We need to take the abuse out of politics

When I was about 13 or 14-years old I was an anarchist. Oh, I don’t mean the bomb-throwing bearded type with a cloak and a suspicious look type, or even the crazy, violent ‘I want to break up the G20 talks’ type. No, I was more the ‘I want to shock my parents’ type. You see, my parents were both lifelong Conservatives, with very traditional values and beliefs, so my radicalism came as quite a shock to both of them.

Nonetheless, and to their eternal credit, they never prevented me from exploring anarchist values and beliefs, or reading Proudhon and Kropotkin – as a far as a 13-year old is able to understand them anyway.

I vividly recall one night my mother raising the subject of my political beliefs and discussing the comparison between anarchism and ‘traditional’ political beliefs. That night we argued and tussled over key philosophical and political points until about 3 am. By the time I went to bed she had given me one of the greatest gifts of my life – and it is one I still cherish today – the ability to recognise the merits in another person’s argument.

You see, I cannot understand this 21st century notion of ‘trashing’ people – it just seems rude and uncaring to me. Why do we do it? Well, I am sure dome do it because it makes them feel good, while others do it because they feel if they win they feel stronger – a kind of return to the caveman mentality.

Why am I talking about this today? Well I have been reading through a lot of the left-wing press lately and some of the comments being made about David Cameron and George Osborne … and they disturb me.

You see, as regular readers will know, I am no fan of either of these two men. I find their political values and beliefs totally contradict everything I believe in. However, I am convinced they believe in their brand of Conservativism equally as strongly as I believe in socialism. I would argue whilst I think he is wrong, Cameron truly believes his ‘austerity measures’ will make Britain a safer, stronger, better place. And when he talks about the Big Society, he truly believes a politics based on the acts of individuals working together in local communities is far better than state intervention and public ownership of the means of production.

It is my opinion David Cameron is totally of the opinion anyone can achieve success, if they are willing to work and sacrifice. It is his view in such instances, the state should not intervene and ought to offer support to help the little man or woman become bigger.

He holds there will always be those who are advantaged and there is nothing wrong with acquiring money and property, as long as it is done legally and morally. If this results in some people being disadvantaged, then this is just the nature of capitalism. If they become poor, the state should prop them up for a time, but there must be an underlying principle of having to earn the support of the state.

He does not believe these things out of some malevolent belief demanding he protects his own self-interest although, as a human being, I am sure he includes himself in the pack of those whom he wants to help. There is nothing evil about any of the Conservative leadership – they are dedicated people, committed to their own personal values – and it may surprise some readers, but I do totally respect all of them, some more than others.

This does not mean I agree with anything they say, far from it, I think their views are dangerous, divisive and cruel. I hold modern Conservativism as practiced by this government will destroy the livelihoods of thousands of people and reduce this country of a society of “them” and “us”.

But I do respect Cameron – he has a brain and a good one, he is a highly competent politician and daily demonstrates he is a master of his craft and he is an idealist. I have always been drawn to idealists, perhaps because I am one myself. We each want different things for this country, but we have a vision of how this country should be.

It is wrong to ridicule the Tory leadership; it will do nothing to forward the socialist cause and makes a mockery of the left argument. Instead, socialists need to recognise that in Cameron we have the most dangerous of enemies – a thinker with a philosophical path for the future for this country. This makes him the most dangerous kind of Conservative – and he should be treated accordingly.

Socialists need to review their arguments – remove the personality politics and keep attacking the issues. On blogs lately I notice how more right-wingers continue to attack me personally – even though I am careful to refrain from personal abuse. The right are starting to worry, because they know they are losing the argument – and like every kind of frightened animal, when it is in a corner it will use any means of attack before it gives in.

The left can and will win – we just need to keep up the pressure

Cameron v. Miliband - who will win?

Another week of PMQs is over and, as usual, Cameron reduced the debate to personal snipes against the Labour leader. It is a regular tactic and he as applied it on many occasions as a mechanism to deflect attention away from himself and back onto the opposition.

It adds little or nothing to the debate, but it has been a useful tool to silence Miliband. It is therefore not surprising the Guardian reports that polls suggest only 25% of the population thought Ed Miliband would make a better prime minister. Not that Cameron should feel too smug, because only 38% voted for him.

The polls also indicate support within the Labour party isn’t overwhelming for EM. Indeed, if they are to be believed, 38% of Labour members – and 42% of people who backed the party are uncertain about Miliband as a possible prime minister.

