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.
Wednesday, 12 May 2010
Monday, 26 April 2010
The irony of PR and a hung parliament
The election is panning out as such: the Tories will finish first in terms of the vote and have the second most number of seats. The Lib Dems will finish second in terms of the vote and have the least number of seats. Labour will have the least share of the vote and the most number of seats. No one will have a majority.
We are going to have a hung parliament. Someone will have to form a coalition. That coalition isn’t going to be Tory – Labour. The Lib Dems have to decide. We will have this power by virtue of the number of votes we got. We got those votes by virtue of the platform we stood one (we hope, at least). The platform we stood on is centrally our 4 manifesto pledges: fair schools, fair taxes, green jobs and clean politics. Our mandate to form a coalition comes from the mandate the voters will have given us to deliver these pledges.
It stands to reason therefore that we will make our coalition decision according to the possibility of doing this, and according to the democratic will of the voters. Labour will be more likely to deliver our pledges, but will have the lowest share of the vote. We can’t go with them because then we betray the mandate of the electorate as a whole. The Tories have the electoral mandate, but won’t allow our pledges to be delivered. We can’t go with them because then we betray the mandate of those who voted for us.
In fact, it is not that the Tories would block all our manifesto commitments. Pupil premium: fine. Green jobs: fine Balanced taxes: tricky but do-able. It’s the final one that is the problem. The Tories just will not accept PR, or so their manifesto says. Isn’t it just ironic? The reason the Tories can’t go into coalition is the same as why they have to form a coalition: our ridiculous voting system. The Tories will have the democratic right to be in government but not the maths. They should be complaining about the appalling fact that Labour have the most seats and least votes, but they can’t because they are fundamentally committed to the system that created this situation.
I have no wish to ally with the Tories, being more an anti-Tory than a pro-Lib Dem voter. It could happen however, if the Tories wouldn’t be so pig-headedly reactionary. Their stance is a clear reminder to me of why they are an abhorrent part led by abhorrent individuals. PR is so necessary because currently the voices of our voters are being silenced: making a joke of our democracy. That the party with the least votes has the most representation is a mockery of the principle of rule by the people. That there are only ever two parties in a constituency which it is worth voting for (3 in a very select few), and any other vote is wasted and ignored makes the EU look democratic.
To be opposed to PR is to be opposed to democracy, and that the Tories are is a disgrace and a shame.
We are going to have a hung parliament. Someone will have to form a coalition. That coalition isn’t going to be Tory – Labour. The Lib Dems have to decide. We will have this power by virtue of the number of votes we got. We got those votes by virtue of the platform we stood one (we hope, at least). The platform we stood on is centrally our 4 manifesto pledges: fair schools, fair taxes, green jobs and clean politics. Our mandate to form a coalition comes from the mandate the voters will have given us to deliver these pledges.
It stands to reason therefore that we will make our coalition decision according to the possibility of doing this, and according to the democratic will of the voters. Labour will be more likely to deliver our pledges, but will have the lowest share of the vote. We can’t go with them because then we betray the mandate of the electorate as a whole. The Tories have the electoral mandate, but won’t allow our pledges to be delivered. We can’t go with them because then we betray the mandate of those who voted for us.
In fact, it is not that the Tories would block all our manifesto commitments. Pupil premium: fine. Green jobs: fine Balanced taxes: tricky but do-able. It’s the final one that is the problem. The Tories just will not accept PR, or so their manifesto says. Isn’t it just ironic? The reason the Tories can’t go into coalition is the same as why they have to form a coalition: our ridiculous voting system. The Tories will have the democratic right to be in government but not the maths. They should be complaining about the appalling fact that Labour have the most seats and least votes, but they can’t because they are fundamentally committed to the system that created this situation.
I have no wish to ally with the Tories, being more an anti-Tory than a pro-Lib Dem voter. It could happen however, if the Tories wouldn’t be so pig-headedly reactionary. Their stance is a clear reminder to me of why they are an abhorrent part led by abhorrent individuals. PR is so necessary because currently the voices of our voters are being silenced: making a joke of our democracy. That the party with the least votes has the most representation is a mockery of the principle of rule by the people. That there are only ever two parties in a constituency which it is worth voting for (3 in a very select few), and any other vote is wasted and ignored makes the EU look democratic.
