Imagine Britain like a glorious fertile field in which many wonderful things can grow. But right now, it’s covered in shit. Shit everywhere. Westminster, shit. Local Government shit. Civil service, shit. The City? Shit. Economy? The biggest pile of shit of them all.
The Lib Dems have just walked into this massive pile of shit and although there is far too much to get rid of it, we can spread it out and hope something eventually grows underneath. To do that, we’ve gotta get right in it, because there’s just too much not to. And we’re shovelling, but there is an awful lot of shit, and some decomposing is going to have to be done first, which isn’t going to be pleasant.
We realise this is going to mean we’ll smell of shit and no one will want to be our friend, but someone has to move this shit, and unfortunately; it’s us.
Friday 4 March 2011
Wednesday 3 November 2010
The responsibility of government
The government of a modern western democracy is responsible for the welfare of its citizens. There are many ways of describing how they go about this. One method of analysis is to break the pursuit of this end into two key functions:
1) The creation and maintenance of an environment in which citizens can maintain and even advance their own welfare (you might call this their liberty).
2) The provision of such means as to maintain their welfare to at least a minimum level if for some reason they cannot do this themselves (you might call this equality).
Of these two functions, the first government can only influence. There are many factors within this beyond their control, not the least of which are the citizens own will and influences beyond the bounds of the state. The second is almost entirely within the control of the government to provide. Almost, because its ability to provide this - what is today called the welfare state - is dependent on its spending power. Its spending power, and its willingness to spend.
Of these two functions, which is more important? The Tea Party Movement would argue equality without liberty is equality of misery, and so worth nothing at all. An opponent hailing from the school of Marx might well counter that Liberty is a beourgoise luxury and doesn't exist for someone with no food, no shelter and no health. Most sane individuals can see both are important, and that their existence is not antagonistic. Most of the time, you need not harm liberty by increasing equality, and there are many ways liberty can be increased without damaging equality. The contrast between the US and UK currently is interesting for exactly this reason. The Tea Baggers believe that performing the second function contradicts the first. Interestingly, over here the criticism of Government spending cuts is that it will derail the former, ie the jobs and economic growth that allow citizens to maintain their own welfare, but it is being done to sustain the latter.
If a country has no money, it cannot provide welfare. It cannot fulfil the second function without the spending power. Cutting as we are now protects that future spending power, although at the cost of allowing people to provide for themselves. 1m will be made unemployed so we can afford to maintain the welfare of the 3m currently unemployed (plus all the others dependent on government welfare in some way or another - that is, all of us!). That is why these cuts are being made. That is the context in which the argument is made, and the reality of the situation. That is why we can't do the first, because we have to take care of the second.
Of course, there is a caveat: the will to spend. Labour claim we have more spending power than the government say, and the reason we are cutting so much is because that is what we want to do, not what we have to do. They are certainly right for certain individuals within the Tory party. They are certainly wrong for certain individuals within the Lib Dems. Are they right or wrong about members of the Government? Of the Lib Dems? Of the Cabinet?
That argument is unfalsifiable. Those who say they know conclusively either way do not. They can't. Only government, the Lib Dems, the Cabinet, the MP's themselves know. They will say it is need, but can we trust them? In the end, it all comes down to faith, which is at once terrifying, but hopelessly romantic.
1) The creation and maintenance of an environment in which citizens can maintain and even advance their own welfare (you might call this their liberty).
2) The provision of such means as to maintain their welfare to at least a minimum level if for some reason they cannot do this themselves (you might call this equality).
Of these two functions, the first government can only influence. There are many factors within this beyond their control, not the least of which are the citizens own will and influences beyond the bounds of the state. The second is almost entirely within the control of the government to provide. Almost, because its ability to provide this - what is today called the welfare state - is dependent on its spending power. Its spending power, and its willingness to spend.
Of these two functions, which is more important? The Tea Party Movement would argue equality without liberty is equality of misery, and so worth nothing at all. An opponent hailing from the school of Marx might well counter that Liberty is a beourgoise luxury and doesn't exist for someone with no food, no shelter and no health. Most sane individuals can see both are important, and that their existence is not antagonistic. Most of the time, you need not harm liberty by increasing equality, and there are many ways liberty can be increased without damaging equality. The contrast between the US and UK currently is interesting for exactly this reason. The Tea Baggers believe that performing the second function contradicts the first. Interestingly, over here the criticism of Government spending cuts is that it will derail the former, ie the jobs and economic growth that allow citizens to maintain their own welfare, but it is being done to sustain the latter.
