly strike me as being anti-social. Granted, wearing wooden clogs in public will probably prevent people wanting to socialise with you, but surely the only authorities who need to worry are the fashion police? I know from experience that the noise of someone mowing the lawn outside almost perfectly blocks out the sound of Songs of Praise on a Sunday afternoon – that sort of kindness deserves a medal, not prosecution.
It seems to me that decisions are being taken which fit the specifics, but go against the whole spirit and intention of the law – unless, of course, you’re planning on hiding some sort of weapon under your bucket, or beating someone with your spade. Given Italy’s economic ills and numerous other problems, some authorities seem to have rather unusual priorities.
Banning revealing clothing is far from the worst thing authorities can do, but it does seem a rather unnecessary step in the fight against anti-social behaviour. Of course, the greatest irony is that the power to do so was handed down from Silvio Berlusconi, a man whose reputation suggests that he won’t be jumping for joy about it himself. In any case, we’ll soon find out how many people heed the ban – the fines can always go towards repairing the economy…
In Britain, anti-social behaviour is the word on everybody’s lips. Whether you’re an elderly person raving for the return of national service, a young person wearing a hoodie and wondering why the security guards have such suspicious looks on their faces, or a politician pretending that you actually know what to do about the problem, the chances are that you’re somehow caught up in the national debate about how to deal with it. Still, it could be worse – you could live in Italy.
New powers handed down by Silvio Berlusconi’s government to combat what is deemed to be anti-social behaviour are being used in the seaside city of Castellammare di Stabia to ban revealing clothing, from miniskirts to low-cut jeans. Fantastically named mayor Luigi Bobbio claims that his policy is designed to “restore urban decorum and facilitate better civil co-existence”, enforcing what he perceives as standards of public decency across the city. Offenders could face fines between 25 and 500 euros.
This raises the question: exactly what is so anti-social about a miniskirt? If I can see what the wearer had for breakfast, chances are I’ll cringe on their behalf, but that’s just because it doesn’t look good. That said, I do appreciate that skimpy outfits may engender disapproval from certain people, but so does saying something they disagree with. They’re just different forms of expression, and just as the disapproval of others does not detract from your right to say something, nor does it detract from your right to wear something (even if you are Lady Gaga). And this is coming from someone who literally lives in jeans.
Issues of anti-social behaviour are apparently not the only ones behind this policy: a local parish priest has supported the plans, suggesting that they would also help fight the rise in sexual harassment. To think, here I was, “going all feminist” and thinking that was caused by outdated attitudes regarding the objectification of the opposite sex. Clearly, they all just need to stop turning their harassers on – and they say politics never solves anything.
Beyond this instance, though, there’s a deeper problem about the interpretation of the law. Across Italy other local authorities have used these powers to ban wooden clogs, feeding stray cats, kissing in cars, sandcastles and the use of lawnmowers at weekends, none of which exactly strike me as being anti-social. Granted, wearing wooden clogs in public will probably prevent people wanting to socialise with you, but surely the only authorities who need to worry are the fashion police? I know from experience that the noise of someone mowing the lawn outside almost perfectly blocks out the sound of Songs of Praise on a Sunday afternoon – that sort of kindness deserves a medal, not prosecution.
It seems to me that decisions are being taken which fit the specifics, but go against the whole spirit and intention of the law – unless, of course, you’re planning on hiding some sort of weapon under your bucket, or beating someone with your spade. Given Italy’s economic ills and numerous other problems, some authorities seem to have rather unusual priorities.
Banning revealing clothing is far from the worst thing authorities can do, but it does seem a rather unnecessary step in the fight against anti-social behaviour. Of course, the greatest irony is that the power to do so was handed down from Silvio Berlusconi, a man whose reputation suggests that he won’t be jumping for joy about it himself. In any case, we’ll soon find out how many people heed the ban – the fines can always go towards repairing the economy…
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
The Bubble Columns- President Cowboy
Originally published online in The Bubble Columns, available here.
You may not have heard of Robert Burck. You may not care about his politics. But if you’ve been to New York, you may know him as the Naked Cowboy. The busker has been entertaining the masses with the strategic aid of Y-fronts, Stetson and guitar long enough to be part of the city’s furniture- but it would appear he has aspirations to more than just his local fame. He’s standing for office.
Yes, you read that correctly. Burck has cut his hair and not only dressed but suited up to announce his intention to run for President. He plans to run as a candidate for staunchly conservative, anti-establishment activists the Tea Party. He also insists there will be nothing “cowboy” about his policies. And no, I did not make that up.
Despite such questions as “Are you wearing a codpiece?” and numerous enquiries as to the location of his usual Y-fronts, Burck insisted that there was “no time for games” when announcing his plans at a news conference in New York. Apparently, "America is rapidly transforming into a government-run enterprise… American politicians are selling out America and its most cherished institution, that being capitalism." His policies, he also declared, will include the closure of America’s borders, the abolition of trade unions for government workers and compulsory drug tests for welfare claimants. Human rights, it would appear, he’ll worry about later.
It makes sense that economic views like his would align with the Tea Party- a loose group of right-wing activists formed amid a swell of protest at government bail-outs of failing companies such as banks and insurers, objecting to what they perceive as the erosion of capitalist society (which is, of course, perfect, and never did anyone any harm). Most Republicans, they feel, have become too moderate. Though the Tea Party is steadfastly focussed on economic policy, many members are deeply socially conservative too, and Burck’s ideology is likely to appeal in this regard as well.
What’s more, there’s a strong desire within the group to bring fresh blood into politics and throw out many of the old, established faces. For all his attempts to get serious, someone known as being so different to the mostly sombre, complacent and indeed clothed past inhabitants of the White House appeals to the same vein of rebellion that made Brits get Killing In The Name to Christmas number 1 (what was that about doing what they told you, again?)
Living in the country which produced the Monster Raving Loony Party, bizarre politics is a part of life. I’m endlessly entertained by Boris Johnson. America’s political celebrity culture is far more pronounced than Britain’s, but I didn’t even lose the will to live when Paris Hilton attempted to stand for President (though if I were American, that may not have been the case). Burck’s career change is a classic case of what I termed in last week’s column the “Schwarzenegger effect”: a (sort of) celebrity using his (sort of) fame to propel him to (unlikely) political success. He’s sort of like a cross between the bloke with the accordion on Framwellgate Bridge and Kilroy, but with a better tan.
The Naked Cowboy has clearly harboured political aspirations for a while- he announced plans to run for Mayor of New York before dropping out of the race in 2009. Maybe he thought about the incumbent Michael Bloomberg and decided that that town wasn’t big enough for the both of them. In any case, it will be interesting to see how he does in his campaign- though Obama, despite his current problems, is still looking good for a second term, this is the nation that voted George Dubya Bush into office (well, debatably- right, Florida?), and the Killing in the Name effect can be powerful. He might not stroll into Washington, but he may do better than we expect.
You may not have heard of Robert Burck. You may not care about his politics. But if you’ve been to New York, you may know him as the Naked Cowboy. The busker has been entertaining the masses with the strategic aid of Y-fronts, Stetson and guitar long enough to be part of the city’s furniture- but it would appear he has aspirations to more than just his local fame. He’s standing for office.
