Preparing for Opposition - 3 comments

It's very strange to read things like this: "The strange death of Labour Britain", full of statements like:

[...] To which one dissident mordantly replies: "there is no element of risk to keeping Gordon, the outcome is certain. It is disaster".

Who are these people? An MBE for the first political journalist who, the day before their retirement, scans and uploads their little black book, naming every source, dissident, 'still ambitious cabinet minister', 'One Labour MP', and so on.

*

The idea that the Labour Government believes itself to be already defeated is a bizarre one: if MPs and Cabinet Ministers don't believe they can challenge Cameron and the Tories, they had better believe that Labour activists and supporters are more confident.

The key thing, though, is that within two years an Election Manifesto needs to be drawn up, in which the political side of the Labour movement makes its case to the electorate. While there might still be those who believe Labour can 'flop' over the line in 2009/10 on their current record, that's hardly an edifying prospect at the best of times, and offers nothing for the 5 years of opposition if Labour do lose. Governments have to be truly appalling for Oppositions to be able to play on their prior record (e.g. Labour, 1979-1981?): a fresh slate is usually required. And given the muddle the Government currently seems to be in, now seems to be the ideal time to wipe that slate, write that document, and then relaunch. There's no shame in that. It would also focus media interest.

It won't be easy. When you have factions that take the view: "You were wrong, therefore we must have been right" (not A therefore Q), the process of coming to terms with what went wrong, what was learned, what can be changed, etc. is undermined by those who believe the solution is to reject policies utterly, in favour of their black-for-white opposites. It requires people with open minds. Surely better, also, that the ideological debate happens now, so at least something decent can be produced in time for the next General Election, than we have a fruitless appeal to 'loyalty' that forces us to take the 'one last flop' approach, and renders a Labour opposition irrelevant up until the next mid-term.

Nick Robinson - on board 'Project Cameron'? - 1 comment

Paulie has the full story:

[...] After all, because Robinson has a Tory background (though he doesn’t mention his mid-'80s role as Chairman of the Young Conservatives in the biography that he publishes on his blog), he must already be a suspect clandestine member of 'Project Cameron.'

His idiotic sensationalism certainly makes him sound like one most of the time.

Supporters of public service broadcasting can only hope that Nick Robinson isn’t tipping Guido off though, and I expect that phone records could be examined to clear up any doubt. I would suggest that his superiors at the BBC should think about holding an internal enquiry into this – and publishing the results by way of reassurance.

Reefer Madness - 2 comments

So Cameron 'smoked drugs at school'. What I find most worrying about the story is that someone is writing a biography of Cameron at all. Given his lack of interesting past, his lukewarm analysis of today's problems, and hackneyed vision for the future, exactly how many chapters of the book is this drug anecdote going to fill?

Conservative spokesman on Rural Affairs, Peter Ainsworth, said he saw little relevance in the story.

"I frankly don't give a monkey's...it's simply not relevant to what we're doing today with the Conservative Party or to British politics."

Well, let it all hang out, I say, but I'm going to remember that statement for the next time the Tories decide to pick on a group for the infringement of one moral code or other. Of course the hardcore Conservative won't be offended by this liberated behaviour: I suspect the slant he reads in his Mail or Telegraph will be a completely different one, this 'story' being spun for the benefit of the liberal/left.

Tory hypocrisy - no comments

Stephen Pollard covers shadow Tory defence minister, Gerald Howarth's comments on reports that the RAF 'will take advice from Stonewall on how to make itself more attractive to homosexual and bisexual men and women, and is aiming to spend tens of thousands of pounds on advertising in the "pink" media':

[...] the shadow Tory defence minister with responsibility for the RAF, said that he thought that "taxpayers would be aghast" that public money was being used to support a pressure group. "This is an extraordinary exercise in political correctness," he said. "The idea that the homosexual community is not already aware of the opportunities in the Armed Forces is ridiculous, and to go out and specifically recruit on the grounds of a person's sexuality seems to defeat the whole purpose of anti-discrimination legislation."

True, the words themselves aren't necessarily bigoted, but the tactic is classic Tory dog-whistle politics: the coded signal has been sent out to 'nasty' voters that 'nice' politics a la Cameron is just for the networks and the newspapers that the 'nice' voters consult, and that the illiberal obsessions of the Tory right will not be left unmet.

Tom Freeman has more hypocrisy here:

Cameron also accuses Labour of "incompetence" and "untrustworthiness" and generating "disgust". He warns that in 2007, "Labour’s dark side" will come to the fore, in the shape of Gordon Brown.

He adds, speaking through a mouthful of unmelting butter: "we need to prepare ourselves for an onslaught of negative campaigning".

That Cameron has the gall to utter "we must show that unlike Labour we will be a party that is for working people, not rich and powerful vested interests", suggests this media monster believes he really can say just about anything and get away with it. Hopefully the electorate has had enough of media-driven politics, one-man revolutions, and Boy Kings, to inflict five years of that upon itself.

Labour Councillor smeared by Lib Dem activist shocker - 3 comments

Political Penguin reports that "Liberal Democrat Campaigner" Colin Ross has done a hatchet job on Councillor Bob Piper in response to his publication of the "blacked-up" Cameron image that caused so much controversy earlier in the week.

Colin is neither shy to smear Bob with the charge of racism, nor to make the completely unjustifiable accusation that a "whole load of negative comments about BME people" was also featured (I assume Colin is clear in his mind of the need neither to generalise about, nor to 'spin', any particular racial/ethnic group). He goes further:

Thankfully he [Bob] has taken it down now, he has also stated that he will be taking a break from blogging. However it's not enough he should stand down from public office and Labour should have the guts to throw him out of the party. Believe me if this was a Liberal Democrat I would be urging that course of action.