By any stretch of the imagination these aren’t welcome statistics. Of course, we know psephologists and number crunchers love to play games and polls are seldom a true reflection of the national picture. What they indicate is that young Ed isn’t doing as well as he would have perhaps hoped.

Naturally, some opponents are already saying things would have been different if his brother had been elected. Perhaps, but would the soul of the Labour party have been safe in his hands? On reflection, I doubt it – what we would have seen is a continuation of New Labour, but with different labelling.

At PMQs today, Ed faired well and managed to score a few decent broadsides into Cameron’s hull. However, the good ship Conservativism is far from sunk and EM will need to dramatically up his game if he hopes to play with the big boys.

One rain doesn’t make a monsoon, but I hope that at least it heralds the start of the rainy season. At the moment I am left with the niggling doubt EM was given a good result on a platter. He will not be so fortunate in the weeks to come and will need to show a far hardier, earthy quality in his responses.

He might like to take a few lessons from Ed “rottweiler” Balls in this respect – a little thuggery in EM’s delivery would go a long way to push the party forward and reinforce his position as the leader of the loyal opposition. Add to that more spontaneity and you may find the electorate will warm to him, and find him less wooden.

One thing is for sure – Ed Miliband cannot continue the way he is going and that opposition to Tory cuts alone will be enough to win the next General Election. May 2010 demonstrated we have become far more media-centred when it comes to party leaders. Labour tried to paint Gordon Brown as a man with knowledge, wisdom and the courage to take Britain through this crisis. He may have had all those qualities, but the electorate were unconvinced and found Brown stiff, aloof and unapproachable, whilst Clegg was seen to be likable and trustworthy.

Time has shown the latter to be incorrect, but it still doesn’t give the Labour party the excuse to repeat the same mistakes with EM – he needs to be groomed (and quickly) to become far tougher, far more forceful and far more clearer in his delivery.

He has a long way to go.

Big Society or Big Gamble?

Despite the resignation of Andy Coulson last week, the Communications Office at Number 10 has managed to produce some wonderful ‘spin’.

At first glance, publication by the Centre for Social Justice of their “Outcome-based government” report should have been a huge torpedo in the hull of the administration. Until now, IDS, the founder of the CSJ has been Cameron’s ‘right-hand’ man and his suggestion that cuts are being implemented in the ‘wrong way’ will have come as a shock to senior Tories. However, deft handling by spin gurus ensured IDS’ call for a radical review of austerity measures moved from being a criticism of governmentstrategy to becoming a critique of the Big Society.

During the May 2010 election a number of Tory candidates voiced their criticism of the policy, but with the government intent on dramatically reducing the deficit, this discontent has turned from smouldering on the edges to a significant fire within the backbenches.

Senior Tories are blaming Steve Hilton, Downing Street Director of Strategy and Cameron’s “blue skies thinker” for pushing ahead with the Big Society, even though most members of the public find it “incomprehensible”. Some backbenchers’ fear the agenda is in crisis because Downing Street has been forced to deny the flagship policy may be close to collapse because of cutbacks.

Band-aiding by spin-doctors wasn’t helped by t pronouncements by Sir Stephen Bubb, of Acevo, which represents voluntary organisations, who said the nation’s charities were facing a “perfect storm” of rising costs, higher tax bills because of the VAT rise and swingeing cuts in funding. As if that wasn’t enough to reduce the gurus to tears, he added: “This is impairing our ability to support those most in need.”

On Thursday, third sector leaders will meet with Nicholas Hurd, the charities minister, who will attempt to reassure them. A large part of this restabilisation will pick up the point made earlier this week by the Prime Minister’s spokesperson that three-quarters of charities do not receive any Government money. At the meeting, Hurd will emphasise that Government proposals on the Work Programme and rehabilitation for prisoners for example, will bring significant opportunities for voluntary groups in the coming years.

Of course, this assumes the third sector will have the opportunity to play a significant role in the delivery of the Work Programme. With news today of over 200 redundancies at Framework, the housing charity, 1,400 at Remploy and news that 26% of organisations had solid plans in place to cut paid staff numbers during the next three months, the prognosis for the third sector doesn’t look good.

There are signs the government are looking at the Work Programme as a ‘cure all’, offering a mechanism to reduce unemployment, help disabled workers and fund a financially strapped third sector. It is a high-risk, ‘winner-take-all’ gamble that may well chance the face of third sector involvement in the W2W sector.
More importantly, it is a strategy that could well leave hundreds of thousands of unemployed people without any possibility of support whilst they look for work. At a time when jobs are hard to come by, that further reinforces the evidence to label the ideology of this government as ‘Uncaring Conservativism”.