Yes, you read that correctly. Burck has cut his hair and not only dressed but suited up to announce his intention to run for President. He plans to run as a candidate for staunchly conservative, anti-establishment activists the Tea Party. He also insists there will be nothing “cowboy” about his policies. And no, I did not make that up.
Despite such questions as “Are you wearing a codpiece?” and numerous enquiries as to the location of his usual Y-fronts, Burck insisted that there was “no time for games” when announcing his plans at a news conference in New York. Apparently, "America is rapidly transforming into a government-run enterprise… American politicians are selling out America and its most cherished institution, that being capitalism." His policies, he also declared, will include the closure of America’s borders, the abolition of trade unions for government workers and compulsory drug tests for welfare claimants. Human rights, it would appear, he’ll worry about later.
It makes sense that economic views like his would align with the Tea Party- a loose group of right-wing activists formed amid a swell of protest at government bail-outs of failing companies such as banks and insurers, objecting to what they perceive as the erosion of capitalist society (which is, of course, perfect, and never did anyone any harm). Most Republicans, they feel, have become too moderate. Though the Tea Party is steadfastly focussed on economic policy, many members are deeply socially conservative too, and Burck’s ideology is likely to appeal in this regard as well.
What’s more, there’s a strong desire within the group to bring fresh blood into politics and throw out many of the old, established faces. For all his attempts to get serious, someone known as being so different to the mostly sombre, complacent and indeed clothed past inhabitants of the White House appeals to the same vein of rebellion that made Brits get Killing In The Name to Christmas number 1 (what was that about doing what they told you, again?)
Living in the country which produced the Monster Raving Loony Party, bizarre politics is a part of life. I’m endlessly entertained by Boris Johnson. America’s political celebrity culture is far more pronounced than Britain’s, but I didn’t even lose the will to live when Paris Hilton attempted to stand for President (though if I were American, that may not have been the case). Burck’s career change is a classic case of what I termed in last week’s column the “Schwarzenegger effect”: a (sort of) celebrity using his (sort of) fame to propel him to (unlikely) political success. He’s sort of like a cross between the bloke with the accordion on Framwellgate Bridge and Kilroy, but with a better tan.
The Naked Cowboy has clearly harboured political aspirations for a while- he announced plans to run for Mayor of New York before dropping out of the race in 2009. Maybe he thought about the incumbent Michael Bloomberg and decided that that town wasn’t big enough for the both of them. In any case, it will be interesting to see how he does in his campaign- though Obama, despite his current problems, is still looking good for a second term, this is the nation that voted George Dubya Bush into office (well, debatably- right, Florida?), and the Killing in the Name effect can be powerful. He might not stroll into Washington, but he may do better than we expect.
Wednesday, 13 October 2010
The Bubble Columns: The Cult of Putin
Orignially published on my column in The Bubble, available here.
My favourite piece of news this week may not have been the most publicised, but it was definitely among the strangest. A group of journalism students at Moscow State University, in praise of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on his 58th birthday, have produced an erotic calendar featuring female students. Positioned next to such captions as “You put out forest fires, but I’m still burning” (sexy, I know), the girls are pouting and wearing lingerie in the “Vladimir Vladimirovich, we love you” calendar which will apparently be sold in Moscow supermarkets.
I admit from the outset that I’m no expert on Russian politics, but I know that it can seem weird at the best of times. Putin has published his own calendars featuring his shirtless self on horseback, at the controls of a helicopter, and in other generally manly poses, and it’s well known that he is still unbelievably popular. After his two terms as President, under Russian law he could not stand for a third - so he ran for Prime Minister, won by a good margin, and has proceeded to act as the power behind the presidency ever since. Since he’s eligible to run for President again in 2012, Miss February’s (supposedly) suggestive slogan “How about a third time?” shows that he’ll definitely get at least one vote.
Can you imagine a bunch of Labour activists doing this for Gordon Brown? “How about another term, but this time we vote for you?” Russia appears to have allowed Putin to put himself on a pedestal right at the pinnacle of celebrity culture. The question is, whether it’s his political status that keeps him famous, or his fame that keeps him so popular in politics (affectionately known as the Schwarzenegger effect). The former is possible - he has a reputation for strength and resilience and plays on nationalist tendencies effectively, holding his own against Europe and the USA. If the latter is true, he’s approximately a sex-tape away from world domination. It’s probably a mixture of the two, but if the next suspect link your mate sends you is entitled “One Night in Vladimir” you should be very worried.
Less surprising was the response to the calendar - in fact, I’m surprised it wasn’t produced first: another group of female students have made a calendar of their own. “Vladimir Vladimirovich, we have some questions…” instead features girls posing with tape over their mouths in protest at the alleged silencing of political dissidents. Captions included “Who killed Anna Politkovskaya?” referring to the unexplained death of the journalist, one of the Kremlin’s loudest critics, four years ago. Not quite as good a present for poor Vladimir, but probably quite important.
It’s easy to laugh so much at Putin’s idolisation that we forget the dissent he faces. Alleged political assassinations, illegal detention and the regime of a former KGB man do seem to fit unsettlingly together. The bizarre 2006 murder by radiation poisoning (of all things?) of Alexander Litvinenko in London is one of many controversies which has refused to fade away - especially since Litvinenko had sought asylum in Britain, after accusing his superiors in the secret service of such murders; significantly, he had named Putin himself as having ordered Politkovskaya’s death. At least Paris Hilton’s biggest crime was only House of Wax.
It would seem that he has a lot to answer for, but it's doubtful he plans to do so. In the meantime, challenging him and the authorities still seems a risky business in Russia, and it’s quite alarming that one man can have such a hold on power, both within the political regime and informally through the media. The calendar war this week is part of a broader propaganda war which, though existing in and across every political arena, seems heightened around this one man.
The first part of this ‘take a random news story and ramble about it’ column, then, leaves me scratching my head at political celebrity and Putin’s grip on the Russian mind. Happy birthday, Mr Putin. Enjoy your calendar. But a few people might like some answers.
My favourite piece of news this week may not have been the most publicised, but it was definitely among the strangest. A group of journalism students at Moscow State University, in praise of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on his 58th birthday, have produced an erotic calendar featuring female students. Positioned next to such captions as “You put out forest fires, but I’m still burning” (sexy, I know), the girls are pouting and wearing lingerie in the “Vladimir Vladimirovich, we love you” calendar which will apparently be sold in Moscow supermarkets.
I admit from the outset that I’m no expert on Russian politics, but I know that it can seem weird at the best of times. Putin has published his own calendars featuring his shirtless self on horseback, at the controls of a helicopter, and in other generally manly poses, and it’s well known that he is still unbelievably popular. After his two terms as President, under Russian law he could not stand for a third - so he ran for Prime Minister, won by a good margin, and has proceeded to act as the power behind the presidency ever since. Since he’s eligible to run for President again in 2012, Miss February’s (supposedly) suggestive slogan “How about a third time?” shows that he’ll definitely get at least one vote.
