Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Twitter’s Intolerant Left needs to chill out

Nov 1

Posted by Jeff in Culture | 19 Comments

I’m perhaps not in the best position to discuss and dispute the criticism levelled in Stephen Fry’s direction over the weekend as a result of his article suggesting that women don’t enjoy sex. After all, the sum total of my bedfellows makes for a rather lacklustre sample size and one that contains significant gender bias.

That said, I did find the criticism to be just the latest frustrating outpouring from an increasingly intolerant left-wing mob, ironically timed during Jon Stewart’s calls for a bit of moderation to break out. I personally have no strong views on the subject Fry opted to discuss other than to say that everyone is different and generalisations rarely stack up on any issue, including to what extent women (or men) enjoy sex.

A possibly interesting addendum to this wider debate, and one that can confound many a devout Christian who believes sex should be a God-blessed, clumsy, baby-making affair, is that the clitoris has no functional biological value other than to make sex enjoyable. It’s a bit like bacon which has zero nutritional value and merely exists as it tastes good, though it is at that juncture where the similarity with female genitalia may well end….

Anyway, cripes, let’s move on.

There is a thin line between principled debate, passionately argued and an obtuse, oafishness that gives no quarter to those stepping beyond the lines drawn up by only one side of what should constitute ‘debate’ but is really just a public flogging. I think the latter applies here and has applied intermittently on various occasions throughout the year, with Twitter largely to blame.

One such example emanated from the merest whiff of an unpaid tax liability story regarding Vodafone, resulting in store blockades and cancelled mobile contracts. The source of such apparent disproportionate action was a rather dubious anonymously sourced article in Private Eye. If Iain Hyslop is to be the litmus test of right and wrong then we’re all in trouble. The pint-sized funnyman (a description I’m sure he treasures) is no stranger to public action, but that’s typically of the legal variety after getting his facts wrong rather than standard protests.

And there is a further point to make. Stephen Fry did not wilfully invite this Intolerant Left storm upon himself, in the way perhaps that Jan Moir, David Starkey, Kelvin Mackenzie and Melanie Phillips regularly, knowingly, smirkingly do. Honestly held views, as opposed to professional baiting, should, but often sadly don’t, command more respect.

There will be people today, otherwise perfectly smart, rational people, who will hold the delightfully lovable Stephen Fry in a significantly lower regard than they did last week, all for next to nothing.

An oft-quoted line from left-wing worthies is “I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death you’re right to say it”. Such logic does appear to be on the wane or, at least, should now come with the addendum of “but we will unleash the mob forces of social media upon you and cast you adrift if you speak out of turn”.

Stephen Fry is a good egg and in my eyes will always come first before a chicken left-wing that, in short, needs to lighten up (through perhaps, while we’re on the topic, a good….. no, i’ll leave it there)

Scottish Labour – What’s the story in Tobermory?

Oct 31

Posted by Jeff in Democracy, Holyrood, Parties | 8 Comments

Iain Gray, the LOLITSP“You’re gonna open your mouth and lift houses off the ground. Whole houses, clear off the ground.”

So spake Leo McGarry in the West Wing series, highlighting the oratorical power that his friend and President-elect Jed Bartlett possessed.

While some prematurely see Iain Gray as Scotland’s First Minister elect, albeit without the same rhetorical flair and building-lifting verbal ability that the admittedly fictional Bartlett possesses, there was at least a wind in the rafters created by yesterday’s valiant and aggressive performance at Labour’s Oban conference.

For Iain Gray, trying harder seems to equate to shouting louder so one must wonder what sort of rage machine the Labour leader will be by the time he is at his most trying come May next year.

The primary positive from yesterday’s speech was that it was policy heavy, though it could have been heavier still with a staunch defence of why his party believes we need to raise Council Tax. A single Scottish police force, a Scottish care service and a 1-to-1 tuition project for unemployed teachers are all positive ideas that are worthy of consideration.

However, much of what Iain Gray said yesterday, via a delivery that still needs a strong polish, was inane nonsense. Even the short part that I was able to see live felt interminable.

Overly long and irrelevant content on teaching, working abroad, Keir Hardie, the NHS in 1948 and Pinochet for goodness sake… I mean this in the nicest possible way, noone cares. As for the line “the worst of housing makes the best of people”, one can only wonder what monstrous policy idea that ludicrous soundbite emanated from. One suspects that there will be an uprising from the downtrodden if Gray’s working class hero schtick continues to be so clumsily and insultingly deployed.

The overriding impression that I (and my fellow onlookers) were left with was that this was a speech steeped in negativity and Labour still lacks a key message, a reason for all the sound and fury; something other than being for winning and against losing at least, to borrow another West Wing line. Even the Labour stalwarts looked dullly uninspired as they obediently clapped at respectful intervals.

