Tag: election

The Dust Settles

Who dares, Wins!

The new British Conservative & Liberal-Democrat Cabinet

I can’t remember a more momentous week in British politics. It seemed silly to comment as events unfolded so swiftly – one would have risked being out of date before finishing the article – but it is perhaps time to summarize what has happened:

  • The outcome was in retrospect the best possible, even if none of the parties might think of it that way.
  • We have a stable government locked into a coalition that commands a large majority in the House of Commons and a considerable majority of the popular vote. Nobody can deny this coalition “the right to govern”, whichever way you regard the statistics.
  • The country’s finances are in a terrible mess and a stable government was essential to put things right and recover confidence.
  • Yes, there will be strains and stresses in each party, but both have now invested so much in this that  neither can afford to rock the  boat and risk another general election to let Labour back in under a new and more charismatic leader.
  • Both parties have shown a spirit of compromise and both have had to ditch some of their cherished (and more wacky) policies.
  • “First Past the Post” has taken a lot of stick and it seems the time of electoral reform has arrived. The Lib-Dems have a firm commitment to a referendum on the Alternative Vote (not optimal, but an improvement) plus other essential elements – long-delayed by the previous Labour dinosaur – such as fixed term parliaments, a redistribution of votes per constituency and a reduced number of MPs.
  • The country has seemed fragmented and divided in recent years, with much bitterness and a sense of drift and failure. The coalition has brought fresh hope, though it is born in very difficult times. But as a coalition it is perhaps better-placed than one single party to make the very difficult decisions needed. A single party would have had to make the same decisions but with the risk of losing a vote in the HOC and a lurch to the other side to start all over again.
  • The wretched previous government is gone. The most pleasing aspect of this is that those architects of spin and PR, the unelected Lord Mandelson and the unelectable Alistair Campbell, have seen their stars not only wane but disappear into a black hole. Their last-ditch attempt to stagger on in a Lib-Lab coalition was effectively torpedoed by their own back-benchers and party Grandees, who found the whole process undignified. It is indeed the end of Noo Labour, and few will regret its passing.
  • Last but not least, the Labour Party survives, whereas there was a time when it seemed it might be humiliated and destroyed. The extent of the defeat could not be spun – even if Mandelson et al had a go at it – but it survives as an essential part of the British political scene. Moreover, though Brown rightly had to go, he was not humiliated either and was able to depart with grace and dignity. One is far from sad to see him retire to the back benches, but the bad feeling that anything worse might have produced has been avoided.

The change has been momentous. Politics is unpredictable, so who can tell if this bold experiment will work. But “Who dares, Wins”, and they should have the best wishes of all who love their country.

By Chris Snuggs

The Age of Pledge and Spin

Mrs Thatcher and hubby

A dream that, perhaps, one day politicians will be truthful.

British General Elections are always fascinating occasions. On the one hand they are deadly serious. Mrs Thatcher’s win in 1979 set up the country for 18 years of Tory rule with massive changes and frequent social conflict whose effects are still felt today.

It was either a total social and economic disaster or a great leap forward into modernity depending on your point of view. Her victory of course also consigned Labour to 18 years of impotent pfaffing about in the political wilderness.

But on the other hand they always cause a great deal of hilarity to the student of human behaviour, as day after day nonsensical, fatuous, spinladen pronouncements are made by those desperate to get their hands on power.

And these pronouncements of future intentions (often delivered with the word “pledge” attached – as if that were somehow more weighty than “promise”) are often based not on reason or good planning but on how they will go down with the public!

And amazingly, they often seem to be made without any great thought about the consequences. Brown has got some stick only today because he promised (or if you like “pledged”) that there would be no VAT imposed on the Simon Cowell charity record for Haiti, yet EU rules prohibit such gestures and so the Treasury is having after all to charge VAT and is now promising to pay this back with increased aid as a workaround.

Foot in mouth - again!

The increased aid could have been given in the first place without his headline-grabbing “pledge” to make it VAT-free.

As ex Chancellor, Brown should have KNOWN that removing VAT from individual items on a whim is not allowed, but he clearly spoke without thinking, the headline-potential of declaring the record VAT-free being irresistible.

Gordon Brown has also got himself into “another fine mess” by trying out a variation of  his trick of the 1994 election.

During the pre-election campaign then he solemnly pledged NOT to raise income tax. No,  not he. He was not the man to steal the public’s hard-earned cash by raising income tax; that would be most unsporting.

Meanwhile the poor old honest and hopelessly-naive spinfree Lib-Dems promised to put one measly pence onto income tax to pay for more education. Naturally, in the election they got slaughtered as wild spenders. You couldn’t make it up!

