Google similar images?

Here’s my favourite.

Political football?

After Andy Burnham’s heckling at the Hillsborough memorial service, Jacqui Smith has said to have requested the early release of the detailed police documents on the disaster.

Call me a cynic, but Jacqui and her government usually don’t like it when documents are released early. Oh wait, could this be that one event happened during a Labour government, and the other during a Tory one?

Isn’t it a shame when politicians use tragedies to cover up their shortcomings whilst highlighting the shortcomings of a strong and encroaching opposition?

The art of the apology

Gordon finally said sorry. He even said he took full responsibility.

An apology seems to be the unfashionable thing amongst the old guard of politicians. There are words that beat around the bush: “I express regret/disappointment/etc”, but when it comes to politicians who have been around for quite a while, sorry really does seem to be the hardest word.

Well, it would appear that it’s probably the most politically apt word. David “call-me-Dave” Cameron has used it to his political advantage on many occasions. When something embarrassing happened in the Tory party regarding snouts-in-the-trough financial corruption (and let’s face it, the majority of these cases after Cameron said we needed to get rid of that sort of thing have been with Tory MPs) Cameron immediately leaps in and is relentless at condemning it. He knows, as others (including Gordon it seems) are coming to realise, is that in this day and age of hatred towards politicians from the public, you have more to gain by saying sorry than you have to lose.

It’s just a same that often (and I’m saying this of some members of all political parties), it takes the motivation of political gain in order to say sorry, rather than genuine regret. Like the word ‘promise’, sorry will simply be added to the list of hollow sayings that mean little but are said lots.

P.S. Very good article on ToryBear showing Draper doing a runner with his computer. What’s that New Labour saying?… nothing to hide, nothing to fear?

How can anybody take the moral highground in Smeargate?

It goes without saying, McBride and Draper are deplorable. Gordon Brown’s government have clearly followed the route of vicious desperation, like a cornered animal they’ve done all they are capable of doing: swipe the claws with futility.

But, whilst I value the fact that politicians are losing barriers to hide behind, am I the only person who thinks there is the most pungent element of pot-kettle-black in people like Guido and Tory Bear wagging their fingers at the Labour smear machine? Guido’s website boasts a backbone of personal insults, irrelevant smears and rumours that aren’t (and apparently don’t need to be) substantiated about both politicians and their relatives. How is that any different from what McBride and Draper were doing?

Apparently the one distinguishing factor is that the former are bloggers and the latter are politicians. That makes it OK then.

Yes, blog all you like and say what you want, that is of course your right. But the fact that you’re not elected and that you’re not in government is most certainly not absolution from a charge of complete hypocrisy.

Expenses, expenses, expenses

With Moneygeddon in full swing and the media wanting to cash in on the ills of the economy, the sensible question people are asking is “what are our elected representatives spending our money on?”. Unfortunately, as is the case with many sensible debates, they get chewed up and spat out as an ultimate witch-hunt of anybody that has ever dared claim expenses (the “all politicians are corrupt money-grabbing bastards” brigade).

As a councillor I have never claimed expenses. Some people say to me that doing so is stupid as I have an entitlement to claim, which is technically correct (I am entitled to it), but is also where the problem lies.

I went into politics, like most others, because I wanted to change things. I didn’t like the way things were – they were unfair, unjust, and unequal. This is the (unfortunately clichéd) reason practically everybody gives when asked why they became a councillor/MP. We identify where the law is wrong and we change it.

So, with this being the case, why is it that MPs will harp on all the time about laws they don’t like and laws they want to change, yet when they get caught with their hands (legally) in the cookie jar, they simply hide behind the law and claim innocence? It is this moral hypocrisy that stirs up so much anger and resentment within the public, and what caps it is the red-handed red-faced “I didn’t do anything wrong” response. If they went into politics to tackle things that were wrong, then they absolutely should accept that on occasion, laws can be wrong.

So let’s take hypothetically Jacqui Smith’s situation with the porn (I never thought I’d see the words ‘porn’ and ‘Jacqui Smith’ in the same sentence). Avoiding the saucy connotations, porn is (as far as objective analysis is concerned) an item or service of leisure. It is not required for a Member of Parliament to complete their duties, and rightly so, when the story came out a huge fuss was made over it.