Can you imagine a bunch of Labour activists doing this for Gordon Brown? “How about another term, but this time we vote for you?” Russia appears to have allowed Putin to put himself on a pedestal right at the pinnacle of celebrity culture. The question is, whether it’s his political status that keeps him famous, or his fame that keeps him so popular in politics (affectionately known as the Schwarzenegger effect). The former is possible - he has a reputation for strength and resilience and plays on nationalist tendencies effectively, holding his own against Europe and the USA. If the latter is true, he’s approximately a sex-tape away from world domination. It’s probably a mixture of the two, but if the next suspect link your mate sends you is entitled “One Night in Vladimir” you should be very worried.
Less surprising was the response to the calendar - in fact, I’m surprised it wasn’t produced first: another group of female students have made a calendar of their own. “Vladimir Vladimirovich, we have some questions…” instead features girls posing with tape over their mouths in protest at the alleged silencing of political dissidents. Captions included “Who killed Anna Politkovskaya?” referring to the unexplained death of the journalist, one of the Kremlin’s loudest critics, four years ago. Not quite as good a present for poor Vladimir, but probably quite important.
It’s easy to laugh so much at Putin’s idolisation that we forget the dissent he faces. Alleged political assassinations, illegal detention and the regime of a former KGB man do seem to fit unsettlingly together. The bizarre 2006 murder by radiation poisoning (of all things?) of Alexander Litvinenko in London is one of many controversies which has refused to fade away - especially since Litvinenko had sought asylum in Britain, after accusing his superiors in the secret service of such murders; significantly, he had named Putin himself as having ordered Politkovskaya’s death. At least Paris Hilton’s biggest crime was only House of Wax.
It would seem that he has a lot to answer for, but it's doubtful he plans to do so. In the meantime, challenging him and the authorities still seems a risky business in Russia, and it’s quite alarming that one man can have such a hold on power, both within the political regime and informally through the media. The calendar war this week is part of a broader propaganda war which, though existing in and across every political arena, seems heightened around this one man.
The first part of this ‘take a random news story and ramble about it’ column, then, leaves me scratching my head at political celebrity and Putin’s grip on the Russian mind. Happy birthday, Mr Putin. Enjoy your calendar. But a few people might like some answers.
Friday, 1 October 2010
The Bubble Politics: "Red Ed" and New Labour
Originally published on The Bubble Politics, 1st October 2010, available here.
Those of you who have not been hiding under rocks all summer may have noticed that the Labour party has been busy. Nursing their wounds after losing the election and vigorously opposing many of the coalition’s proposed cuts, they’ve also been weighing up the contenders to succeed Gordon Brown.
What has felt like an interminable process of hustings and campaigning across the country has seen the five contenders not so much battling for the leadership as politely discussing their differences: it’s been remarkably civil, but very healthy for the party as a whole. The last time there was a contest was in 1994, when Tony Blair took over after the death of John Smith- and even this was supposedly impacted by a secret deal between he and Gordon Brown, meaning the latter would not stand in the way of the former. An open, free contest, allowing a frank post-mortem after the effective collapse of New Labour, was exactly what was needed. New leadership couldn’t hurt either.
Each of the competitors has managed to differentiate themselves from both the former regime and their competitors. For long-serving back-bencher Diane Abbott, though, this was hardly a challenge. Poetic as it is that Britain’s first black, female MP should have the chance to become party leader 23 years later, she wouldn’t have secured enough nominations to stand but for a last minute endorsement from David Miliband, and didn’t even win the vote in her own Constituency Labour Party. She was eliminated in the first round of voting with just 7.42% of the vote.
Then again, as many commentators have pointed out, victory was never the point of her campaign: well-known to be on the left of the party and having opposed the Iraq war among other New Labour policies, she has provided a foil to the major contenders. Detached enough from the Blair and Brown regimes to criticise from a position of relative safety, she has done exactly that- pointing out, amidst other issues, that the people surrounding her were all criticising a government they were in- and from the point of view of many grassroots activists, hers was a voice that needed to be heard.
Next in the vote came Andy Burnham, who became Shadow Health Secretary after taking that brief in government. Originally from Liverpool, Burnham has often played up his ‘working class’ roots in his condemnation of Conservative policies, and has been attending Labour party meetings since before he was old enough to join. His commitment to the party is well-known, but he is still relatively new to politics, having only entered the Cabinet during Brown’s tenure. His comparative inexperience and less established public persona went against him in this election, but it’s also reasonable to suggest that he had little chance in a contest dominated in both the party’s mind and the media by the political heavyweights, the brothers Miliband and Ed Balls.
Shadow Education Secretary Balls was for some time considered a genuine contender in the contest, and always looked fairly strong in hustings. His long-time allegiance to Gordon Brown is well documented; he was Brown’s chief economic adviser for 10 years, which ensured him speedy promotion to the Cabinet just two years after he became an MP in 2005. However, this would also appear to have been a double-edged sword- it was easy to portray him as a candidate offering no real change, and he has earned himself much of the opposition that was afforded to Brown by certain factions within the party. It would seem that, after the pain of the end of Brown’s premiership, large sections of the party preferred one of the more Blair-like Milibands.
David (the elder one, just in case) was the front runner from the moment Brown announced his resignation, having almost stood against him in 2007: a known Blairite, leading light of the Cabinet during Labour’s later years, and former (now Shadow) Foreign Secretary, who made clear his intention to claim the centre ground from the beginning. With the Liberal Democrats in coalition with the Conservatives, he claimed, Labour could become “a great unifying force” for the centre-left- a strategy which would also see Labour pick up the votes of disenchanted liberals to boost their support at the next election. Significantly, he is the candidate most closely associated with New Labour and has warned against the party reverting to its left-wing “comfort zone”.
Ed, meanwhile, has done the opposite, cautioning against a return to the “New Labour comfort zone”. His decision to stand against his older brother surprised some at the start of his campaign, despite his established support. The biggest boost to his campaign, however, came from trade unions- all three of the major unions recommended him, and most of the smaller ones, which significantly detracted from the support some unions were expected to extend to Balls and Burnham. He performed impressively in hustings, and is seen as slightly more left-wing than his brother. The nickname “Red Ed” has sprung up around this, although it would be a stretch to see him, and his intention to defend the “squeezed middle” class ,as decisively socialist- in fact, his father, the late Marxist philosopher Ralph, would probably see both of his sons as ‘sell-outs’.
So, how do we explain Ed’s victory? The answer lies in the complex voting system used to determine the outcome, where MPs, party members and union members each constitute a third of the vote, and second, third and fourth preferences are accounted for. Looking at the breakdown of each round of voting, Ed’s union support is obvious, though David polled higher amongst party members and MPs. Moreover, in three of the four rounds David was slightly ahead.
However, most next preferences among Abbott’s voters went to Balls and Burnham. Burnham’s voters were fairly equally divided, giving roughly an extra 3% to Balls and 4% to each Miliband, but more of Balls’ voters went for Ed (boosting his total by 9.4%) than David (about 6%). This suggests that Ed picked up more next preferences from people who had voted for more strongly socialist candidates than David. The numbers imply that Ed’s success stems from occupying a strange left-of-centre middle ground- just socialist enough to appeal to those who preferred Abbott and Burnham, but central and Blairite enough to be electable. David, having stuck so closely to the centre, didn’t have the same appeal among the old Labour supporters, and as a result narrowly missed out.