To be opposed to PR is to be opposed to democracy, and that the Tories are is a disgrace and a shame.
Monday, 19 April 2010
Cleggmania
It's a good time to be a Lib Dem, no bones about it.
It's a confusing time, though. Having always been the outsiders, the ones desperately trying to get people to pay attention to what we're saying, to our ideas, to our policies, we're not very used to this. I think the general state among us Liberals right now is shock and disbelief - we're a bit worried to go to sleep in case we wake up and it was all a dream.
The shock and disbelief is not - in my case at least - because our ideas and our party is popular. I have never had any doubt that our policies are the best strategy or dealing with the countries problems. I have never had any doubt that our leader is the best, most honest individual to lead the country and our leading the team the most accomplised and ethical. That probably goes without saying; if i didn't think so, I would never have joined the party. The suprise is that the press are paying us attention. THAT I never thought i'd see.
It's no suprise that Nick won the debate, though. Comments afterwards were along the lines of 'he appeared so honest' and 'he looked like he actually wanted a new type of politics'. Bigwigs at Labour and Tory HQ('s) might have been scratching their heads about how he managed to do this, but the answer is quite simple. He is honest. He does want a new type of politics. Clegg has nothing to hide going into these debates: the Lib Dems have the policies, we have the costings, and we have the record. We came across well not because of good spin, but because we are good.
It is interesting that Labour and Tories now think they can now de-rail us by telling people our policies wont stand up to scrutiny. Please, everyone, scrutinise our policies! That is exactly what the Lib Dems have wanted people to do for the entire 20 years of their existence! We want the media to talk about our proposals. We want voters to consider our policies. We've thought them through, and actually they are pretty good. It's totally true that you can't win an election without substance or style. Gordon and Dave think that because we showed the style in the debate, we must be lacking the substance and thats how they'll get us. I'm sorry, lads, but we've had the substance for years. It's the style we've been waiting for, and now we have that as well, we're going to take some stopping.
Sadly, however, there is one thing which may stop us. This next debate is going to be a tricky one, as all the Labservative pundits are predicting. Not because, like they say, our policies are patchy. We've got some very very good policies. They just aren't policies the majority of the public agree with. It will be a tragedy if we don't do as well as we hoped in this election because of our brave, defensible and very much correct policies on topics such as trident, immigration and the EU. On all of the topics, we have been the only main party to stand up to the false media bias that sways the argument against them, and formulate a policy which will serve the needs of this country and not pander to the electorate. Because the electorate are not positive about immigration and they are not friendly to the EU. But the immigration system we have now is irrational, costly and cruel; and the EU is the only way to recover British economic growth and the major avenue for proper solutions to continuing problems (ironically, one of those being immigration).
If this is a time of change, if the public really are tired of the spin and deceit that passes for politics these days, then they will listen to what we are saying on these topics. They will think seriously and not listen to the tripe that comes from the other parties or indeed the right-wing press. I've got faith they will, and if they do, they will see the rewards.
It's a confusing time, though. Having always been the outsiders, the ones desperately trying to get people to pay attention to what we're saying, to our ideas, to our policies, we're not very used to this. I think the general state among us Liberals right now is shock and disbelief - we're a bit worried to go to sleep in case we wake up and it was all a dream.
The shock and disbelief is not - in my case at least - because our ideas and our party is popular. I have never had any doubt that our policies are the best strategy or dealing with the countries problems. I have never had any doubt that our leader is the best, most honest individual to lead the country and our leading the team the most accomplised and ethical. That probably goes without saying; if i didn't think so, I would never have joined the party. The suprise is that the press are paying us attention. THAT I never thought i'd see.
It's no suprise that Nick won the debate, though. Comments afterwards were along the lines of 'he appeared so honest' and 'he looked like he actually wanted a new type of politics'. Bigwigs at Labour and Tory HQ('s) might have been scratching their heads about how he managed to do this, but the answer is quite simple. He is honest. He does want a new type of politics. Clegg has nothing to hide going into these debates: the Lib Dems have the policies, we have the costings, and we have the record. We came across well not because of good spin, but because we are good.