If a country has no money, it cannot provide welfare. It cannot fulfil the second function without the spending power. Cutting as we are now protects that future spending power, although at the cost of allowing people to provide for themselves. 1m will be made unemployed so we can afford to maintain the welfare of the 3m currently unemployed (plus all the others dependent on government welfare in some way or another - that is, all of us!). That is why these cuts are being made. That is the context in which the argument is made, and the reality of the situation. That is why we can't do the first, because we have to take care of the second.
Of course, there is a caveat: the will to spend. Labour claim we have more spending power than the government say, and the reason we are cutting so much is because that is what we want to do, not what we have to do. They are certainly right for certain individuals within the Tory party. They are certainly wrong for certain individuals within the Lib Dems. Are they right or wrong about members of the Government? Of the Lib Dems? Of the Cabinet?
That argument is unfalsifiable. Those who say they know conclusively either way do not. They can't. Only government, the Lib Dems, the Cabinet, the MP's themselves know. They will say it is need, but can we trust them? In the end, it all comes down to faith, which is at once terrifying, but hopelessly romantic.
Thursday 9 September 2010
Why can't politicians tell the truth?
Usually blogs of this sort would bemoan the terrible ethics of politicians and criticise one and all for being corrupt, power-hungery and despicable deceivers. I don't think that. When I ask Why can't politicians tell the truth, I mean 'why aren't politicians able to tell the truth and why they shouldn't tell the truth. The public is not ready for the truth. Politicians have to lie. If they didn't, they'd be useless.
Let's take a for instance. Clegg says he 'changed his mind about cuts because of the crisis in Europe'. I don't believe that, and I don't think anyone else did. But I appreciate why he's lying. Clegg changed his mind because he knew that was the condition of coalition. The tories wanted cuts, so we had to give them it. The critic would say this is clegg selling out for power. A fluffy fellow such as myself would say it was a worthwhile trade-off to get all the other things we want through. since he's lying, and everyone knows it, they assume it's the first. But if it is the second, and he said exaclty that, can you imagine what the response would be?
The first thing that would be likely to happen is the coalition would fall apart. It would create seriously bad feeling between the parties, and make continued co=operation very very very difficult. That's patently something we don't want (well, anyone who thinks the compromise worth making in the first place). Clegg lying is therefore to achieve his goals, which if you agree with me are worthwhile (i.e. not power, but AV, inceased CGT etc). If he told the truth he would fail to achieve the change he wants.
The second issue is the public/media reaction. If Clegg said he didn't want cuts, but he was supporting them because he had to in order to get the other stuff agreed to would he be cast as an honest martyr for his cause? Not in the slightest. He'd be ridiculed on two counts: 1) for not standing up for his ideals and 2) for not being a very good politician. The second of these is patently ridiculous as it contradicts the existing criticism that politicians are liars), the first shows an appaling lack of knowledge of politics.
Politics is about deciding what to do, and getting it done. The one is useless without the other. But getting things done requires important people agreeing to do it. That means you've got to keep them happy. Cameron (as PM) is important. So clegg must 'lie' to keep him happy. Rupert Murdoch is powerful, so Cameron must 'lie' (for instance about why he want to cut the license fee) to keep him happy. All MP's 'lie' to their constituents when they're campaigning, because they need to keep their voters happy. They're not being dishonest. They're just being intelligent.
The point is everyone complains about politicians not telling the truth, but if they told the truth they would be both ridiculed and unsuccesful in their pursuits. They would get elected, they wouldn't be respected, and they wouldn't succeed in passing the laws and making the changes they want to make.
Lying is a means to an ends. If the ends are worthwhile, and the means legal, they always justify the ends. Murder and corruption are a different matter, but deceit? That's well within the rules. Meanwhile, complaining about it distracts us from the real issues. Yes - Coulson is lying about knowing about the phone hacking, but he does so to protect himself. Labour are also lying when they claim the moral highground - they're only interested in scoring politicial points. Getting all high and mighty about the lying misses the point. We should be talking about why they're lying, and what they're trying to achieve. Maybe then we can have a real discussion.
