Today in the Guardian, James Purnell and Jon Cruddas talk about their new 'open left' project (www.openleft.com, www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree), along with famous lefties like Billy Bragg. They want a new definition of the left, and bemoan Labour's inability to follow the leftist agenda they, and presumably all the 'grass-roots' members who you always here are committed socialists, believe in. There's a simple solution to these concerns, and it doesn't involve a long and tortuous reform of the labour party. It's to vote Lib Dem.
Whatever prejudice people have about the LibDems, they are the party with the most re-distributive, the most radical, the most socialist, agenda currently; and have been since at least 1997. Jon Cruddas wants to tackle 'top-end issues such as tax avoidance or the imperative to take millions of low-paid people out of tax altogether'. These are two of the main policies the party has had in the last year. Other key policies include nationalising banks, which we were for a long time before Brown did it; and regulating financial markets so investors couldn't make billions by losing poor people's savings.
It would be quite suprising if Cruddas or Purnell switched allegiances: they're MP's and have invested in the party. But for all the Labour supporters who cling to the party despite its constant failure to match up to their beliefs, it's a lot easier. All they have to do is put a cross in a different box. The LibDems - the people and the policies - are much more in line with their beliefs. In ten years this might change, and Labour may again be the party further to the left. If that happened, I would personally have to question my allegiance. But until that happens, it does no good to carry on voting for the wrong party.
Need a new left? Well here's one they made earlier: the Lib Dems.
Monday 20 July 2009
Thursday 16 July 2009
Media Influence over the question of military deaths in Afghanistan is too great
In this fast paced world, I'm a bit behind in writing about the latest trouble in Afghanistan. The whole debate reached a head at least two days ago, and therefore is no longer important to the media. One assumes this means its no longer important to most political parties as well, since they usually follow suit. It only became an issue because the media talked about it, and the lines of the debate exactly followed the media framing, with parties (including the Lib Dems, who usually have enough credibility to avoid this kind of thing) competing to see who could bend the most to media demands.
The whole episode accurately illustrates several of the central issues facing British politics at the moment. In terms of content, some good comments were made, but much more bad ones emerged. Many commentators observed the valid point that a military response to the problems in Afghanistan won't really solve anything. In this respect, the current operation which has caused an increased mortality rate is a waste of time and lives.
However, the majority of reports, and that which dominated the headlines at the Mail, Sun, Telegraph etc and set the tone for the debate in parliament, concerned the number of British deaths and the supposed lack of support for troops there. The debate was whether or not the government are adequately supporting our troops with equipment and financing. Nowhere was it mentioned that there is currently an operation to push the Taliban out of Helmand. Nowhere was it mentioned how many civilians may have died in this period. Nowhere was it said that being a soldier is a dangerous job, and indeed that so few British servicemen have been killed is remarkable.
The debate needs to mention these points. It is far less tragic if a soldier dies than a civilian. In a war, soldiers die: this is to be expected. It makes it no less sad, but it is a fact of war. If they were poorly equipped, then it is more tragic, but none-the-less a pervading sense that we must protect our forces at all costs, rather than the security of Afghani civilians, is present. Of course the media prefer the more interesting story of under-funding and blaming the government, but that Cameron, and to my regret Clegg, continued their argument and did not mention these important points is sad.
The problem in British politics is politicians blindly following the media framing and refusing to consider the aspects of an issue which are less likely to win votes and risk upsetting media sources. Forget expenses and corruption, the problem with politicians is their lack of metaphorical balls to take on the press.
The whole episode accurately illustrates several of the central issues facing British politics at the moment. In terms of content, some good comments were made, but much more bad ones emerged. Many commentators observed the valid point that a military response to the problems in Afghanistan won't really solve anything. In this respect, the current operation which has caused an increased mortality rate is a waste of time and lives.
However, the majority of reports, and that which dominated the headlines at the Mail, Sun, Telegraph etc and set the tone for the debate in parliament, concerned the number of British deaths and the supposed lack of support for troops there. The debate was whether or not the government are adequately supporting our troops with equipment and financing. Nowhere was it mentioned that there is currently an operation to push the Taliban out of Helmand. Nowhere was it mentioned how many civilians may have died in this period. Nowhere was it said that being a soldier is a dangerous job, and indeed that so few British servicemen have been killed is remarkable.
The debate needs to mention these points. It is far less tragic if a soldier dies than a civilian. In a war, soldiers die: this is to be expected. It makes it no less sad, but it is a fact of war. If they were poorly equipped, then it is more tragic, but none-the-less a pervading sense that we must protect our forces at all costs, rather than the security of Afghani civilians, is present. Of course the media prefer the more interesting story of under-funding and blaming the government, but that Cameron, and to my regret Clegg, continued their argument and did not mention these important points is sad.
The problem in British politics is politicians blindly following the media framing and refusing to consider the aspects of an issue which are less likely to win votes and risk upsetting media sources. Forget expenses and corruption, the problem with politicians is their lack of metaphorical balls to take on the press.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
