Category: Politics
The Fallout From Glasgow East
I have, of late, been fairly on-the-mark with my political predictions. When many people predicted, at the start of the Crewe and Nantwich by-election, that Labour could hold the seat, I scoffed at the thought. As the campaign continued, and Labour members realised that winning was not the most likely of possibilities, I predicted a 6,000 majority for the Conservatives. People scoffed. "You're just being pessimistic. It can't be that bad." It wasn't - it was worse.
When David Davies resigned his seat in Haltemprice and Howden, people jumped up to attack Davies as opportunistic, trying to undermine David Cameron, trying to grab attention. They didn't take him seriously. They thought David Davies could be cast as a loony. I saw a man who was standing by his convictions, and those alone. A man who wasn't going to get rolled over. I saw Labour's refusal to stand as a big mistake. I still think it was a big mistake, albeit one that hasn't hurt them as much as it could have - but it will continue to hover in the background.
I knew, in all probability, that Boris Johnson would win the London mayoral elections, although I tried my best to ignore it and convince myself that Ken Livingstone could, like he had many times before, defied the Labour Party - and its electoral fortunes - and snatch victory. But even for Red Ken, that was always going to be one step too far.
In Henley, everyone knew it would be bad. Hardly a "natural" Labour area - but something I'll come back to. The point here, is that these things were all bad for the Labour Party.
But Glasgow East was different. No-one predicted Glasgow East would go. No Labour people predicted it. No SNP people really seemed to truly believe it would happen, but were certainly confident they would get close. Me? I thought they'd get within, depending upon turnout, of course, 2,000 - 3,000 votes of winning. So, on the election night, I went to bed. There was, after all, nothing interesting to watch or listen to.
Quite some misjugement. The SNP may not have won with a large majority, but they didn't need to. Winning by one vote was enough. It was more than enough. Winning this seat is quite some achievement. The last time the Labour Party didn't win this seat was in the 1945 General Election. Except that doesn't really count. Why? Well, it was won by the Independent Labour Party, which broke away from the Labour Party in 1932. The winner of that seat was someone who originally stood for the Labour Party, broke away with the ILP and then rejoined at the end of the 1940s. Basically, the Labour Party, in their history, with the exception of this rather misleasding exception, have never lost this seat. The SNP have never recorded more than 20% of the vote in the area of Glasgow East.
On Thursday, that was thrown out of the window. Gordon Brown can grit his teeth and say that it was down to Scottish issues, like the lack of a Labour leader in Scotland, but everyone knows that is rubbish. The voters of Glasgow East don't care about that. It's not even as if the candidate wasn't known in the area. The Labour Party needs to stop blaming every loss on exceptional circumstances.
This does not, of course, mean to say that the SNP will hold this seat at the next election. Given the size of their majority, that is highly unlikely. However, as they have shown in Hamilton and Govan before, once they win a seat, they don't give it up easily. They are an electoral force with exceptional sticking power.
The Labour Party cannot claim to be the party of the poor. The Labour Party is not the party of the poor. It should not be the party of the poor. It may make me sound like a one-nation Tory, but I don't really care. Labour go on about the many not the few, but at the same time, talk about "natural" Labour areas. This is not how it should be, and especially now. The problem with relying on your "natural" vote is that when that vote shifts somewhere else, you're in big trouble.
The best thing the Labour Party can do right now is listen to the unions. They need the money the unions are offering, but in order to do so, they need to agree to a number of the unions' demands. And quite frankly, when one of them is universal free school meals, they may find that they find some much-needed support.
People aren't just going against Labour because of difficult economic circumstances. It's not just Scottish issues. It's not just a resurgent Conservative Party. It's not just because Labour have been in power for so long. It's not just because they don't like Gordon Brown. It's because they just don't see Gordon Brown, or the Labour Party, taking the country forward.