Let's take a for instance. Clegg says he 'changed his mind about cuts because of the crisis in Europe'. I don't believe that, and I don't think anyone else did. But I appreciate why he's lying. Clegg changed his mind because he knew that was the condition of coalition. The tories wanted cuts, so we had to give them it. The critic would say this is clegg selling out for power. A fluffy fellow such as myself would say it was a worthwhile trade-off to get all the other things we want through. since he's lying, and everyone knows it, they assume it's the first. But if it is the second, and he said exaclty that, can you imagine what the response would be?
The first thing that would be likely to happen is the coalition would fall apart. It would create seriously bad feeling between the parties, and make continued co=operation very very very difficult. That's patently something we don't want (well, anyone who thinks the compromise worth making in the first place). Clegg lying is therefore to achieve his goals, which if you agree with me are worthwhile (i.e. not power, but AV, inceased CGT etc). If he told the truth he would fail to achieve the change he wants.
The second issue is the public/media reaction. If Clegg said he didn't want cuts, but he was supporting them because he had to in order to get the other stuff agreed to would he be cast as an honest martyr for his cause? Not in the slightest. He'd be ridiculed on two counts: 1) for not standing up for his ideals and 2) for not being a very good politician. The second of these is patently ridiculous as it contradicts the existing criticism that politicians are liars), the first shows an appaling lack of knowledge of politics.
Politics is about deciding what to do, and getting it done. The one is useless without the other. But getting things done requires important people agreeing to do it. That means you've got to keep them happy. Cameron (as PM) is important. So clegg must 'lie' to keep him happy. Rupert Murdoch is powerful, so Cameron must 'lie' (for instance about why he want to cut the license fee) to keep him happy. All MP's 'lie' to their constituents when they're campaigning, because they need to keep their voters happy. They're not being dishonest. They're just being intelligent.
The point is everyone complains about politicians not telling the truth, but if they told the truth they would be both ridiculed and unsuccesful in their pursuits. They would get elected, they wouldn't be respected, and they wouldn't succeed in passing the laws and making the changes they want to make.
Lying is a means to an ends. If the ends are worthwhile, and the means legal, they always justify the ends. Murder and corruption are a different matter, but deceit? That's well within the rules. Meanwhile, complaining about it distracts us from the real issues. Yes - Coulson is lying about knowing about the phone hacking, but he does so to protect himself. Labour are also lying when they claim the moral highground - they're only interested in scoring politicial points. Getting all high and mighty about the lying misses the point. We should be talking about why they're lying, and what they're trying to achieve. Maybe then we can have a real discussion.
Tuesday 10 August 2010
UKBA we knew about, it's the PCS I'm disgusted by
One current story may well go unnoticed by the majority of the population, but it deserves to be front page of every newspaper.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/08/uk-border-agency-investigation-concerns
This case has been on the radar for a while, and is the most tangible of what anyone involved in Asylum knows to be true: that the UKBA is a horrific and disgraceful organisation. Anecdotally, there are plenty of stories regarding the terrible behaviour of it's staff and indeed policy makers. My personal 'favourite' is of the asylum seeker rejected because his claim was based on guerilla activity near his hometown. The UKBA, with their usual thoroughness, rejected him on the basis that 'There are no gorillas near your home town. We have consulted several WWF reports, and none of them verify your claim. Furthermore, large apes have rarely been known to attack humans, therefore we do not accept that your life is under threat if you return'.
It is regretable that this inquiry was unable to do more than criticise. I see how it has problems with being unable to substantiate the claims of the lady concerned. After all, how could they? The issue, however, is institutional racism, exactly as it was in the Met which the Stephen Lawrence enquiry. That is what should have been the conclusion of this investigation: a serious report was needed into the culture of the UKBA, with a view to at best its dissolution and at least a shake-up of how it operates.
What i wasn't expecting to find out was the appalling behaviour of the PCS - the union whom UKBA workers are members. They have directed their members not to co-operate with the report, deliberatly obstructing its progress and ability to reach a firm conclusion. This primarily shows the PCS, whose leader Mark Serwotka has been highly vocal in taking the moral highground in criticising the government for cuts, to be a morally bankcrupt body. It is also a sad indictment of the state of British Trade Unionism today.