Yeah, of course you would. Mercifully, though:

• No reasonable person could possibly take Colin's charge seriously, either from knowing Bob, having read his other posts, from mulling over the words "Lib Dem activist", or after discovering the nature of Colin's political activities. I assume his website is strictly for fellow activists.
  
• Most readers of a liberal (of all things) persuasion should object to unelected individuals - in principle, and especially when they busily mobilise public campaigns - pressurising elected members - individually, or through their party - for what amounts to no more than offending some people's sensibilities. It should be obvious to a genuine liberal how valuable such "offence" can be across society, and that elected members must accept a priori that they will take the consequences of their actions at the ballot box.
  
• Colin's conscience - or sense of shame - may eventually surface, prompting him to append an apology to his mean-spirited article, before genuine public opinion compels him to publicly backtrack. Hopefully this will happen before the "Stop Press" leaflets hit the streets. He might also like to investigate this while he's at it.

Politics for Grown-ups - 2 comments

There hasn't been a great deal of coverage across the Labour blogosphere of the controversial "blacked-up" Cameron spoof, involving Councillor Bob, Ministry of Truth, and certain (mostly opportunistic Conservative) bloggers.

That's a shame, because even if Cameron is apparently implicated in scandals over "cash-for-access", and evading penalty fares on the Underground, I don't know if that tells us much we didn't know about the trappings of power (or the loving attention he's been receiving in the MSM). The row over this spoof, though, is much more interesting.

The original post at MoT, containing the so-called offending image and "Yo Niggahs!" caption (now since moved to another post, and also featured at Bob's), attracted - in blog terms - a storm of protest from bloggers, who no doubt expected some kind of Labour scalp. This was followed in turn by coverage at the BBC, in the local press, the Daily Mail, and (apparently) Sky News. Not at all suspicious, that. What are we to make of the spoof being: "Offensive", "Nasty", "Distasteful", and "Overstepping the mark"?

What all of this boils down to is other people trying to force their own particular moral codes upon you, as a blogger. That isn't a healthy place to be. If the accusers happen to be people from your own peer group, blogging community, or social circle, you might be wise to reflect on your actions. You may be looking at an orchestrated campaign of political bullying - the use of hostile comments, media intrusion, stress, and inconvenience, to force a concession or an apology, when no law has been broken. Even if you accept that offence was genuinely taken (which I'm not sure I do accept, in this particular case) - you may find yourself up against people and groups whose offence-threshold is so low that you cannot debate with them on equal terms, and your right to free speech has been nullified.

The giving and taking of offence is not a zero-sum game: once "taken" by a politically-/racially-/religiously-/nationalistically-motivated individual, it can be appropriated on behalf of an entire community, nation, or religion. It can also be projected by a self-appointed group of citizens on behalf of another group. That can be justified when there is real public sympathy for genuinely victimised groups without a strong public voice, but the interest can be self-serving too. The Ministry of Truth's follow-up is essential reading here.

As much as anything, though, offence is not an argument. The right approach to being accused of causing offence is surely to invite the accuser to discuss the basis upon which they claim to have been offended, and how that can be resolved. They might have a point - but if no answer is forthcoming, one should proceed with a level of energy that is in direct proportion to the level of power and influence of the individual making the original suggestion. Offence without argument is just humbug, and those attempting to make political capital - or apply political pressure - sanctimonious prigs. God help Cameron if that's the state of the blogosphere he (heaven forfend) - someday - presides over.

The irony is that however visually silly the original spoof image, and how clumsily rendered (not that I could do any better), the debate that grew up once people's knees had jerked a few times - and once those who can only work that way had vacated the area - was all the more interesting and constructive. Politics is for grown-ups, however old they are.

Finally: perhaps the most inane contribution to the debate I've encountered has been this comment at Tim Worstall's (ninth one down):

It's taken more than 40 years to take the word n***** out of circulation. So for these two clowns to use it to make a political point against a shambolic Tory party that has one foot in the political grave is shameful.

Of course one sort of racism has been enshrined in - and manifested by - the saying of that word, but to conflate that word and racism is ridiculous. People who obsess over mere words are not people that the genuinely downtrodden deserve on their case: a particular word falling out of favour may make public discourse sound nicer, but it's no substitute for action, and language develops so quickly that new words always appear to take the place of others.

Racism is manifested by crimes and injustices, through callousness and contempt, and through exploitation and ignorance. It's solved when people learn to (or rather, remember how to) treat others as equals, and it's helped by punishing those who abuse; rejecting those who seek to reinforce these artificial barriers to free human interaction; those who try to take down one, only to replace it with another; as well as those who try to bully long-standing anti-racists for the crime of not playing by their rules.

Update (13/12): As it's my habit to take about 2 days to write each post, I've been overtaken by events already. Bob has said he's to take a break from blogging:

I have decided to take a break from blogging. The intention of this site in the first place, influenced by Tom Watson and Bloggerheads, was to entertain, inform, and yes, provoke a bit too. I’ve had some good banter with folks over the last couple of years, some of it on both sides getting a bit tetchy and even abusive from time to time.

I never took it personally, and if others did, perhaps I’m now in a better position to understand that... but throughout it all, I quite enjoyed it… until this last week. Some people decided I had gone too far and said so. We had some banter, but then it got totally out of control and I have had a weekend of the most vile abuse, partially provoked by a Conservative who accused me of being sympathetic to the BNP on his blog site.

For someone of my political views, that and the abuse that followed, much of it from far right organisations, has been unacceptable, so, for the time being at least… count me out of your games.

That's very disappointing news, but hopefully Bob will be able to make a comeback in the New Year.

Update 2 (13/12): Another good post about the Tory MP trying to profit from this...
Update 3 (13/12): More offence? The original seemed quite mild to me.