For most of the candidates, the consequences are straightforward. Abbott will return to the back-benches. Burnham and Balls can probably expect nominations for the Shadow Cabinet. Only for David is this less simple: having probably missed his best chance to become leader, rumours have suggested that he could leave politics altogether and forge a new career. Meanwhile, serving in his brother’s Shadow Cabinet could either serve to divide the party (as in the Blair/Brown years) or unite them- as Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Chancellor, for example, the brothers Miliband would be in a close working relationship which may soothe David’s supporters. Importantly, they could also form the nucleus of a very solid team, which would be a potential threat for a government defined by its (supposed) internal differences.
Ultimately, it’s the formation of a solid Opposition that matters from this election. Speeches at the conference may set out the stall for the future, but given the political and economic situation, Labour has a mountain to climb. Moving on from their defeat in May might be hard enough, but if they are to make Ed Miliband the next Prime Minister, they will have to reclaim lost public confidence as well as thousands of their core voters. With 32,000 new members having joined over the course of the campaign, the rehabilitation may have begun. Time will tell if it can end happily for them.
Thursday, 19 August 2010
Palatinate Elections: New Politics?
Originally published in a much shorter form in Palatinate Elections, June 2009, available here:
http://www.palatinate.org.uk/elections/the-coalition-new-politics-under-the-spotlight/
Unless you’ve been stuck at the bottom of a well for the past three months or so, you may have noticed that there’s been an election. With the arrival of an historic coalition between the Conservatives and Lib Dems in Downing Street, promises abounded of a break with the “old politics” of spin and sleaze, tarred by the cash for honours and expenses scandals, and the unrepresentative “boys’ club” Parliament has often appeared to be. Fresh thinking and integrity were to be the order of the day, especially after Nick Clegg sold the Lib Dems as the party for change after decades of squabbling between the two “old parties”.
Well, the dust has just about settled in Whitehall, and as the new administration takes over it’s time to find out just what they meant. Exactly how new is this politics?
Equality and diversity have been seen as crucial indicators. The 23 members of the Cabinet include 5 Lib Dems and 18 Tories. 14 are Oxbridge-educated, 4 women, and 10 under the age of 50, including the Prime Minister, Deputy PM and Chancellor. All are white with the exception of Baroness Warsi, co-chairman of the Tory party and first Muslim woman to hold a Cabinet post, while 2 ministers- Ken Clarke and William Hague- sat in previous Tory Cabinets.
Dr Lawrence Black, Senior Lecturer in History at Durham and an expert in contemporary politics and recent political history, puts it like this: “where are the senior women (Theresa May apart) and non-white ministers? Clegg is a millionaire. Cameron can trace his family tree to King William IV.” Pointing out the 65% turnout, Dr Black also said that “the Tories only polled about a million more votes than in 1997. I think the coalition government is more a manifestation of the problems politics faces than a solution or something new”.
The numbers don’t immediately scream representation. Gordon Brown usually had around 6 women in his Cabinet, with another 4 who attended when their responsibilities were on the agenda. Ethnic minorities were largely absent from the table; Warsi’s appointment is still a landmark in this light. There were also only eight Oxbridge graduates after Brown’s last reshuffle, and the number of privately educated ministers has increased overall since the election, though the former administration may not have been completely representative.
It looks as though the stereotype of the white, upper-middle class, middle-aged public schoolboy in Downing Street may not die out just yet, and this has led many to voice age-old concerns about the ability of the government to act in the interests of a varied population which they do not reflect (despite “Call Me Dave’s” best efforts). While it’s arguable that we don’t need the government to reflect the population- they are, after all, elected representatives who are meant to lead the country, not simply reflect it- many voters, in particular minorities, may have little faith in a Cabinet to which they cannot relate.
Still, the presence of Diane Abbott in the Labour leadership contest, the first black woman to stand, may even highlight the similarities between coalition ministers, and push the Opposition forward as the party of empowerment and diversity instead. Dr Black says, “I think David Miliband nominated Abbott partly to stamp out the charge and perception that Labour was not diverse - in fact its current percentage of women MPs is the highest ever”.
Another related concern regards Theresa May, the second female Home Secretary after Labour’s Jacqui Smith. Although she is also Minister for Women and Equality, her voting history includes moves against gay adoption rights, lowering the age of homosexual consent from 18 to 16, and other gay rights legislation. This has led to a (what else?) Facebook campaign demanding her resignation from the Equality brief, and pressure from progressive MPs and pressure groups may cause difficulties throughout this Parliament. Overall, the coalition’s promise of fair representation and equality does not appear to have been realised.
The idea of an era of honesty and integrity has also taken a battering with the swift resignation of David Laws, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, over around £40,000 of expenses claims for rent paid to the male partner with whom he lived. Laws claimed that his actions stemmed from the desire to keep his sexuality private, while the ambiguous wording of certain rules meant that he thought they did not apply to him. Either way, a resignation linked to expenses automatically associates the new administration with the scandals of the last Parliament; it appears that “old politics” keeps coming back to haunt them.
Laws could have actually claimed more had he been openly co-habiting with his partner. Expenses aside, the fact that he kept his sexuality secret has led some to suggest an inherent homophobia in the corridors of power, reflecting badly again on equality and diversity. Palatinate spoke to one Josephine Butler student who said “it seems like he thought it was something he had to hide, and if that’s because it would have damaged his political career, that’s shameful”.
However, there is one major respect in which this government constitutes a break with the past. By definition, a coalition involves the co-operation of more than one party, at odds with the adversarial culture of Parliament. Only the second such government since World War Two, the current regime has been mandated by voters with differing political views which must all be represented, meaning that compromise and a more consensual brand of politics are necessary.
Already we’ve seen the difference this can make- certain Lib Dem policies, such as increasing the income tax threshold to £10,000, are set to be implemented alongside Tory ones such as the cap on immigration from outside the EU, while several key policies seem to be mixtures of the two manifestos. The really new politics may be emerging with the policies, though it remains to be seen how this will affect public confidence. Given the claim of one second-year student, this could be a difficult task: “I have as much faith in this government as I do in Boris Johnson’s hairdresser”.
http://www.palatinate.org.uk/elections/the-coalition-new-politics-under-the-spotlight/
Unless you’ve been stuck at the bottom of a well for the past three months or so, you may have noticed that there’s been an election. With the arrival of an historic coalition between the Conservatives and Lib Dems in Downing Street, promises abounded of a break with the “old politics” of spin and sleaze, tarred by the cash for honours and expenses scandals, and the unrepresentative “boys’ club” Parliament has often appeared to be. Fresh thinking and integrity were to be the order of the day, especially after Nick Clegg sold the Lib Dems as the party for change after decades of squabbling between the two “old parties”.
Well, the dust has just about settled in Whitehall, and as the new administration takes over it’s time to find out just what they meant. Exactly how new is this politics?