Don’t get me wrong, there is the beginnings of something there, a restirring of the Scottish Labour beast but this Oban Conference still left us to mull over what Labour’s core message is. What’s the story from Tobermory? Well, wouldn’t we like to know.

And for me, Labour’s problem is this. Scotland doesn’t really need radical change right now. The next Government, regardless of party affiliation or constitutional aspiration, just needs to batten down the collective hatches for a few years. It needs to safeguard as many jobs, put as many students into universities and colleges, protect as many OAPs from a good number of risks and create as fertile an economy for sustainable growth as it possibly can. That’s not radical, it’s straightforward management and a business that the SNP has already marked itself out as an effective provider of.

So genuine questions, and ones that Scots will be asking themselves soon are: Why do we need Jackie Baillie instead of Nicola Sturgeon? Why do we need Baker instead of MacAskill? And, most pertinent of all, why do we need FM Gray instead of FM Salmond?

One can point to reasons why we moved from Labour to Tory in 1979, from Tory to Labour in 1997 and from Labour to SNP in 2007. That reason does not yet exist in 2010 and is the message that Iain Gray, and Scottish Labour as a whole, still need to find in advance of May 2011.

There shall be a Yorkshire Parliament

Oct 30

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution | 10 Comments

Another guest post today, this time from Yorkshire activist Arnie Craven. See, it’s not just Labour folk we give guest slots to.

Someone once told me about a time they were in a University seminar on constitutional reform. The seminar tutor spent some time listing possible constitutional reforms for the UK, mentioning among them Yorkshire devolution. As he finished listing, he fell silent, looking around the class, waiting for a reaction. Nothing was forthcoming. So he started laughing, and said something along the lines of ‘I was only joking about Yorkshire devolution, it wasn’t a serious idea’.

This is the problem any Yorkshire devolution project has to deal with. That’s why, when the FAQs section for YorkshireIndependence.com, a cross party group concerned with Yorkshire devolution, was written – it was agreed that the first question we had to answer was ‘Is this a serious campaign?’.

This is the most frustrating part of the whole endeavour: it’s not like regional devolution/autonomy/federalism is such an outlandish idea. Spain has it, Australia has it, Germany has it, Canada has it, the USA has it. Yet in the UK we seem to think that devolution can only lead to one thing – secession.

Similarly, it’s not as if suggesting regional government for Yorkshire is such a silly idea due to its small size or weak economy. It was Mrs Thatcher’s Press Secretary, Sir Bernard Ingham, who famously stated:

If the Scots can have independence, then in terms of being a viable unit Yorkshire can too. It’s larger, it has more population, it has every asset you could need.

Yet people in Yorkshire don’t seem to get this. The population of Yorkshire is just over five million, similar to Scotland’s, bigger than New Zealand’s, Norway’s and many others. Our overall GDP is similar to the State of Israel’s, a small but relatively wealthy country. We have industrial areas and rural areas, financial centres and vast natural resources. But people don’t see to recognise this.

Ultimately it’s a question of getting information out, I think. However I suppose that could be said for all movements concerned with nationalism/regionalism.

Thankfully, and rather unexpectedly, progress seems to have been made over the last week. And who do we have to thank for this? Well, one obvious, one not so obvious. I won’t insult your intelligence and suggest that David Blunkett standing up at PMQs and discussing Yorkshire’s inferior funding arrangements/whether a Yorkshire Parliament should be formed wasn’t helpful to our cause.

But equally, and perhaps unexpectedly, we have Secretary of State for Transport Philip Hammond to thank. This week he, despite approving funding for mass transit schemes in Nottingham, Birmingham & Tyneside, decided to ‘postpone’ funding for Leeds Trolleybus (a poor man’s tram system). This is after the original Leeds Tram plans were cancelled by Whitehall in 2005, coincidentally just after Labour were ejected from Leeds City Council.

Now I’m not going to go into a discussion on the merits of a tram/trolleybus scheme (I know better than talking about trams too much on a Scottish blog!), but this was seen as a massive kick in the teeth for Yorkshire, and perhaps indicative of the fact that Westminster/Whitehall wouldn’t always have our best interests at heart.

Am I being blinded by optimism because of my own desire to see devolved Yorkshire institutions? Maybe. But do I honestly feel like something has happened this week, as if we, the people of Yorkshire have finally begun the long walk towards regional government? Yes.