On the first charge, there is no defence. Unions are incredibly important at protecting their workers from exploitation and serious abuse from their more priveleged and inherently more powerful employers. In doing so, they have historically been absolutely vital in reversing many of the dynamics which keep the poor poor and the rich rich. They as such have a strong ethical character. However, their is not an ounce of morality in what the PCS are doing. The people who are affected by the institutional racism of the UKBA workforce are individuals who have fleed persecution and they have been unfairly left to live on the streets or return to their coutnries where they face rape, torture and probably death. There is no question the victims of the UKBA workforce are less well off than the PCS members. Unions should protect their members, but they should not protect their racist members, to allow them to continue treating innocent people in the most despicable way.
Regrettably, this is further evidence of a trend all too prevalent. Indeed, it has been the overwhelming characteristic of unions for the entire time I have been politically aware. They are no longer interested in securing for their workers a fair deal, but securing for their workers the most they possibly can at whatever expense. This does not stop just because their workers are comfortable. It is unquestionable, blinkered self-righteousness and without any element of perspective or relativity. This example with the PCS is crystal clear, but the recent BA strikes to reinstate 'travel perks' are equally pathetic. The question unions should be asking is not 'is this good for me?' but 'is this good for society as a whole?'. When the answer is yes, as it historically has been much of the time, then they should act and have every moral right to do so. But time and time again the answer is no, but time and again the Unions fail to ask the question. While they continue to do so, they have no moral authority.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/08/uk-border-agency-investigation-concerns
This case has been on the radar for a while, and is the most tangible of what anyone involved in Asylum knows to be true: that the UKBA is a horrific and disgraceful organisation. Anecdotally, there are plenty of stories regarding the terrible behaviour of it's staff and indeed policy makers. My personal 'favourite' is of the asylum seeker rejected because his claim was based on guerilla activity near his hometown. The UKBA, with their usual thoroughness, rejected him on the basis that 'There are no gorillas near your home town. We have consulted several WWF reports, and none of them verify your claim. Furthermore, large apes have rarely been known to attack humans, therefore we do not accept that your life is under threat if you return'.
It is regretable that this inquiry was unable to do more than criticise. I see how it has problems with being unable to substantiate the claims of the lady concerned. After all, how could they? The issue, however, is institutional racism, exactly as it was in the Met which the Stephen Lawrence enquiry. That is what should have been the conclusion of this investigation: a serious report was needed into the culture of the UKBA, with a view to at best its dissolution and at least a shake-up of how it operates.
What i wasn't expecting to find out was the appalling behaviour of the PCS - the union whom UKBA workers are members. They have directed their members not to co-operate with the report, deliberatly obstructing its progress and ability to reach a firm conclusion. This primarily shows the PCS, whose leader Mark Serwotka has been highly vocal in taking the moral highground in criticising the government for cuts, to be a morally bankcrupt body. It is also a sad indictment of the state of British Trade Unionism today.
On the first charge, there is no defence. Unions are incredibly important at protecting their workers from exploitation and serious abuse from their more priveleged and inherently more powerful employers. In doing so, they have historically been absolutely vital in reversing many of the dynamics which keep the poor poor and the rich rich. They as such have a strong ethical character. However, their is not an ounce of morality in what the PCS are doing. The people who are affected by the institutional racism of the UKBA workforce are individuals who have fleed persecution and they have been unfairly left to live on the streets or return to their coutnries where they face rape, torture and probably death. There is no question the victims of the UKBA workforce are less well off than the PCS members. Unions should protect their members, but they should not protect their racist members, to allow them to continue treating innocent people in the most despicable way.
Regrettably, this is further evidence of a trend all too prevalent. Indeed, it has been the overwhelming characteristic of unions for the entire time I have been politically aware. They are no longer interested in securing for their workers a fair deal, but securing for their workers the most they possibly can at whatever expense. This does not stop just because their workers are comfortable. It is unquestionable, blinkered self-righteousness and without any element of perspective or relativity. This example with the PCS is crystal clear, but the recent BA strikes to reinstate 'travel perks' are equally pathetic. The question unions should be asking is not 'is this good for me?' but 'is this good for society as a whole?'. When the answer is yes, as it historically has been much of the time, then they should act and have every moral right to do so. But time and time again the answer is no, but time and again the Unions fail to ask the question. While they continue to do so, they have no moral authority.