Equality and diversity have been seen as crucial indicators. The 23 members of the Cabinet include 5 Lib Dems and 18 Tories. 14 are Oxbridge-educated, 4 women, and 10 under the age of 50, including the Prime Minister, Deputy PM and Chancellor. All are white with the exception of Baroness Warsi, co-chairman of the Tory party and first Muslim woman to hold a Cabinet post, while 2 ministers- Ken Clarke and William Hague- sat in previous Tory Cabinets.
Dr Lawrence Black, Senior Lecturer in History at Durham and an expert in contemporary politics and recent political history, puts it like this: “where are the senior women (Theresa May apart) and non-white ministers? Clegg is a millionaire. Cameron can trace his family tree to King William IV.” Pointing out the 65% turnout, Dr Black also said that “the Tories only polled about a million more votes than in 1997. I think the coalition government is more a manifestation of the problems politics faces than a solution or something new”.
The numbers don’t immediately scream representation. Gordon Brown usually had around 6 women in his Cabinet, with another 4 who attended when their responsibilities were on the agenda. Ethnic minorities were largely absent from the table; Warsi’s appointment is still a landmark in this light. There were also only eight Oxbridge graduates after Brown’s last reshuffle, and the number of privately educated ministers has increased overall since the election, though the former administration may not have been completely representative.
It looks as though the stereotype of the white, upper-middle class, middle-aged public schoolboy in Downing Street may not die out just yet, and this has led many to voice age-old concerns about the ability of the government to act in the interests of a varied population which they do not reflect (despite “Call Me Dave’s” best efforts). While it’s arguable that we don’t need the government to reflect the population- they are, after all, elected representatives who are meant to lead the country, not simply reflect it- many voters, in particular minorities, may have little faith in a Cabinet to which they cannot relate.
Still, the presence of Diane Abbott in the Labour leadership contest, the first black woman to stand, may even highlight the similarities between coalition ministers, and push the Opposition forward as the party of empowerment and diversity instead. Dr Black says, “I think David Miliband nominated Abbott partly to stamp out the charge and perception that Labour was not diverse - in fact its current percentage of women MPs is the highest ever”.
Another related concern regards Theresa May, the second female Home Secretary after Labour’s Jacqui Smith. Although she is also Minister for Women and Equality, her voting history includes moves against gay adoption rights, lowering the age of homosexual consent from 18 to 16, and other gay rights legislation. This has led to a (what else?) Facebook campaign demanding her resignation from the Equality brief, and pressure from progressive MPs and pressure groups may cause difficulties throughout this Parliament. Overall, the coalition’s promise of fair representation and equality does not appear to have been realised.
The idea of an era of honesty and integrity has also taken a battering with the swift resignation of David Laws, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, over around £40,000 of expenses claims for rent paid to the male partner with whom he lived. Laws claimed that his actions stemmed from the desire to keep his sexuality private, while the ambiguous wording of certain rules meant that he thought they did not apply to him. Either way, a resignation linked to expenses automatically associates the new administration with the scandals of the last Parliament; it appears that “old politics” keeps coming back to haunt them.
Laws could have actually claimed more had he been openly co-habiting with his partner. Expenses aside, the fact that he kept his sexuality secret has led some to suggest an inherent homophobia in the corridors of power, reflecting badly again on equality and diversity. Palatinate spoke to one Josephine Butler student who said “it seems like he thought it was something he had to hide, and if that’s because it would have damaged his political career, that’s shameful”.
However, there is one major respect in which this government constitutes a break with the past. By definition, a coalition involves the co-operation of more than one party, at odds with the adversarial culture of Parliament. Only the second such government since World War Two, the current regime has been mandated by voters with differing political views which must all be represented, meaning that compromise and a more consensual brand of politics are necessary.
Already we’ve seen the difference this can make- certain Lib Dem policies, such as increasing the income tax threshold to £10,000, are set to be implemented alongside Tory ones such as the cap on immigration from outside the EU, while several key policies seem to be mixtures of the two manifestos. The really new politics may be emerging with the policies, though it remains to be seen how this will affect public confidence. Given the claim of one second-year student, this could be a difficult task: “I have as much faith in this government as I do in Boris Johnson’s hairdresser”.
Palatinate Elections: Election Blog Day 23
Originally published online in Palatinate Elections here:
http://www.palatinate.org.uk/blogs/palatinate-election-2010-blog-day-twenty-three-finally-a-monumental-gaffe/
Well, it couldn’t last forever. After a largely gaffe-free campaign so far (even the great Boris Johnson has been fairly quiet), the list of election gaffes is finally reaching a respectable length- and, although others have tried to steal the limelight, the biggest came from none other than the Prime Minister himself.
On a visit to Rochdale, Brown spent five minutes answering questions from Gillian Duffy, a local pensioner who asked him about Eastern European immigration and crime, among other issues. Once he was back in his car, he thought it was safe to vent a little, referring to their meeting as a “disaster” and his interrogator as “bigoted”- but his microphone was still on.
The technical term for such an event in the public relations industry is a “monumental cock-up”, and every politician on the campaign trail was soon aware of it. Having been played his own words live on BBC Radio 2 by Jeremy Vine, Brown was filmed with his head in his hands, and spent the rest of the day trying to limit the damage, apologising profusely- on air, when caught by journalists, in an open letter to Labour party activists and campaigners across the country, by phone to Mrs Duffy- and even, later, in person. Most of the afternoon was spent travelling back to Oldham and apologising personally to the woman in a 40-minute home visit, while senior Labour figures defended him and told the world he was “mortified” with himself.
Naturally, it’s fair to say that the other parties were a little less devastated with events in Rochdale. The Conservatives have been largely quiet on the subject- one Tory blogger suggested that they didn’t need to say anything, since the press would instead “bury” Brown’s chances for May 6th. The Lib Dems, meanwhile, responded only slightly more vocally, with Nick Clegg in Oxford claiming that it is not “bigoted” to discuss immigration issues, and though every politician says things in private that they would hate to see publicised, Brown will have to face the consequences. Brown had rightly apologised, and now “that’s that”.
Both parties may have had a point, too: the press have been dominated by the story. Most responses have been scathingly critical of the PM; tomorrow’s headlines, beginning to emerge at the time of writing, look to be similar; other observers have simply laughed at the moment where Mrs Duffy told the press that she preferred Tony Blair anyway. Whatever the immediate reaction, Labour’s subsequent drop in most of the polls by the end of the day showed that this is not a fiasco to be quickly dismissed. Labour will be hoping to shift the focus onto solid policy ahead of the final election debate tomorrow (Thursday) evening.
Incidentally, there was some policy discussion to mention as well. Shadow Chancellor George Osborne was at the Institute of Directors conference, staking his claim to run the economy while defending Tory spending plans against accusations of dishonesty. He proclaimed his vision for a “balanced” economy with a financial sector more interested in supporting it than “enslaving” it. At the same event, Lid Dem Treasury spokesman Vince Cable spoke about getting rid of bureaucracy and educating the workforce as ways to promote growth.
Meanwhile, David Cameron visited the Coca-Cola factory in Wakefield, endearing himself to the West Yorkshire workers by asking them what the secret recipe was. After the grilling they gave him on everything from benefits to foreign takeovers of British businesses, he’ll be hoping that hinting loudly to the press “that they hadn’t given him any yet” has assured his popularity in a region dominated by safe Labour seats (rumour has it that Cameron considered arriving in a tank for his own protection).