If, however, they see real ideas, like free school meals, or the People's Rail, then maybe, just maybe, they might change. People don't vote out parties simply because they get old and boring. They vote them out because they think they're old and boring because they run out of real ideas and start spewing out rubbish, like hospital stab visits.
The Labour Party should be thankful to Barack Obama. He has completely overshadowed the loss in Glasgow East. The Labour Party, outside of Scotland at least, will get away with this. Just like they did in Haltemprice and Howden, which didn't do enough to set the political world on fire (sadly). Just like in Henley, where they could say they never do well anyway. But there comes a time when people think they're not being taken seriously any more. I fear that Glasgow East is the sign of an electorate who think they're not being taken seriously - that their votes are "in the bag". Let this be a lesson - they're not.
Yet More Labour Woes
As if it wasn't enough that Gordon Brown is more unpopular possibly even George Bush, that Labour came fifth in Henley, behind the BNP, and that there is now a by-election is Glasgow East, it now transipres that the expected candidate for the Glasgow East by-election didn't turn up to his selection meeting.
It says a lot, doesn't it? Labour now have only until Wednesday to declare another candidate. Somehow, I'm not seeing that the selection is going to be particularly transparent or democratic given the timeframe they now need to work to, but that's their problem, I guess.
Wouldn't it be greast poetic justice that, following Labour's blatant attempt at avoiding debate on the issue of 42-days in the East Yorkshire by-election next week, Labour then are unable to stand a candidate in what is almost their very safest seat in Parliament! That would be pretty hilarious. Given that such a situation is not going to happen, Stephen Purcell (leader of Glasgow City Council) would be a great choice.
The real question, however, will be just how close the SNP can come to taking the seat. The current majority is 13,507. What will it become? I'll leave that for another day...
The Fat Lady Is Still Sleeping
BBC Radio 4 has a fantastic programme called "From Our Own Correspondent". Today, there was a piece from Zimbabwe about Mugabe's reign of terror leading up to the Presidential run-off.
There is very little in the piece that is particularly different compared to other pieces. It tells of the violence in former Zanu-PF strongholds, of the war veterans terrorising people who voted for the MDC, of opposition supporters in hiding, knowing that they could be attacked at any time. There is little new in that. I was, however, struck by the very end of the report:
I have spoken to people with deep gouged wounds in their buttocks and their feet, broken limbs, burnt down homes, even the bereaved.
Almost all are scared but they are also defiant.
Robert Mugabe's thugs may well have over-stepped the mark and actually stiffened people's resolve.
One woman who had lost everything was emphatic.
She told me that her beating had made her stronger. "It is my certificate," she said, like some perverse badge of distinction.
Now she would go and use it to vote again for change.
Defiant the people of Zimbabwe may be, determined to vote for change they may be. Mugabe's thugs may have made the people of Zimbabwe more determined, but it will do them no good. Change in Zimbabwe will not happen democratically whilst Robert Mugabe is still around. He just won't let it. I don't doubt the resolve of opposition supporters, but Zanu-PF have plenty of their own too - and they're well organised and have all the power and resources they need.
How people vote in the Presidential election will be irrelevant. Who gets more votes will not matter. Mugabe will be declared the winner, and there is nothing that can be done to stop it bar a coup or international military action - neither of which are going to happen.
Cutting Politicians A Little Slack
It seems to be becoming a common theme. Another day goes by, another elected Conservative official resigns. Last week, the Conservative MEPs' leader, Giles Chichester, stood down after a "technical breach" of expenses rules. This week, David Davis resigned in a bid to save our liberties. Now, it appears to be the turn of Conservative AM Alun Cairns.
Yes, unfortunately the Welsh Conservatives' Education Spokesman has stood down after calling Italians "greasy wops".
It's good to see we keep our elected officials accountable, but is there no-one else who thinks that's going a little far? At least he didn't call them pikeys, or, more appropriately, fascists.