Thursday 29 July 2010
The coalition: from the perspective of a LibDem, has it been a success?
It comes down to each individual person to decide that for themselves, but it should be clear what it should be judged on. Regrettably, that is not what most of the press are judging it by.
1) Are we making important changes to government and policy?
A political party should only be campaigning for a position of power if, when it gets there, it does something worthwhile. If it doesn't do anything, then it doesn't deserve to be in power. Have we been able to introduce important changes to policy? Have we been able to improve some of the terrible wrongs instigated by the last government? Are we solving the problems faced by society? This is the main issue: if the Lib Dems can make Britain a fairer and better place and make the important changes that have been crying out to be made for decades, nothing else matters.
On this count, my answer would be yes. We ended Child Detention. We have inreased Capital Gains and brought in a Bank Levy. We have made it possible for Ken Clarke to oppose the 'Prison Works' canon. We have scrapped ID cards (collectively). We have also basically secured the 4 things on which we campaigned - pupil premium, increased tax threshold, green economy (secondarily through having both Business & Environment Cabinet Ministers) and crucially constitutional reform. This last point is so important to Lib Dems, including myself, that it is worth stomaching everything else.
2) Would it be worse without us?
The alternative to a Lib - Con coalition was a minority Tory government (we're ruling out the coalition of losers, which is not a good idea in any way), which would lead sooner or later to a new election and a likely Tory majority. The important matter then is how much worse would everything we dislike be if we weren't in coalition? How much deeper the cuts? How much more frightening the benefit reform? How much more regressive the ideology?
On two counts, I think, the coalition passes this test. If we hadn't gone in, we'd have played havoc with both the economy (because of the uncertainty), and the chances to achieve PR (because of the perceived impossibility of a hung parliament). Secondly, under a Tory only government everything would undeniably have been worse. People levy the criticism that Cameron is just pretending to be liberal so he can be PM. I agree, but this is better than being honestly conservative. If being a good liberal is the latest turn in Cameron's populism then I encourage it. Wrong reasons, but good consequence.
3) What is it doing to our elecoral chances?
This comes last, and so it should. We do have to think about it, but not that much. We need to do stuff first. That's why, I honestly think, people are Lib Dem and not Labour/Tory. We quite frankly don't give a shit about getting elected. We want to make the country and the way it's run better. That means getting elected, but otherwise we couldn't care less about opinion polls.
It's a shame the media and much of the public seem to care more about the last than the first or second. Lib Dems, and this is as much of an appeal than a statement, shouldn't. Let's think about the credit once we've seen the consequences. If those consequences are good, then who cares about the credit?
It comes down to each individual person to decide that for themselves, but it should be clear what it should be judged on. Regrettably, that is not what most of the press are judging it by.
1) Are we making important changes to government and policy?
A political party should only be campaigning for a position of power if, when it gets there, it does something worthwhile. If it doesn't do anything, then it doesn't deserve to be in power. Have we been able to introduce important changes to policy? Have we been able to improve some of the terrible wrongs instigated by the last government? Are we solving the problems faced by society? This is the main issue: if the Lib Dems can make Britain a fairer and better place and make the important changes that have been crying out to be made for decades, nothing else matters.
On this count, my answer would be yes. We ended Child Detention. We have inreased Capital Gains and brought in a Bank Levy. We have made it possible for Ken Clarke to oppose the 'Prison Works' canon. We have scrapped ID cards (collectively). We have also basically secured the 4 things on which we campaigned - pupil premium, increased tax threshold, green economy (secondarily through having both Business & Environment Cabinet Ministers) and crucially constitutional reform. This last point is so important to Lib Dems, including myself, that it is worth stomaching everything else.
2) Would it be worse without us?
The alternative to a Lib - Con coalition was a minority Tory government (we're ruling out the coalition of losers, which is not a good idea in any way), which would lead sooner or later to a new election and a likely Tory majority. The important matter then is how much worse would everything we dislike be if we weren't in coalition? How much deeper the cuts? How much more frightening the benefit reform? How much more regressive the ideology?