North of the border, today saw the Scottish National Party’s legal proceedings continue at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, as they attempted to prevent the Scottish broadcast of tomorrow’s leaders’ debate without an SNP participant. Despite fears that this could potentially disrupt the entire debate due to technical difficulties in preventing Scots from watching online, the nationalists had lost by lunchtime.
Today’s campaigning has been ultimately swamped by Brown’s off-camera, frustrated remarks, but there may still be more to come. Considering her new-found fame (including Facebook appreciation groups, which are always the key factor in judging notoriety), and amid speculation that she could sell her story, Gillian Duffy is now being represented by a PR firm and refusing to give further comment on today’s events. Whether or not this means she’ll be enjoying a supplement to her pension in the near future, time will tell. We’ll also see whether Thursday’s headline in The Sun holds true: “Gillian only popped out for a loaf. She came back with… BROWN TOAST.”
http://www.palatinate.org.uk/blogs/palatinate-election-2010-blog-day-twenty-three-finally-a-monumental-gaffe/
Well, it couldn’t last forever. After a largely gaffe-free campaign so far (even the great Boris Johnson has been fairly quiet), the list of election gaffes is finally reaching a respectable length- and, although others have tried to steal the limelight, the biggest came from none other than the Prime Minister himself.
On a visit to Rochdale, Brown spent five minutes answering questions from Gillian Duffy, a local pensioner who asked him about Eastern European immigration and crime, among other issues. Once he was back in his car, he thought it was safe to vent a little, referring to their meeting as a “disaster” and his interrogator as “bigoted”- but his microphone was still on.
The technical term for such an event in the public relations industry is a “monumental cock-up”, and every politician on the campaign trail was soon aware of it. Having been played his own words live on BBC Radio 2 by Jeremy Vine, Brown was filmed with his head in his hands, and spent the rest of the day trying to limit the damage, apologising profusely- on air, when caught by journalists, in an open letter to Labour party activists and campaigners across the country, by phone to Mrs Duffy- and even, later, in person. Most of the afternoon was spent travelling back to Oldham and apologising personally to the woman in a 40-minute home visit, while senior Labour figures defended him and told the world he was “mortified” with himself.
Naturally, it’s fair to say that the other parties were a little less devastated with events in Rochdale. The Conservatives have been largely quiet on the subject- one Tory blogger suggested that they didn’t need to say anything, since the press would instead “bury” Brown’s chances for May 6th. The Lib Dems, meanwhile, responded only slightly more vocally, with Nick Clegg in Oxford claiming that it is not “bigoted” to discuss immigration issues, and though every politician says things in private that they would hate to see publicised, Brown will have to face the consequences. Brown had rightly apologised, and now “that’s that”.
Both parties may have had a point, too: the press have been dominated by the story. Most responses have been scathingly critical of the PM; tomorrow’s headlines, beginning to emerge at the time of writing, look to be similar; other observers have simply laughed at the moment where Mrs Duffy told the press that she preferred Tony Blair anyway. Whatever the immediate reaction, Labour’s subsequent drop in most of the polls by the end of the day showed that this is not a fiasco to be quickly dismissed. Labour will be hoping to shift the focus onto solid policy ahead of the final election debate tomorrow (Thursday) evening.
Incidentally, there was some policy discussion to mention as well. Shadow Chancellor George Osborne was at the Institute of Directors conference, staking his claim to run the economy while defending Tory spending plans against accusations of dishonesty. He proclaimed his vision for a “balanced” economy with a financial sector more interested in supporting it than “enslaving” it. At the same event, Lid Dem Treasury spokesman Vince Cable spoke about getting rid of bureaucracy and educating the workforce as ways to promote growth.
Meanwhile, David Cameron visited the Coca-Cola factory in Wakefield, endearing himself to the West Yorkshire workers by asking them what the secret recipe was. After the grilling they gave him on everything from benefits to foreign takeovers of British businesses, he’ll be hoping that hinting loudly to the press “that they hadn’t given him any yet” has assured his popularity in a region dominated by safe Labour seats (rumour has it that Cameron considered arriving in a tank for his own protection).
North of the border, today saw the Scottish National Party’s legal proceedings continue at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, as they attempted to prevent the Scottish broadcast of tomorrow’s leaders’ debate without an SNP participant. Despite fears that this could potentially disrupt the entire debate due to technical difficulties in preventing Scots from watching online, the nationalists had lost by lunchtime.
Today’s campaigning has been ultimately swamped by Brown’s off-camera, frustrated remarks, but there may still be more to come. Considering her new-found fame (including Facebook appreciation groups, which are always the key factor in judging notoriety), and amid speculation that she could sell her story, Gillian Duffy is now being represented by a PR firm and refusing to give further comment on today’s events. Whether or not this means she’ll be enjoying a supplement to her pension in the near future, time will tell. We’ll also see whether Thursday’s headline in The Sun holds true: “Gillian only popped out for a loaf. She came back with… BROWN TOAST.”
Palatinate Elections: Election Blog Day 14
Originally published online in Palatinate Elections here:
http://www.palatinate.org.uk/blogs/palatinate-election-2010-blog-day-fourteen-the-clegg-effect/
While most of us are making Kerry Katona jokes about the volcano in Iceland (come on, we’ve all heard one), the ash cloud has been getting in the way of the election. Many of the Cabinet were recalled to London for emergency COBRA meetings (the government’s civil contingencies committee), but the campaign managed to slither on, with pretty much everyone attempting to fight the post-debate “Clegg effect”.
The Liberal Democrats started in Cardiff with an early press conference where they discussed their environmental plans. Emphasizing green technology and jobs, the party unveiled a one year green economic stimulus plan worth £3bn, which would invest in household efficiency, public transport and work training, but the proposals were strongly criticised by the Green Party as going nowhere near far enough. Despite their environmental theme today, however, the Lib Dems did not seem to support the current reduction in air travel- Clegg’s three children are stuck in Spain on an extended half-term break.
Other issues found their way onto the agenda as well: Clegg promised to be tough on waste in the NHS to protect front-line services; reiterated that neither of the main parties could be trusted on electoral reform; and took time to rebuff all suggestions of tactical voting with the assertion that a vote for the Lib Dems was “exactly what it said on the tin”, rather than a vote to keep one of the two main parties in or out of Downing Street (take that, Lord Adonis). The “wildly misleading” criticism levelled at him by Labour and the Conservatives was a sign that they were “desperate”.
Elsewhere, one of the less pertinent questions in this election made a rare appearance- preferring instead to focus on the economy, Europe has been barely mentioned by most parties. However, Sarah Teather said that the Lib Dems saw the euro as in the national interest, but not in the current economic climate. A Lib Dem government would only join the euro after both a Parliamentary vote and a referendum.
It was probably a good thing that the yellow rosettes were so busy today, since both Labour and the Conservatives were at great pains to point out their weaknesses to the electorate. The Tories, including Michael Gove on GMTV, have continued to claim that a Lib Dem vote could potentially keep Labour in power, while Labour have been at pains to point out similarities and differences between themselves and the Lib Dems.