It is interesting that Labour and Tories now think they can now de-rail us by telling people our policies wont stand up to scrutiny. Please, everyone, scrutinise our policies! That is exactly what the Lib Dems have wanted people to do for the entire 20 years of their existence! We want the media to talk about our proposals. We want voters to consider our policies. We've thought them through, and actually they are pretty good. It's totally true that you can't win an election without substance or style. Gordon and Dave think that because we showed the style in the debate, we must be lacking the substance and thats how they'll get us. I'm sorry, lads, but we've had the substance for years. It's the style we've been waiting for, and now we have that as well, we're going to take some stopping.
Sadly, however, there is one thing which may stop us. This next debate is going to be a tricky one, as all the Labservative pundits are predicting. Not because, like they say, our policies are patchy. We've got some very very good policies. They just aren't policies the majority of the public agree with. It will be a tragedy if we don't do as well as we hoped in this election because of our brave, defensible and very much correct policies on topics such as trident, immigration and the EU. On all of the topics, we have been the only main party to stand up to the false media bias that sways the argument against them, and formulate a policy which will serve the needs of this country and not pander to the electorate. Because the electorate are not positive about immigration and they are not friendly to the EU. But the immigration system we have now is irrational, costly and cruel; and the EU is the only way to recover British economic growth and the major avenue for proper solutions to continuing problems (ironically, one of those being immigration).
If this is a time of change, if the public really are tired of the spin and deceit that passes for politics these days, then they will listen to what we are saying on these topics. They will think seriously and not listen to the tripe that comes from the other parties or indeed the right-wing press. I've got faith they will, and if they do, they will see the rewards.
Wednesday, 24 February 2010
The tension between governing and getting into government
There is an inherent tension within all polities - especially democratic ones - between the process of governing, and the process of getting into government. The two are intimately entwined: obviously you cannot govern without getting into government, but there is no point in getting into government if you don't know what your going to do there.
Tony Blair was revolutionary (and I'm aware I've made this point before!), because he was the first modern British politician to fully understand this. His 1997 campaign focused more than any before on getting into government: that is managing public image, appearing electable and using spin and PR to do this. He did also have a broad and serious plan for government: minimum wage, investment in public services, and constitutional reform among other policies. It is rather ironic and a real shame that in power he forgot about this and became wholly about getting into government, but the roots were there. As i've complained before, this is the attitude which has pervaded politics today, and I believe is massively responsible for alot of the malign within it.
This tension is an interesting analytical device for understanding the divisions between political parties here in the UK. If you view it on a left/right spectrum, with left being a concern for governing and right representing an emphasis on getting into government, both Labour and the Tories are firmly to the right. My own party, the Liberal Democrats, are a distance to the left and this has in fact been a problem of ours. One of the reasons we have not been as succesful as other parties since for 20years is to a great extent because of our inability to promote ourselves and our ideas effectively. I in fact welcome our move to the right on this spectrum because it's obviously a vital ingredient to success in the current political environment, though I'm pleased we still have a much greater emphasis on policy and what we would do in government than the other main parties.
Of the smaller parties, the Green's are undoubtably to the left of us. I was talking with a Green party member and local activist recently and this, for him, is the key divider between us and them. The party definetely retains a stronger ideological influence and commitment to campaigning on this basis, not through the modern 'dark arts' of electioneering. They are considerably more focused on governing than getting into government, although this doesn't mean their plan for government is any good. Indeed this 'left-wing' position does work against them, and like the LibDems in the past is probably a key reason why they are a marginal party. I expect that as they become more succesful, and get closer to the heart of power, they will become noticably more right-wing and corrupted by the need to get into government. It's a process that's difficult to avoid.
It could well be said this makes the Green's more honest than the big three parties. However, it could also be said that it makes them more stupid. I probably wouldn't quite agree with either statement, but both contain some truth. Blair taught us how getting into government was an important concern as well, and though he went too far we cannot dis-regard his message. The LibDems have done this to their detriment. An extent of electioneering is important, and I think the modern party has the right balance. Occasionally, you need to (for want of a better word) cheat to win, and thats excusable as long as you have significant things you want to do when you win. Its ends-and-means time again, but means must still have an end.