On two counts, I think, the coalition passes this test. If we hadn't gone in, we'd have played havoc with both the economy (because of the uncertainty), and the chances to achieve PR (because of the perceived impossibility of a hung parliament). Secondly, under a Tory only government everything would undeniably have been worse. People levy the criticism that Cameron is just pretending to be liberal so he can be PM. I agree, but this is better than being honestly conservative. If being a good liberal is the latest turn in Cameron's populism then I encourage it. Wrong reasons, but good consequence.
3) What is it doing to our elecoral chances?
This comes last, and so it should. We do have to think about it, but not that much. We need to do stuff first. That's why, I honestly think, people are Lib Dem and not Labour/Tory. We quite frankly don't give a shit about getting elected. We want to make the country and the way it's run better. That means getting elected, but otherwise we couldn't care less about opinion polls.
It's a shame the media and much of the public seem to care more about the last than the first or second. Lib Dems, and this is as much of an appeal than a statement, shouldn't. Let's think about the credit once we've seen the consequences. If those consequences are good, then who cares about the credit?
Friday 18 June 2010
It's refugee week, and my mid casts back over everything about immigration in the press. The resounding narrative over the last 6 months has been that we need to have a 'frank and honest discussion' of immigration - politicians, voters, think tanks, the media. But what exactly does this mean? What does Andrew Green mean when he says Migration Watch (his lobby-group) are the only rational voice talking about migration, except for the BNP and UKIP. That he thinks UKIP and BNP are rational immediately weakens his argument, but this opinion is so widely held it has to be explored. So what do they mean?
Do they mean we aren't facing up to the problems migration is causing: traffic (apparently), housing shortages, overcrowding and pressure on public services. They can't do, because immigration is not the cause of any of these things. We have more traffic because we have more people with cars, more people with multiple cars, and more people driving regularly. Thats easy to argue. The housing shortage is more complicated, but immigrants largely get the worst of the social housing stock and move in to the most deprived areas which are suffering from urban decline and outward migration. The housing shortage is because no social housing has been built for 25 years. Overcrowding in cities is a fact of life - and I'd wager is much better now than at the heigh of Victorian industrialisation when there were hardly any 'foreign' migrants at all. Finally, the pressures on public services aren't migrant based: for every issue created for a primary school assimilating Politsh children there are council estates full of institutionally unemployed 'British' people, or drinkers and smokers and aging Brits clogging up our health service. A frank and open discussion of migraton would have to talk about these things. Migration does have an impact, but not specifically because it is migration. People have an impact, migrants are people. But if that is the problem, it is not migration which is the issue but population, and we should be talking about a 1-child policy or voluntary euthanasia. I don't hear any voices calling for that, which I think is a good thing.
Perhas they mean that because we are facing tough times economically, we need to stop letting people in so we can focus on supporting the people we have. Fair enough, but that denies the pure economic demand that we have for immigrant labour. We aren't going to be abel to provide for the people we have - even if we stop letter oters in - unless we can grow the ecnomy again. That requires immigration, be it low skilled EU workers on farms and construction sites or high skilled international bankers, engineers or students (who keep Universities going with the extortionate fees). If we cut international immigration, we risk deprivin ourselves of this excellent workforce that fives Britain it's cutting edge. If we cut EU mgration, we have to accept the consequences - the loss of the trade and other benefits which come with EU membership, because free movement is all part of the deal. Plus, EU migration is very short term. The poles and the czechs are going home now, and will continue to. A frank and honest discussion of immigration would therefore have to reflect on the issue that we may get more from the immigrants than they get from us.
Maybe they are talking about integration. Integration has always been a problem, and is still an issue. Yes - many British Muslim's where burkhas. Yes - many polish workers don't learn English. If this is the discussion they want to have, then at least we can have it. I disagree, but there is none-the-less substance to the argument. The substance, however, is at the end of the day still racist. Not goose-stepping, flag waving, skinhead and doc martins wearing racist, rather racist-granny racist.
The integration argument comes from the view that the 'British Culture is under attack'. But are the Pakistani and Polish immigrants going out in gangs beating up anyone off to the pub, or having a sunday roast? No - they're not. There is an issue about the taboo of being patriotic, but that has more to do with guilt about our colonial past than immigration The only way immigrants can threaten Birish culture as far as I can see is by simply being here. If our culture and identity are that fragile that the mere prescence of an 'other' in our midst, doing 'other' things, then British culture doesn't really have much to shout about. If we are that insecure about our own identities, then it is US we need to have a frank and open discussion about.