Gordon Brown said that some of their policies were “unattractive”. Yvette Cooper spoke of agreement on the necessity of spending cuts this year, but disagreement over child tax credits. Her husband, Ed Balls, replied that “Of course” he preferred Lib Dem policies to the Conservatives, but he was working towards a Labour majority and the Lib Dems would never insist on working with one specific party. In any case, coalitions were not the British way of doing politics. Now, New Labour, does this suggest there’s a hung Parliament on your mind…?
Naturally, they made time to downplay Clegg’s poll boost- Brown claiming experience of “a short political honeymoon”, and anticipating a shift from style to substance in the next debate- but spent most of the session criticising Conservative policy. In particular they focussed on Tory plans for public sector spending cuts, raising concerns about a potential drop in teacher numbers and “DIY public services”, leaving people to fend for themselves. Party funding was also mentioned, with Mandelson claiming Labour as the “underdogs” in the election with fewer resources than the Lord Ashcroft-fuelled Conservatives.
Meanwhile, since his cancelled flight prevented him from attending the launch of the Tories’ Scottish manifesto, David Cameron’s fairly quiet day has been dedicated to pushing his idea of the “Big Society”, which will bring change, instead of the “the big bossy State”. Claiming the importance of responsibility and the necessity for a clean break with the past, he began with an event in Kensington where he also mentioned that strong leadership was preferable over a power-sharing government. It looks like Cooper and Balls aren’t the only ones thinking about a hung Parliament.
In Scotland, however, where coalition governments are the norm and the Tories are definitely not, the party’s manifesto launch included a recorded video message from the absent Cameron and an attack on its rivals. Scottish Conservative leader Annabel Goldie’s surprisingly personal statement that Alex Salmond wouldn’t tighten his “substantial belt” to face public sector cuts was coupled with the assertion that (surprise, surprise) a vote for the Lib Dems would mean a Labour government. Does a pattern emerge?
Today has been about two phenomena- one is an apparently uncontrollable force of nature, and the other is a volcano. John Prescott’s tweet (yes, Twitter again) about the post-debate high for the Lib Dems sums up the attitude of many in Westminster: “Enjoy it while it lasts”. The question is whether Clegg and co. can keep this up and convert it into seats on May 6th.
http://www.palatinate.org.uk/blogs/palatinate-election-2010-blog-day-fourteen-the-clegg-effect/
While most of us are making Kerry Katona jokes about the volcano in Iceland (come on, we’ve all heard one), the ash cloud has been getting in the way of the election. Many of the Cabinet were recalled to London for emergency COBRA meetings (the government’s civil contingencies committee), but the campaign managed to slither on, with pretty much everyone attempting to fight the post-debate “Clegg effect”.
The Liberal Democrats started in Cardiff with an early press conference where they discussed their environmental plans. Emphasizing green technology and jobs, the party unveiled a one year green economic stimulus plan worth £3bn, which would invest in household efficiency, public transport and work training, but the proposals were strongly criticised by the Green Party as going nowhere near far enough. Despite their environmental theme today, however, the Lib Dems did not seem to support the current reduction in air travel- Clegg’s three children are stuck in Spain on an extended half-term break.
Other issues found their way onto the agenda as well: Clegg promised to be tough on waste in the NHS to protect front-line services; reiterated that neither of the main parties could be trusted on electoral reform; and took time to rebuff all suggestions of tactical voting with the assertion that a vote for the Lib Dems was “exactly what it said on the tin”, rather than a vote to keep one of the two main parties in or out of Downing Street (take that, Lord Adonis). The “wildly misleading” criticism levelled at him by Labour and the Conservatives was a sign that they were “desperate”.
Elsewhere, one of the less pertinent questions in this election made a rare appearance- preferring instead to focus on the economy, Europe has been barely mentioned by most parties. However, Sarah Teather said that the Lib Dems saw the euro as in the national interest, but not in the current economic climate. A Lib Dem government would only join the euro after both a Parliamentary vote and a referendum.
It was probably a good thing that the yellow rosettes were so busy today, since both Labour and the Conservatives were at great pains to point out their weaknesses to the electorate. The Tories, including Michael Gove on GMTV, have continued to claim that a Lib Dem vote could potentially keep Labour in power, while Labour have been at pains to point out similarities and differences between themselves and the Lib Dems.
Gordon Brown said that some of their policies were “unattractive”. Yvette Cooper spoke of agreement on the necessity of spending cuts this year, but disagreement over child tax credits. Her husband, Ed Balls, replied that “Of course” he preferred Lib Dem policies to the Conservatives, but he was working towards a Labour majority and the Lib Dems would never insist on working with one specific party. In any case, coalitions were not the British way of doing politics. Now, New Labour, does this suggest there’s a hung Parliament on your mind…?
Naturally, they made time to downplay Clegg’s poll boost- Brown claiming experience of “a short political honeymoon”, and anticipating a shift from style to substance in the next debate- but spent most of the session criticising Conservative policy. In particular they focussed on Tory plans for public sector spending cuts, raising concerns about a potential drop in teacher numbers and “DIY public services”, leaving people to fend for themselves. Party funding was also mentioned, with Mandelson claiming Labour as the “underdogs” in the election with fewer resources than the Lord Ashcroft-fuelled Conservatives.
Meanwhile, since his cancelled flight prevented him from attending the launch of the Tories’ Scottish manifesto, David Cameron’s fairly quiet day has been dedicated to pushing his idea of the “Big Society”, which will bring change, instead of the “the big bossy State”. Claiming the importance of responsibility and the necessity for a clean break with the past, he began with an event in Kensington where he also mentioned that strong leadership was preferable over a power-sharing government. It looks like Cooper and Balls aren’t the only ones thinking about a hung Parliament.
In Scotland, however, where coalition governments are the norm and the Tories are definitely not, the party’s manifesto launch included a recorded video message from the absent Cameron and an attack on its rivals. Scottish Conservative leader Annabel Goldie’s surprisingly personal statement that Alex Salmond wouldn’t tighten his “substantial belt” to face public sector cuts was coupled with the assertion that (surprise, surprise) a vote for the Lib Dems would mean a Labour government. Does a pattern emerge?
Today has been about two phenomena- one is an apparently uncontrollable force of nature, and the other is a volcano. John Prescott’s tweet (yes, Twitter again) about the post-debate high for the Lib Dems sums up the attitude of many in Westminster: “Enjoy it while it lasts”. The question is whether Clegg and co. can keep this up and convert it into seats on May 6th.
Palatinate Elections: Election Blog Day 4
Originally published online in Palatinate Elections here:
http://www.palatinate.org.uk/blogs/palatinate-election-2010-blog-day-four-twitter-claims-first-election-scalp/
As if the media weren’t revelling enough in the catty exchanges between politicians, the controversies of this election are already picking up speed. Both Labour and the Conservatives have gaffes to add to what will undoubtedly soon be long lists, though economic policy and law and order have mostly been the order of the day.