But what about a BBQ and a patio heater? Are those items really required for the Home Secretary to do her job? Although the debate is contentious, some people do accept the need for essential furnishings in a second home (i.e. a cooker and a bed), but surely, like the porn, items such as a BBQ and a patio heater come under the label of “items or services of leisure”?

MPs of all parties can (and have) abused the expenses system. During a recession it is vital that an MP has the resources to do their job properly, but it is similarly important for the reputation of elected representatives that those who are caught abusing the system are swiftly dealt with in the harshest of manners. In any other walk of life, many of those MPs would have been sacked for the fiddling. There is no reason why this shouldn’t be the case in Parliament.

A question of literature

The best thing about the Liberal Democrats is the inherent independence of the individuals involved. It means that every issue that comes along is usually judged on its merit rather than what the party machine says it should be judged on. Debate is kept healthy as a result; and many journalists have recognised that our party conferences are by far the most democratic and “unscripted”.

Unfortunately, what can be our best asset is occasionally our worst enemy. The one thing that tears local parties and council groups more than anything else is the fact that by whatever means necessary, members will stick to their guns. Unfortunately this “stand of principle”, as some like to call it, actually means that the damage done to the team as a whole can be so fatal that they are no longer able to enact their principles in a positive manner, bringing an abrupt end to their progress in making a difference to real people. The recent elections in Liberal Youth highlight this quite aptly.

“Politics is broken” has become the mother of all bandwagons. Everybody says it, all politicians clamber to acknowledge it, but the constant revelations of things that these politicians are doing wrong (or the things that are, at the very least, morally questionable) immediately gives the topic a radiation of insincerity, hypocrisy and empty hollow rhetoric. One of the unfortunate effects within the Liberal Democrats is that local councillors have identified that people are turned off by the usual negative campaigning, but there are many disagreements as to what negative campaigning truly is. The entire debate (if you want to call it that, I prefer ‘rant’) is personified in the discussion of literature content.

I am sick of seeing barcharts. I am sick of seeing “Labour can’t win here!” everywhere. Why am I sick of it? Because I see it all the time. I deliver the leaflets regularly, and it is always the first thing right at the top of the page – the famous squeeze message. Other councillors have transferred their own annoyance at their own perception of this repetition onto the debate on what residents really find off-turning about politics. They could not have missed the mark further. The golden rule within politics is that no matter how much our entry into public service was driven by a hatred for those currently in it, once you get involved, your perceptions slowly disintegrate from that of a normal resident to somebody who is actively involved in promoting and enacting the principles of a political party. The irritation you feel with the content of your own literature should not be assumed to be the embodiment of the irritation residents feel. Squeeze messages are vital. Short and snappy messages are vital. These are the basic principles of marketing.

Those are the people on the one extreme of the debate. They would like to think that residents are pleading for the return of election literature that reads like a PhD thesis; that the Focus newsletter is the highlight of their month so they can sit down, pour a glass of wine, and spend a good hour absorbing a 800 word essay on the pros of proportional representation. They are, in my opinion, misguided and wrong. Their interest in the workings of party politics does not transfer to the average Joe – otherwise all average Joes would be putting themselves forward for election with the same enthusiasm and vigour as our councillors and candidates do.

Whilst I tip my hat to the middle-ground in this debate, it would be wrong to mention one extreme without countering it with the other. There are campaigners within the party who believe that more is more, that negative actions have a direct link to positive outcomes, that the ends always justify the means. These were the people who wrote a campaign article in Henley attacking the Tory candidate for being employed by a company that lobbies councils on planning matters. The argument, of course, was that the Tory candidate surely couldn’t claim to care about rural issues if he worked for such a company. It reaks of hypocrisy – we would say that Vince Cable is an environmentalist, despite the fact he used to be a chief economist for Shell. Attacking somebody for what they do as a job is such a low blow, and it was the reason I chose not to come out and help in Henley. If a political party has to stoop to that level, then they do not deserve to win. Like the other extreme mentioned formerly, I believe that the people who condone and implement this way of thinking are misguided and wrong.

I don’t understand why so many people cannot see where the line is in this debate. People do not like seeing politicians being hypocrites, so the simple answer to that one is not to accuse the other lot of something you yourself are (or have been) guilty of doing. People do not want to see you ardently attacking the opposition as a main plank within a campaign, yet of course it is your right (and obligation) to highlight the flaws of your opponents so that they are kept accountable.