That said, we do need to have a frank and open discusson about immigration. We need to stop running about in the shadows and directly address the questions people are raising. We need to talk not about numbers coming in, or border patrols, but about how innneficiently and illogically the whole system is: costin gfar more to the taxpayer than it could, taking too long and for no reason other than to appear tough on immigraton. We need to think about how unnecessarily harsh our system is to migrants, and the cruel and unusual treatment of asylum seekers this entails. There are inherent irrationalities with the system, and they are to no ones benefit and everyones detriment. We need to talk about integration and how we can encourage it (free english lessons, decent housing, community involvement) and not migrant communities and how they isolate themselves. We need to stop pussy-footing around and start making the argument and busting the myths. No platform policy does not work, and we need to confront and engage those with opinions we disagree with, otherwise they will be able to make their arguments without scrutiny, and they will become true merely through the regularity of their repetition.
Do they mean we aren't facing up to the problems migration is causing: traffic (apparently), housing shortages, overcrowding and pressure on public services. They can't do, because immigration is not the cause of any of these things. We have more traffic because we have more people with cars, more people with multiple cars, and more people driving regularly. Thats easy to argue. The housing shortage is more complicated, but immigrants largely get the worst of the social housing stock and move in to the most deprived areas which are suffering from urban decline and outward migration. The housing shortage is because no social housing has been built for 25 years. Overcrowding in cities is a fact of life - and I'd wager is much better now than at the heigh of Victorian industrialisation when there were hardly any 'foreign' migrants at all. Finally, the pressures on public services aren't migrant based: for every issue created for a primary school assimilating Politsh children there are council estates full of institutionally unemployed 'British' people, or drinkers and smokers and aging Brits clogging up our health service. A frank and open discussion of migraton would have to talk about these things. Migration does have an impact, but not specifically because it is migration. People have an impact, migrants are people. But if that is the problem, it is not migration which is the issue but population, and we should be talking about a 1-child policy or voluntary euthanasia. I don't hear any voices calling for that, which I think is a good thing.
Perhas they mean that because we are facing tough times economically, we need to stop letting people in so we can focus on supporting the people we have. Fair enough, but that denies the pure economic demand that we have for immigrant labour. We aren't going to be abel to provide for the people we have - even if we stop letter oters in - unless we can grow the ecnomy again. That requires immigration, be it low skilled EU workers on farms and construction sites or high skilled international bankers, engineers or students (who keep Universities going with the extortionate fees). If we cut international immigration, we risk deprivin ourselves of this excellent workforce that fives Britain it's cutting edge. If we cut EU mgration, we have to accept the consequences - the loss of the trade and other benefits which come with EU membership, because free movement is all part of the deal. Plus, EU migration is very short term. The poles and the czechs are going home now, and will continue to. A frank and honest discussion of immigration would therefore have to reflect on the issue that we may get more from the immigrants than they get from us.
Maybe they are talking about integration. Integration has always been a problem, and is still an issue. Yes - many British Muslim's where burkhas. Yes - many polish workers don't learn English. If this is the discussion they want to have, then at least we can have it. I disagree, but there is none-the-less substance to the argument. The substance, however, is at the end of the day still racist. Not goose-stepping, flag waving, skinhead and doc martins wearing racist, rather racist-granny racist.
The integration argument comes from the view that the 'British Culture is under attack'. But are the Pakistani and Polish immigrants going out in gangs beating up anyone off to the pub, or having a sunday roast? No - they're not. There is an issue about the taboo of being patriotic, but that has more to do with guilt about our colonial past than immigration The only way immigrants can threaten Birish culture as far as I can see is by simply being here. If our culture and identity are that fragile that the mere prescence of an 'other' in our midst, doing 'other' things, then British culture doesn't really have much to shout about. If we are that insecure about our own identities, then it is US we need to have a frank and open discussion about.