Labour have been busy, with Gordon Brown starting off his day in Stevenage talking tough on crime (tough on the causes of crime?). With the mother and sister of murder victim Sally-Ann Bowman among those present, he paid tribute to their campaign for justice while arguing in favour of the government’s plans to retain DNA evidence on the national database for six years. Although he asserted that it was the national database which allowed Bowman’s killer to be found, the Conservatives insisted that their plan to retain data for three years would have had the same effect.
However, trouble brewed north of the border with the first of Labour’s electoral casualties- their candidate in the Scottish constituency of Moray, Stuart MacLennan, following revelations about the content of his Twitter feeds, which used offensive language and personal attacks on politicians including David Cameron. MacLennan was initially supported, then sacked just hours later.
Senior figures, including Mr Brown, condemned him quickly and tried to move on, but criticism continued to come in from the other major parties. Both Conservative and Lib Dem figures asked why no-one had picked up on the offensive posts earlier and why it had taken so long for MacLennan to be sacked, when the issue behind tomorrow.
The other memorable gaffe of the day came from the blue corner of the political ring, with who else but Cameron’s illustrious fellow cyclist Boris Johnson. On a visit alongside Cameron to Chelsea Pensioners’ Club, where the leader again mentioned his proposal for a voluntary National Citizens’ Service, BoJo told the press that “it should be compulsory”. When questioned, he qualified himself by saying it should be as compulsory as possible “without cheesing people off”. Boris, we salute you.
Other, albeit less entertaining, events in the Conservative camp occurred in another jet-setting day which saw Cameron campaigning in both London and Aberdeen. Plans were announced to remove benefits from persistent cheats for 3 years, drawing concern from Child Poverty Action Group who suggested that all parties work harder to ensure that the right people claim the benefits to which they are entitled.
There were plenty of other economic arguments flying around. Public sector job losses were at the forefront, with the Conservative plans for efficiency savings in particular raising questions about whether compulsory redundancies would be necessary as well as closing open positions.
In addition, apparently having missed the invention of email, Alistair Darling and George Osborne spent the day exchanging letters criticising each other’s plans. The Chancellor demanded that Osborne explain how efficiency savings could save over £30bn of public money; Osborne in turn demanded Darling publish internal documents which indicated the implications of the NI hike.
Of course, the row over National Insurance rolls on. 54 Scottish businessmen signed an open letter endorsing the Conservative position on the planned increase today, while Labour can now boast two Dragons under their belt: following James Caan, Duncan Bannatyne reiterated his staunch support for the government on the matter via (where else?) Twitter, where he said that the rise would cost his company no jobs whatsoever.
Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats were busy in Cardiff this morning, where Nick Clegg shared tea in a sheltered housing complex with pensioners who, perhaps slightly awkwardly, didn’t know much about him, but won a little favour when he asked one resident whether her recent birthday was her 45th. Get your coat, Nick.
But, before he had chance to enjoy his new found friendship, he was on his way to Solihull and rubbishing Lord Adonis’ plea to Lib Dem supporters to vote for Labour instead to prevent a Conservative victory. Playing on the perception of the Lib Dems as the party for wasted votes, Adonis’ remarks make him the first politician to openly advocate tactical voting, and it’s likely to be more and more important as the campaign rolls on.
But, before the policy gets a bit too serious, remember that sometimes it’s the petty insults that really make the election worthwhile. In addition to BoJo’s latest stroke of genius comes this remark from John Prescott on David Cameron: “It’s not the baby face that worries me, it’s the baby mind that does”.
http://www.palatinate.org.uk/blogs/palatinate-election-2010-blog-day-four-twitter-claims-first-election-scalp/
As if the media weren’t revelling enough in the catty exchanges between politicians, the controversies of this election are already picking up speed. Both Labour and the Conservatives have gaffes to add to what will undoubtedly soon be long lists, though economic policy and law and order have mostly been the order of the day.
Labour have been busy, with Gordon Brown starting off his day in Stevenage talking tough on crime (tough on the causes of crime?). With the mother and sister of murder victim Sally-Ann Bowman among those present, he paid tribute to their campaign for justice while arguing in favour of the government’s plans to retain DNA evidence on the national database for six years. Although he asserted that it was the national database which allowed Bowman’s killer to be found, the Conservatives insisted that their plan to retain data for three years would have had the same effect.
However, trouble brewed north of the border with the first of Labour’s electoral casualties- their candidate in the Scottish constituency of Moray, Stuart MacLennan, following revelations about the content of his Twitter feeds, which used offensive language and personal attacks on politicians including David Cameron. MacLennan was initially supported, then sacked just hours later.
Senior figures, including Mr Brown, condemned him quickly and tried to move on, but criticism continued to come in from the other major parties. Both Conservative and Lib Dem figures asked why no-one had picked up on the offensive posts earlier and why it had taken so long for MacLennan to be sacked, when the issue behind tomorrow.
The other memorable gaffe of the day came from the blue corner of the political ring, with who else but Cameron’s illustrious fellow cyclist Boris Johnson. On a visit alongside Cameron to Chelsea Pensioners’ Club, where the leader again mentioned his proposal for a voluntary National Citizens’ Service, BoJo told the press that “it should be compulsory”. When questioned, he qualified himself by saying it should be as compulsory as possible “without cheesing people off”. Boris, we salute you.
Other, albeit less entertaining, events in the Conservative camp occurred in another jet-setting day which saw Cameron campaigning in both London and Aberdeen. Plans were announced to remove benefits from persistent cheats for 3 years, drawing concern from Child Poverty Action Group who suggested that all parties work harder to ensure that the right people claim the benefits to which they are entitled.
There were plenty of other economic arguments flying around. Public sector job losses were at the forefront, with the Conservative plans for efficiency savings in particular raising questions about whether compulsory redundancies would be necessary as well as closing open positions.
In addition, apparently having missed the invention of email, Alistair Darling and George Osborne spent the day exchanging letters criticising each other’s plans. The Chancellor demanded that Osborne explain how efficiency savings could save over £30bn of public money; Osborne in turn demanded Darling publish internal documents which indicated the implications of the NI hike.
Of course, the row over National Insurance rolls on. 54 Scottish businessmen signed an open letter endorsing the Conservative position on the planned increase today, while Labour can now boast two Dragons under their belt: following James Caan, Duncan Bannatyne reiterated his staunch support for the government on the matter via (where else?) Twitter, where he said that the rise would cost his company no jobs whatsoever.
Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats were busy in Cardiff this morning, where Nick Clegg shared tea in a sheltered housing complex with pensioners who, perhaps slightly awkwardly, didn’t know much about him, but won a little favour when he asked one resident whether her recent birthday was her 45th. Get your coat, Nick.
But, before he had chance to enjoy his new found friendship, he was on his way to Solihull and rubbishing Lord Adonis’ plea to Lib Dem supporters to vote for Labour instead to prevent a Conservative victory. Playing on the perception of the Lib Dems as the party for wasted votes, Adonis’ remarks make him the first politician to openly advocate tactical voting, and it’s likely to be more and more important as the campaign rolls on.
But, before the policy gets a bit too serious, remember that sometimes it’s the petty insults that really make the election worthwhile. In addition to BoJo’s latest stroke of genius comes this remark from John Prescott on David Cameron: “It’s not the baby face that worries me, it’s the baby mind that does”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)