My Green party associate judged the LibDems to be too right-wing; to be too close to the corrupting centre of power to be able to represent him. He expressed his opinion that even they are too close, but far enough for him to be comfortable. I think we are probably just about far enough away while still having some power, and that's why I joined them. I leave it up to the reader to decide what level of corruption they are comfortable with.
Tony Blair was revolutionary (and I'm aware I've made this point before!), because he was the first modern British politician to fully understand this. His 1997 campaign focused more than any before on getting into government: that is managing public image, appearing electable and using spin and PR to do this. He did also have a broad and serious plan for government: minimum wage, investment in public services, and constitutional reform among other policies. It is rather ironic and a real shame that in power he forgot about this and became wholly about getting into government, but the roots were there. As i've complained before, this is the attitude which has pervaded politics today, and I believe is massively responsible for alot of the malign within it.
This tension is an interesting analytical device for understanding the divisions between political parties here in the UK. If you view it on a left/right spectrum, with left being a concern for governing and right representing an emphasis on getting into government, both Labour and the Tories are firmly to the right. My own party, the Liberal Democrats, are a distance to the left and this has in fact been a problem of ours. One of the reasons we have not been as succesful as other parties since for 20years is to a great extent because of our inability to promote ourselves and our ideas effectively. I in fact welcome our move to the right on this spectrum because it's obviously a vital ingredient to success in the current political environment, though I'm pleased we still have a much greater emphasis on policy and what we would do in government than the other main parties.
Of the smaller parties, the Green's are undoubtably to the left of us. I was talking with a Green party member and local activist recently and this, for him, is the key divider between us and them. The party definetely retains a stronger ideological influence and commitment to campaigning on this basis, not through the modern 'dark arts' of electioneering. They are considerably more focused on governing than getting into government, although this doesn't mean their plan for government is any good. Indeed this 'left-wing' position does work against them, and like the LibDems in the past is probably a key reason why they are a marginal party. I expect that as they become more succesful, and get closer to the heart of power, they will become noticably more right-wing and corrupted by the need to get into government. It's a process that's difficult to avoid.
It could well be said this makes the Green's more honest than the big three parties. However, it could also be said that it makes them more stupid. I probably wouldn't quite agree with either statement, but both contain some truth. Blair taught us how getting into government was an important concern as well, and though he went too far we cannot dis-regard his message. The LibDems have done this to their detriment. An extent of electioneering is important, and I think the modern party has the right balance. Occasionally, you need to (for want of a better word) cheat to win, and thats excusable as long as you have significant things you want to do when you win. Its ends-and-means time again, but means must still have an end.
My Green party associate judged the LibDems to be too right-wing; to be too close to the corrupting centre of power to be able to represent him. He expressed his opinion that even they are too close, but far enough for him to be comfortable. I think we are probably just about far enough away while still having some power, and that's why I joined them. I leave it up to the reader to decide what level of corruption they are comfortable with.
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
MyLabourPoster.com is a pile of wank
We all laughed when lefties started mydavidcameron.com. A few Tories probably didn't; bless their posh little socks. Some of them got angry. That's presumably why they started mylabourposter.com. Unfortunately, apart from smug Tories, no one is laughing. Why?
1. It's not funny. The posters on there (Mr Blobby: "i've never voted labour before, there economic policies are just too crazy"??? Is that the best you can come up with???) derive their humour from petty stereotypes, pre-pubescent 'wackiness', and as-subtle-as-a-combine-harvester-through-your-front-window juxta positions. Mydavidcameron.com was funny. It was witty, intelligent and most importantly light hearted, where as the Tory equivalent reeks of bitterness. Bitterness is not funny. Its sad.
2. It's not warranted. Mydavidcameron.com was a response to Dave's frankly ridiculous airbrushed poster. He exhibited an appaling level of hubris in producing them, which is just asking for ridicule. The follow-up 'death-tax' and 'i've never voted tory before...' posters are less silly, but not without room for ridicule. Have Labour produced any elections posters yet? Have they been incredibly vain or mockably self-righteous? I wouldn't put it past them, but they're not there yet.