That said, we do need to have a frank and open discusson about immigration. We need to stop running about in the shadows and directly address the questions people are raising. We need to talk not about numbers coming in, or border patrols, but about how innneficiently and illogically the whole system is: costin gfar more to the taxpayer than it could, taking too long and for no reason other than to appear tough on immigraton. We need to think about how unnecessarily harsh our system is to migrants, and the cruel and unusual treatment of asylum seekers this entails. There are inherent irrationalities with the system, and they are to no ones benefit and everyones detriment. We need to talk about integration and how we can encourage it (free english lessons, decent housing, community involvement) and not migrant communities and how they isolate themselves. We need to stop pussy-footing around and start making the argument and busting the myths. No platform policy does not work, and we need to confront and engage those with opinions we disagree with, otherwise they will be able to make their arguments without scrutiny, and they will become true merely through the regularity of their repetition.
Wednesday 12 May 2010
Election 2010 - Reflections part 1
So, this election has been pretty exciting and pretty hard work. Lots to say about it so i'm going to have to break it down into a few sections.
In January, I would have taken this result for sure. After the way the election went, I'm a bit disappointed, but mainly at the voting public. They bloomin' bottled it. They had a chance to go for something better, they agreed with what we proposed, and they just went right back to voting for the same old parties they always voted for. In Sheffield, we had a 7.4% swing and came second by 165 votes. We didn't so much lose, as not quite win enough. In the end though, too many people in Sheffield will still never vote for anyone but Labour.
The conclusion we've got is a mixed bag. It hurts to be in coalition with Tories to an unreasonable degree, and does feel like betraying everything we believe in. But it's not necessarily a bad deal at all. We have got an awful lot of very important policy in there, and some significant positions to influence government. There is no reason to think we won't have enough of an impact to both curb the more reactionary Conservative tendencies, and push a progressive agenda through classic Tory inaction. Lib Dem's with the Tories on a leash is undoubtably better than the Tories by themselves. And we have got a referendum on AV, which ain't perfect but is pretty serious change. If we can bring about a change to the voting system, that would justify anything else that happens in this government.
Yet, it just feels a bit wrong. We could take all the plaudits from a coalition victory and romp home under AV at the next election. Or we could get sidelined and co-opted into a regressive agenda that ruins both the principles of the Liberal Democrats and the voters support for our party. A part of me worries that Clegg and co have been seduced by the opportunity for power. Clegg going into Downing Street and standing next to Cameron at that press conference certainly looked a bit too happy and pleased with himself. I would be much more comfortable if he looked a little bit more put out to be working with the Tories. At the same time, having positions of power may be what we need to break through as a serious party that both voters and the media pay attention to.
Only time will tell. I hope it's kind to us.
In January, I would have taken this result for sure. After the way the election went, I'm a bit disappointed, but mainly at the voting public. They bloomin' bottled it. They had a chance to go for something better, they agreed with what we proposed, and they just went right back to voting for the same old parties they always voted for. In Sheffield, we had a 7.4% swing and came second by 165 votes. We didn't so much lose, as not quite win enough. In the end though, too many people in Sheffield will still never vote for anyone but Labour.
The conclusion we've got is a mixed bag. It hurts to be in coalition with Tories to an unreasonable degree, and does feel like betraying everything we believe in. But it's not necessarily a bad deal at all. We have got an awful lot of very important policy in there, and some significant positions to influence government. There is no reason to think we won't have enough of an impact to both curb the more reactionary Conservative tendencies, and push a progressive agenda through classic Tory inaction. Lib Dem's with the Tories on a leash is undoubtably better than the Tories by themselves. And we have got a referendum on AV, which ain't perfect but is pretty serious change. If we can bring about a change to the voting system, that would justify anything else that happens in this government.
Yet, it just feels a bit wrong. We could take all the plaudits from a coalition victory and romp home under AV at the next election. Or we could get sidelined and co-opted into a regressive agenda that ruins both the principles of the Liberal Democrats and the voters support for our party. A part of me worries that Clegg and co have been seduced by the opportunity for power. Clegg going into Downing Street and standing next to Cameron at that press conference certainly looked a bit too happy and pleased with himself. I would be much more comfortable if he looked a little bit more put out to be working with the Tories. At the same time, having positions of power may be what we need to break through as a serious party that both voters and the media pay attention to.
Only time will tell. I hope it's kind to us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