In Praise Of David Davis
Today was a very surreal day in politics. There are few times in politics when someone can be genuinely surprised by an announcement, but today was one of those days. No-one anticipated the announcement that David Davis would step down from his position as Shadow Home Secretary and fight a by-election on the issue of 42-day detention without charge.
There is no doubt that the decision David Davis has taken is not one supported by the Conservative Party. Nor is it one that is likely to be particularly popular in the country, or even David Davis's constituency. However, that is not the point. The point is that since the events of 9/11 and 7/7, the horror of terrorism has been manipulated as a way of garnering support to infringe upon the civil liberties of people in Britain. This is not on, and something must be done to stop it. It is quite clear that our government has no interest in defending the civil liberties of ordinary people, regardless of the strength of evidence about the effectiveness of detaining suspected terrorists without charge for 6 weeks.
David Davis was right to point out that we must not count on the House of Lords to reject these proposals. Whilst it is more than likely that the House of Lords will reject this legislation, it is equally true that the government may try to force this legislation through using the Parliament Act - and this government has invoked the Parliament Act before, so such a scenario cannot be discounted.
It must also be remembered, during this affair, that the groundswell of support is on the government's side on this argument. A majority of people expressing an opinion on 42-day detention are in favour of such a move. However, this is no justification for pursuing such a policy. Of course no-one wants to be 'soft' on terrorism, but that doesn't mean getting hot-headed and pursuing any old policy. We live in a country that takes pride in believing that, unless proven otherwise, people are innocent. We do not incarcerate people on the off-chance that they *might* be dangerous. We find evidence first. If we can't find the evidence, we can't lock people up. Habeus corpus.
This situation leaves the Labour Party in a difficult position. The Liberal Democrats appear not to be running; the same goes for the BNP and UKIP. If Labour do not run a candidate, then, as Newsnight pointed out, this could turn into David Davis against the Monster Raving Loony Party. Appealing though that is, it would be a travesty. It would also be unforgivable.
The Labour Party must run a candidate. They must take this by-election seriously. If they fail to do so, they will, quite rightly, be portrayed as running scared. They will be portrayed as a party that is not prepared to defend their own policy. The truth is, they're not. Not on this. The more scrutiny this comes under, the more this ship will wobble. David Davis is a good political hunter. His time as Shadow Home Secretary has shown this very well, dispatching three Home Secretarys in his time. He is also very good at pursuing things by himself, and he'll need to be here.
This by-election can do little harm to the Conservative Party. It can do little harm to David Davis - past his own resignation from the Shadow Cabinet. But maybe, just maybe, it can make us have a serious debate about civil liberties and terrorism. There's plenty I disagree with David Davis about, but on this, he's bang on. And if he can secure a lot of coverage over this, he might be able to send Labour's poll ratings further down, and, depending upon Labour's response, he may just get a few free jabs. In the political boxing ring, the government's been knocked down a few times. It's hanging on in there, wobbling violently. At this stage, any blow could be the knock-out blow. 42 days will not, in itself, provide the punch that's required, but if during this by-election, the debate opens to the wider issues of civil liberties, it could be a free-for-all.
Political Scammers
Spam emails are a common problem on the Internet today. However,spam has, over the last few years, developed into sophisticated scams designed to make you part with your money. Thankfully, there is some very good software out there to help you work out when someone is trying to make you part with money for less-than-honest purposes. Today, I was indebted to this software.
That's right: it would appear that the Labour Party is after my money. It's a good job my mail client realised and warned me of the impending danger.
Harriet Harman may be proud to be Labour, but she might be struggling to find others who are right now. I'll be more proud to be Labour if the Labour MPs in Parliament manage to defeat the utterly ludicrous attempt to incarcerate people for 42 days without charge. I'm looking forward to seeing pigs flying.