3. It's not nice. Of the dozen or so posters up there so far, 3-4 are very questionable, somewhat racist and certainly reactionary. The immigration poster, for example, showing hordes of immigrants at the gates of Britain could well have come from the BNP (whose rise they blame in a different poster on Labour), not to mention the fact that the people depicted would never be able to vote, being as they are either illegal immigrants or asylum seekers. The EU poster is xenophobic to the core, once again encouraging false fears based on false beliefs. The post-man pat electoral fraud one ("election fraud has grown under labour") misses the point that it is the Tories who have been responsible for most of this fraud, including some of the most serious offences (for example http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7303606.stm). The prison sentencing poster shows an attitude to justice that went out of fashion in the middle ages. These posters aren't humurous; they are horrible. The difference between the two is a few mates at the pub lightly ribbing each other and some big skinheads kicking the shit out of someone at closing time. The first is mean but amusing. The second makes you want to call the police.
4. It's done by the Tories. It impossible to deny I don't find them funny because i am incredibly biased against the conservatives, who I think are absolute pricks and will probably never think any different. None-the-less, everything i have said above is still true. Please do check it out and prove me wrong.
1. It's not funny. The posters on there (Mr Blobby: "i've never voted labour before, there economic policies are just too crazy"??? Is that the best you can come up with???) derive their humour from petty stereotypes, pre-pubescent 'wackiness', and as-subtle-as-a-combine-harvester-through-your-front-window juxta positions. Mydavidcameron.com was funny. It was witty, intelligent and most importantly light hearted, where as the Tory equivalent reeks of bitterness. Bitterness is not funny. Its sad.
2. It's not warranted. Mydavidcameron.com was a response to Dave's frankly ridiculous airbrushed poster. He exhibited an appaling level of hubris in producing them, which is just asking for ridicule. The follow-up 'death-tax' and 'i've never voted tory before...' posters are less silly, but not without room for ridicule. Have Labour produced any elections posters yet? Have they been incredibly vain or mockably self-righteous? I wouldn't put it past them, but they're not there yet.
3. It's not nice. Of the dozen or so posters up there so far, 3-4 are very questionable, somewhat racist and certainly reactionary. The immigration poster, for example, showing hordes of immigrants at the gates of Britain could well have come from the BNP (whose rise they blame in a different poster on Labour), not to mention the fact that the people depicted would never be able to vote, being as they are either illegal immigrants or asylum seekers. The EU poster is xenophobic to the core, once again encouraging false fears based on false beliefs. The post-man pat electoral fraud one ("election fraud has grown under labour") misses the point that it is the Tories who have been responsible for most of this fraud, including some of the most serious offences (for example http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7303606.stm). The prison sentencing poster shows an attitude to justice that went out of fashion in the middle ages. These posters aren't humurous; they are horrible. The difference between the two is a few mates at the pub lightly ribbing each other and some big skinheads kicking the shit out of someone at closing time. The first is mean but amusing. The second makes you want to call the police.
4. It's done by the Tories. It impossible to deny I don't find them funny because i am incredibly biased against the conservatives, who I think are absolute pricks and will probably never think any different. None-the-less, everything i have said above is still true. Please do check it out and prove me wrong.
Tuesday, 18 August 2009
Inside Youth Unemployment: by An Unemployed Youth.
As a recent graduate now unemployed, I find myself being told constantly that I do not have the expertise or experience to do the jobs for which I am applying. Thank god then, for the current crisis of rising unemployment among young people and graduates, for it is only here where i find myself able to be both expert and experience! What then, is my expert and insiders view of this current burning political issue? Why can young people not get jobs? Based on my less than scientific sample size of one (i.e. me), these are the possibilities:
1. Saturated job market:
The general economy is, of course, going down the toilet. This means a fair few older people have lost their jobs, and are applying for the same vacancies as those fresh out of school/college/university. In a boom time, graduates and young people have less competition from experiened workers, so are more likely to get that elusive first job. Now, we are coming up against older folk with more experience, better qualifications, and proven ability. The company's doing the hiring are much less keen to take a gamble on an unproved yoof given the unpredictable economic climate, if indeed they are hiring at all!
2. High expectations:
This may only apply to graduates, or indeed only to myself and some of the people I know. We are of a generation who were brought up in relative comfort. Our parents were reasonably successful, and there wasn't an overwhelming worry about money. Consequently, we have tended to, and been encouraged to, pursue careers and courses of study which are enjoyable and satisfying, not just financially rewarding. We've also had access to great education. We want fulfillment from our profession, and not just something to pay the bills. So there is a huge pool of intelligent, balanced individuals all fighting for a small number of interesting and rewarding jobs, where in previous generations many would have taken anything. That the 'anything that pays the bills' category is mainly call centre work may be a factor in keeping the fussy unemployed out of work.