Eddie does gallus

Oct 29

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood, Westminster | 5 Comments

Labour’s Ed Miliband will deliver his first speech in Scotland as party leader today and if The Scotsman’s sneak preview is anything to go by then the fire and ire will be turned on the SNP and First Minister Salmond will be called a big liar.

The snippet includes the line:

“Let’s face it, across the world, the debate has changed since the financial crisis. Who is left behind? The Scottish National Party.”

I have to admit I find it an odd choice of narrative, an unnervingly pessimistic tone from the ‘new generation’ in Labour’s ranks.

With this rhetoric, Ed will invite Scots to think back to 2007/2008, when Scottish politics felt exciting, when the Scottish Government could seemingly do no wrong and the Scottish people flirted seriously with the idea of independence. Harking back to those times when Labour didn’t have too many ideas is a dangerous thing to do for a party that, north of the border, still doesn’t have too many ideas.

After all, first impressions count. Ed is setting his stall out for the Scottish Labour party and the Scottish people as a whole so he surely wants to get off on the correct tone. Iain Gray moodily bashed the SNP in his acceptance speech and he has barely looked up since. Let’s hope Ed decides to raise the bar a little bit higher than that.

So this all begs the question, what should Ed Miliband say?

Well, I rather hope that we are being fed the meanest lines of today’s speech and Ed will strike a more upbeat, optimistic tone. I do hope there is, as promised, some agreement with the cuts that the coalition are bringing in and I hope Ed is specific about what areas he disagrees with Cameron and Clegg the most. There may not be an election around the corner but it is important to have clear dividing lines amongst your leading politicians rather than just broad bickering back and forth.

I hope to hear more about Ed’s thoughts on Trident replacement and on the Calman proposals, getting into the specifics a bit more. The former Enivornment Secretary’s views on the fight against Climate Change and how Scotland is placed to both contribute to and capitalise from it. I would also like to hear about how he plans to propose amending the coalition’s housing policy, particularly after Nicola Sturgeon’s revelation on BBC Question Time last night that 97% of Scots who currently claim will be £10 a week worse off, money many of them can ill-afford to lose.

I rather suspect listeners will get to tick off the tired lines of ‘an independent Scotland couldn’t have saved the banks’ and ‘Ireland and Iceland? some arc of prosperity’ but I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

We are surely past the time when a leader of any party can trot up to the lectern, bash every other party and then trot offstage again thinking that was a job well done. We in turn should be ready to reward a political leader who dares to look beyond the horizon of the next headline.

Preaching to the converted Ed Miliband may well be in Scotland today but he still has a big job on his hands.

Which parties are important?

Oct 28

Posted by Malc in Democracy | 10 Comments

This is kind of a simplistic post in which I ask more than answer a question.  But I am quite interested in the answer – and its kind of more abstract party political than some of our usual posts, but please bear with it – and drop an answer in the comments!

As a PhD student, I also do some part-time work as a Teaching Assistant, taking first year classes on politics. So, this week – their mid-semester break – I’ve been spending my time marking 60-odd essays of varying quality.

Anyway, they were on several different topics, but one of the questions was “how many parties are important in the British party system?”. And I had a wide spread of answers – incorporating everything from one (a party in government) to seven (for various reasons) and many in between.  I had students arguing that only Labour and the Conservatives were important (for historic reasons) and that, even though they were in government, the Lib Dems were not important. I had importance stretching to all parties with MPs. Indeed, I had so many different interpretations of what important meant (size of party on seats/ votes/ membership; position as government/ opposition; devolved status; influence on policy; blackmail potential) that I wasn’t even sure what important meant. The thing is, I guess, is that there is no right or wrong answer. As long as they could define important in a realistic and sensible way and make a coherent argument as to why parties were important, they got a good mark.

But the issue has become more interesting to me, because although I don’t think there is a right answer, I wondered what folk thought. Now obviously the question has its flaws (“British party system” implies only Westminster, but they are studying British politics, so that’s why) but I wondered if we could discount any parties from being important? I mean, obviously, with 650 MPs, Westminster is a big place, and if you have less than 10 MPs (so, everyone bar Lab/Con/LD) you don’t have much influence. But then you can make the case that only the government have any power (and therefore importance…) but that discounts the second largest party – and counts the third largest!  You can see the issue. And why should we use representation as a yardstick anyway? In a democracy surely views are still important whether or not they are represented in Parliament, which would make the parties without representation contenders to be “important”? And though parties like the BNP and UKIP have no MPs, they do have Lords, MEPs or councillors, so they have representation, just not in the House of Commons.

I guess I’ve opened up a can of worms. And as I said above, I’m not sure there is an answer to this, but I’m interested to know what readers think. Where do we draw the line? Which parties in Britain are important – and which are not? And how do we define important anyway?