Mugabe's E.U. Travel Ban Is A Farce
I was rather surprised when I saw the front page of the Guardian today, as it featured a picture of Robert Mugabe arriving for the UN World Food Summit in Rome. The reason it surprised me was that Robert Mugabe is banned from travelling to the European Union, so one would think that he would be arrested for violating the travel ban by entering Italy, a member of the European Union.
Oh, but no. It is, clearly, vitally important that Robert Mugabe attends the World Food Summit, so his travel ban has been lifted. It really does beg the question: what is the point of a travel ban when it just gets lifted when he wants to come to Europe?
Still, we can take comfort that our government is taking a strong, moral stance on this. Our moral compass consists of Gordon Brown avoiding the World Food Summit, but instead sending another member of the Government to represent the United Kingdom, who will walk out of the chamber when Mugabe speaks. So, as long as Mugabe sits silently at the summit, our Government is happy to sit with him.
Not a great moral compass, is it? It doesn't really give much hope that we're going to do anything about Zimbabwe soon. Perhaps Gordon Brown is trusting in Zimbabwean democracy to solve the problem. If he is, he's tricking himself. Zimbabwe is a serious problem and a scar on our nation as well as on Africa. If Brown really has a moral compass, he needs to start pointing it south.
African American Civil Rights
As part of the 3rd year research at the University of Sheffield, I undertook a study of the African-American civil rights movement. Research can be tough, and at times, it can be a little daunting. In order to develop a full understanding of any research topic, you need to read far more than you could ever then analyse in your written research afterwards, and as a result, there is always a feeling that you have left things out that are actually quite important. Furthermore, the very fact that you spend so much time on your research means that it is very easy to get really bored of it and start to almost resent it.
I'm glad to say that I didn't experience any of that in my research on African-American civil rights. There were other pieces of research that I couldn't bear, but my work on African-American civil rights always fascinated me. I'm hoping that it will fascinate you too. I'm not going to cram it all into one post, but instead spread it out over a series of posts.
The research itself focuses upon the African-American civil rights movement in the years 1954-1968. 1954 was the year the Montgomery Bus Boycott started; 1968 was the year that Martin Luther King Jr. was shot in Memphis. In those years, there was a great transformation in the fight for African-American civil rights, and my research looked at the role of non-violent ideology and movements in that change, looking at the historical context of African-American civil rights, the role of faith and the key events in the movement. If you want to read the research, you can download it, but otherwise, I will discuss some of it here in the coming weeks.
Ultimately, my argument is that non-violence was an effective method employed by the African-American civil rights movement, though not one that was successful by itself. Instead, it relied upon other factors which, when employed alongside non-violence, gained the attention and legal intiative required to further civil rights in America.
I Love The Labour Party
The government's Business Secretary, John Hutton, really warmed my heart this morning. I was really pleased with the BBC's report of the speech he will give to Progress this afternoon. In it, he will say that it is great that people can be enormously wealthy in this country, and that we should have more millionaires, that the freedom to get rich is a wonderful thing.
Isn't it wonderful, that our government wants to make more millionaires! Wouldn't it be a wonderful thing to have more and more mega-rich people. Much better than focussing on that income inequality gap malarkey.
I'm off to tell a homeless man the wonderful news - the government wants him to make himself a millionaire! Pfff.
Theresa May Is Out Of Touch
I am sat at home, watching the Politics Show on BBC One. On it, Theresa May was asked about the £400 MPs are allowed to claim, without receipts, for food on their second homes. In response, she answered that it was right that some allowances, such as the second home food allowance, be taken away - and added to MPs pay.
There are two issues for me here. Firstly, why should MPs be given an allowance for food? People in other jobs have to pay for their own food, it's not an allowance added in to their jobs. Secondly, why should MPs get paid more? They get paid £60,000 a year at the moment, which is more than twice the average working wage. It's plenty if you ask me. I live on just over a tenth of that.
There was also something rather amusing: a young people's inclusion project sponsored by the Northern Rock Foundation. Let's hope it doesn't teach them how to look after their money...