Those of us in the middle ground want to see literature that keeps us in line with our principles. Forget jumping on the Obamawagon; forget pandering to local activists who don’t like the barchart; forget sensationalist headlines that do more to fuel public distaste with politics than they do in keeping your opponents accountable. Don’t waste your time bickering with each other on how best to do things – if you find yourself spending more than five minutes discussing (or ranting) it with your local party, then perhaps as penance you should do an extra round of leaflet delivery. Always remember, of all the squeeze messages there is one that is most important: infighting NEVER wins here.

The future of Liberal Youth

Now that the infamous Liberal Youth elections are over, I just thought I’d give a few reflections as both an outsider (i.e. somebody not standing in a contested election) and an insider (i.e. somebody that knows the candidates and supporters fairly well). 

Contrary to reports, the hustings at conference were not nasty.  There were two candidates who genuinely wanted the job and (I believe anyway) wanted it for noble reasons.  The problems occurred when somebody decided to see how easy it would be to stir the pot (which turned out to be very easy, so it seems). 

I don’t for one second believe that the first set of “leaks” to Tory Bear were indeed intentional leaks by candidates or their supporters.  The stuff that was regurgitated on the blog initially was partly already available on the Liberal Youth forums; and the rest could have been extracted either from educated guesses or from the hear’say that often goes on in student politics.  

From this initial bit of information, Tory Bear stated that he had a mole who was very much on the inside.  I wasn’t duped by this, and I did my best to tell people not to pay too much notice to it.  Unfortunately, the level of trust active members appear to have for each other is so strong and enduring that they all went through a manic and angry fingerpointing-fest.  From that point onwards, I do believe that Tory Bear was being briefed by people on various sides within the elections, simply because they were drawn in by the apparent myth that somebody from the opposition had “started it”. 

Even at that point, things weren’t so bad.  The turning point was the heckle.  I do not believe that Sara would have been an incapable Chair – I think she would have been a very good one with the right guidance and a bit of personal development (i.e. anger management).  I was similarly happy with Elaine being elected.  Of course there have been problems, but none were fatal.  But the heckle was different, and I don’t mean in terms of just airing the dirty laundry, I mean in terms of what it means for Liberal Youth in the future.

That was the first time in a long time Liberal Youth (or previous incarnations) had been given such a platform.  The heckle happened from a principle election candidate – in front of the leader, in front of rank and file members, in front of the party’s activists, and in front of the media.  The heckle embodied the internal conflict that plagues all young political organisations: they want to be taken seriously and be treated like adults, but they still believe that saying/shouting what you think no matter what the circumstance or setting is an unconditional virtue (I believe people tend to excuse themselves for such actions by saying “sorry, I can’t help being passionate”).

I’m passionate about the success of Liberal Youth.  My starting point is the goal rather than the method, and I work backwards from there, avoiding any path that compromises or hinders the goal.  It will be a very long time before our reputation amongst the party is restored, and similarly a very long time before the leader will ever again give us such a prestigious platform at a party event.

The saddest fact about the damage caused within these elections is that the people that caused it are insignificant when it comes to the entire organisation.  It rarely matters who is elected to the executive – youth and student groups across the country will still get on with things and silly little tiffs at the top will be distant at best, more likely invisible.  

The exec can never damage what happens on the grassroots, but they do have an opportunity to enhance it.  The majority of those who put themselves up for election do so for the right reasons, and despite the urge to sometimes bang their heads together being rather too strong, both those who have succeeded in election and those who (this time) did not make it all do care about the future of the Liberal Democrats.  My advice to all of them:

1. Think with your heads, not with your mouths.
2. Act with your rational thought, not with your rage.
3. Remember why you are there.
4. If a blog post appears about you or your mates that makes you angry, just be thankful that your opponents see you as such a significant threat that they’ve wasted the time doing it.  From a cost/benefit analysis, you’ve stopped them delivering leaflets for that short period.
5. Remember who your enemies really are.

Best of luck to the new executive. You are a talented bunch, make the most of your strengths rather than parading your weaknesses.

I’m back…

And really this time!