As for Gordon Brown, he kept his word. Income Tax remained as untouched as the virgin snow. But he had a cunning plan; as soon as he got his hands on our money, he vastly raised National Insurance (NI) instead. It actually comes down to the same thing, but of course the SPIN was different. That was how Brown’s management of our finances began, and so it has gone ever since.

Well, it’s hard not to repeat a winning formula, as many crooks have found out to their cost.  Putting up National Insurance of course (even if this time you TELL the people you’re going to do it) can be sold as much more  socially responsible than simply putting up income tax. The former can be spun as essential to pay for hospitals, pensions and the like whereas the latter seems more often like Robin Hood in reverse. The silly thing is that it’s ALL MONEY TAKEN FROM OUR PAYPACKETS, so what difference does it make?

Well, to the wage-earner, none at all, but to the employer quite a lot, and this is where Brown is batting on a sticky wicket. Increasing National Insurance certainly IS a “tax on jobs”. Let’s look across the English Channel ……

They have a VERY high level of NI (French = “charges”) in France. The result is that:

  • Employers bend over backwards NOT to employ anyone; it is so expensive.
  • Productivity in France is very high (higher than in the US – fewer workers than in many other countries do the same amount of work).
  • Unemployment is also consistently very high.

In Denmark it is much cheaper and easier to hire and fire people than in France. Oh Dear! Horrible, nasty, capitalist,  Denmark and wonderful, caring, socialist France!!

Errmmm … No, actually; unemployment in Denmark is usually around 4% (I just checked; it is TODAY despite all the economic chaos just 4.1%) and in France endemically nearer 10%.

Rocket science it ain’t. Sad for the otherwise-could-be-employed it certainly is.

Well, even the plebs are not quite as gullible as 25 years ago. The negative effects on employment are blindingly-obvious to employers but as it is such an easy thing to understand (though not apparently for the entire French government or for Mr Brown) ordinary people are beginning to understand it, too. Brown’s statement that he will raise NI isn’t doing his election campaign any good at all.

However, as it is currently business leaders in particular who are bleating about this, perhaps it will be spun as: “Don’t worry chaps – it’s just those capitalist business-chief bastards whinging again”. That’s one thing you can rely on in an election; there will be endless spinning, quoting of statistics and rubbishing of the enemy ….

By Chris Snuggs

Karzai’s Flawed Legitimacy

If there’s a strategy behind Karzai’s ‘win’, it’s pretty difficult to spot!

Hamid-Karzai-after-voting-001

AFGHANISTAN: News from the Press on November 2nd revealed that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown had phoned Hamid Karzai to congratulate him on winning the recent Presidential election.

“Yes,” I hear. “He is our ally in a war and has been re-elected. Quite normal.”

Yes, but, but …. the election was very seriously flawed – indeed rigged – mostly by supporters of Karzai.

In “The Telegraph” we read: “An inquiry by a UN-backed watchdog this week confirmed staggering levels of fraud, most of it in favour of President Hamid Karzai. It declared more than one million ballots suspect – a quarter of the total cast..”

So, many in Karzai’s party CHEATED. To what extent Karzai himself orchestrated all this is unclear, but HE IS THE LEADER, and if the Leader is not overall responsible, who is? Mr Brown and the UN have also called on Mr Karzai to “end corruption”.

To summarize, A) the Karzai regime is corrupt and B) it cheated in the recent elections.

Given this, WHAT ON EARTH are we doing CONGRATULATING him? Do we usually congratulate corrupt cheats, or only when they are Presidents?

Or perhaps this is traditional, accepted “Diplospeak”?

For us, the world needs honesty, which includes above all speaking the truth. The truth is, there is NOTHING to congratulate Karzai for and so it should NOT have been done. If this is “diplomatic convention”, then CHANGE the convention in the interests of honesty.

_46653598_ssgtschmid_226mod
Sgt Olaf Schmid, British Army

We are stuck with Karzai for the moment, but if the corruption continues, then we will lose the fight; the Afghan people will simply no longer support our presence propping up a corrupt regime. But being stuck with him does not mean grovelling, or that honesty has to go out of the window. Too much is at stake.

On Sunday, November 1st, a British bomb expert was killed defusing his 65th bomb on his last mission. The truth is (that’s what we seek, isn’t it?) that we are paying a heavy price to support a corrupt cheat; many will soon start to say “too heavy a price”.

By Chris Snuggs

[PS. Interesting article in the Financial Times advocating that the US shouldn’t commit to a surge. PPS. Another 5 UK soldiers killed in Afghanistan brings this year’s total to 92.  Ed.]