3. Over-qualified, but under-experienced:
I think this is really the major obstacle. I have applied for tons of jobs in offices, doing general dogsbody admin. The requirements are ability to do filing, ability to type and use Microsoft Office, and other fairly simple skills. I have these skills. Its hard to do a degree without having them. But my degree (in International Relations & Politics) doesn't show this so much as my ability to accurately analyse how the organisational dynamics of government has affected immigration disourse or how the concept of Undecidability can be used to build constructive policy within post-modern theory. I got a first for both of them, but employers quite frankly don't give a shit, and why should they? Those are qualifications for a senior policy advisor, not a menial desk clerk. I'm qualified for the job i'll have in twenty years.
Furthermore, there isn't much of a structure for converting these skills into tradeable qualities. When i went to the job centree and inquired into their training schemes to give me something to put on my CV, the and nothing. The courses they offer are how to write a CV, how to search for jobs on the internet, how to tie your shoelaces etc. Nothing to help me stand out.
What links all these points is a looming chasm between what the world was meant to look like and how it actually looks. Kids have been educated and trained for a burgeoning international economy where highly trained individuals are in great demand for satisfying, important jobs. Instead, we have an inward looking, shrinking economy where no one wants to take risks and opportunities are scarce. We, the yoof, are the ones caught in the middle as this chasm opens, and if we're not careful, we're not going to be able to climb out.
1. Saturated job market:
The general economy is, of course, going down the toilet. This means a fair few older people have lost their jobs, and are applying for the same vacancies as those fresh out of school/college/university. In a boom time, graduates and young people have less competition from experiened workers, so are more likely to get that elusive first job. Now, we are coming up against older folk with more experience, better qualifications, and proven ability. The company's doing the hiring are much less keen to take a gamble on an unproved yoof given the unpredictable economic climate, if indeed they are hiring at all!
2. High expectations:
This may only apply to graduates, or indeed only to myself and some of the people I know. We are of a generation who were brought up in relative comfort. Our parents were reasonably successful, and there wasn't an overwhelming worry about money. Consequently, we have tended to, and been encouraged to, pursue careers and courses of study which are enjoyable and satisfying, not just financially rewarding. We've also had access to great education. We want fulfillment from our profession, and not just something to pay the bills. So there is a huge pool of intelligent, balanced individuals all fighting for a small number of interesting and rewarding jobs, where in previous generations many would have taken anything. That the 'anything that pays the bills' category is mainly call centre work may be a factor in keeping the fussy unemployed out of work.
3. Over-qualified, but under-experienced:
I think this is really the major obstacle. I have applied for tons of jobs in offices, doing general dogsbody admin. The requirements are ability to do filing, ability to type and use Microsoft Office, and other fairly simple skills. I have these skills. Its hard to do a degree without having them. But my degree (in International Relations & Politics) doesn't show this so much as my ability to accurately analyse how the organisational dynamics of government has affected immigration disourse or how the concept of Undecidability can be used to build constructive policy within post-modern theory. I got a first for both of them, but employers quite frankly don't give a shit, and why should they? Those are qualifications for a senior policy advisor, not a menial desk clerk. I'm qualified for the job i'll have in twenty years.
Furthermore, there isn't much of a structure for converting these skills into tradeable qualities. When i went to the job centree and inquired into their training schemes to give me something to put on my CV, the and nothing. The courses they offer are how to write a CV, how to search for jobs on the internet, how to tie your shoelaces etc. Nothing to help me stand out.
What links all these points is a looming chasm between what the world was meant to look like and how it actually looks. Kids have been educated and trained for a burgeoning international economy where highly trained individuals are in great demand for satisfying, important jobs. Instead, we have an inward looking, shrinking economy where no one wants to take risks and opportunities are scarce. We, the yoof, are the ones caught in the middle as this chasm opens, and if we're not careful, we're not going to be able to climb out.
Monday, 20 July 2009
Need a new left? The Liberal Democrats fit the bill.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
