I’ll be debating Christian Wolmar on Radio 5 Live this evening on the topic of railway privatisation. Needless to say I think privatisation is good, Christian thinks it’s bad. Should be an interesting (and perhaps heated) discussion, so if you’re still up tune in…
On the tube to Waterloo last night (raining so didn’t fancy the walk) I found myself surrounded by four Ken supporters, each wearing a vote Ken t-shirt. Needless to say they were chatting about the evening ahead, how they were sure Ken was going to win and bashing Boris. Amusingly though when conversation turned to how best to hand out their leaflets at Waterloo and one suggested they take an entrance each, the others looked looked rather alarmed and remained silent for a few moments. Then in a voice of concern one of the three piped up: “shouldn’t we stick together?”.
Safety in numbers… I wonder why that might be?
——————
On the tube to Waterloo last night (raining so didn’t fancy the walk) I found myself surrounded by four Ken supporters, each wearing a vote Ken t-shirt. Needless to say they were chatting about the evening ahead, how they were sure Ken was going to win and bashing Boris. Amusingly though when conversation turned to how best to hand out their leaflets at Waterloo and one suggested they take an entrance each, the others looked looked rather alarmed and remained silent for a few moments. Then in a voice of concern one of the three piped up: “shouldn’t we stick together?”.
Safety in numbers… I wonder why that might be?
——————
It’s not often I jump to agreement with Amnesty International; not because I’m against them per se, rather because most of the time they don’t register on my radar. Today though they have. Iain Dale has posted a recent video by Amnesty which depicts the practice of water-boarding. Needless to say the ad is rather graphic and communicates strongly the impression that water-boarding is torture:
Is water-boarding torture? Yes, beyond question. Or rather it should be beyond question, but isn’t. It seems to me there are two reasons for this; each reason being applicable to a different set of individuals.
The first set understand that the debate is largely about image and perception. They believe torture is necessary in some circumstances (a different argument entirely), but understand that people don’t like the idea of torture (reason number one). So rather than attempt to convince people that torture (a jus cogens crime) is sometimes acceptable they instead attempt to convince people that a certain act of torture is in fact not torture at all. What’s best about this strategy is that it doesn’t even matter that most people remain unconvinced, because the argument shifts from the question of whether torture is sometimes ok (the quick settlement of which would lead to swift and mass protest) to whether water-boarding can be considered torture (the settlement of which will not occur anytime soon); in essence the advocates of water-boarding manage to misdirect the attention of their opponents almost entirely.
The second set are those pathetic authoritarians of old who know nothing of the delicate balance between liberty and security. These people remain blissfully unaware of the subtle message framing used by those discussed above and instead simply jump for the first thing that looks like a tough approach to terrorism (reason number two). Amusingly of course they don’t realise that they as much as those on the other side of the argument have fallen into the trap deployed by the above set of individuals.
So perhaps it’s time we got serious and actually had the debate we’ve been unwillingly, or in some cases willingly, avoiding: do we consider the use of torture acceptable in some circumstances? And if so what are they?
The time has long since passed for us to dispense with the charade.
Global warming. Not a day goes past when we don’t hear something about it. Hardly surprising given the size of the issue, but there is something surprising about the way the issue is represented. How so? Namely that there are many who would like people to think that global warming is a partisan issue; that to be skeptical of global warming is a conservative position, whilst believing in the existence of global warming is a left-wing position. Let’s be clear; that’s rubbish.
The existence of global warming is about as partisan in nature as the existence of gravity. The reality is that global warming either is taking place or it is not. Science is the guide, not ideology.
According to me, in an interview with technology news feed Direct Response, electronic voting systems are the future. You can read the piece here.
Yesterday I argued that David Miliband is revisiting the prospect of leadership in light of Gordon Brown’s disappointing performance; what I didn’t address though was the question of when Miliband will dash for the crown. The answer in my opinion is not just yet.
Timing is everything. The next leader of the Labour Party will not be elected to lead the country, but rather to manage the party’s decline; to limit the number of Labour MPs ejected from parliament at the next general election. That leader is not David Miliband, it’s someone older, someone less polished, someone a lot like Jack Straw; a man neither massively liked, nor disliked by the public at large.
Of course such a passing of the torch, from Brown (unwillingly) to caretaker will only happen if May 1st turns out to be a rout. But in that eventuality my money’s on Straw.
So when will Miliband run? A lot depends on the lie of the land after any general election, but provided the decline is managed well it wouldn’t be a complete surprise to see Miliband take over as leader directly after the caretaker. Whatever the case me be though I for one will be keeping a close eye on everything Miliband says and does in the weeks and months ahead.
In politics as in life things are not always as they seem; indeed in politics they are seldom what they seem. Moreover it’s important to bear in mind that a statement of seemingly obvious intent may actually be multi-faceted, with different messages being communicated to distinct groups. Additionally, and crucially, it should be considered that such complex messaging is likely to manifest itself in times of uncertainty; such as when a party leader’s position is looking tenuous.
With that in mind let’s take a moment to consider today’s statement by David Miliband that:
"We know what’s fatal - if we fail to defend the leader, if we lose sight of our core convictions, or we don’t follow through on what we have started."
On it’s surface it seems utterly noble, a reminder to the Labour rank-and-file that now is the time for unity, a time to rally behind the leader etc. Miliband is simply acting as a loyal minister should, championing his master and defending the party… or is he?
Defend the Leader
Interestingly Miliband chose to avoid the traditional overt call for party unity in favour of a much more specific call for the leader to be defended. It’s interesting of course because by choosing the more specific call to defend Brown Miliband has delivered an implicit statement that Brown is in need of defence, and more importantly therefore that Brown is weak. A wider call for party unity would have drawn attention to the general problem of disunity without attributing it to one thing, Miliband’s statement however specifically attributes the disunity to Brown’s weak leadership.
Lose Sight of Our Core Convictions
Ordinarily such a statement would seem utterly mundane, a statement of the obvious, albeit one that would resonate with the party faithful. One can almost imagine it in a conference speech - "we must never lose sight of our core convictions!" But context is everything, as anyone who’s made an inappropriate joke in the wrong context will know.
Labour have always seen themselves as the party of the poor, championing the little guy, defender (although I would say defiler) of the working class. That’s why the abolition of the 10p rate caused such massive uproar within the party, ultimately leading to a showdown between Frank Field MP and Gordon Brown; with the latter fully aware that had Field’s amendment been put to the vote the likelihood was that Field would have won; leading of course to a vote of no confidence, and possibly the end of Brown’s premiership after less than a year in office. The result of that showdown played out last week, with Brown engaging in an embarrassing u-turn to ensure that the core convictions of the party faithful were satisfied.
Given the timing and the context it would seem odd if Miliband’s words were not a reminder of Brown’s failure to adhere to Labour’s core convictions and, crucially, an implicit statement that a leader who share’s the party’s convictions is needed.
Don’t Follow Through On What We Have Started
Miliband is an arch Blairite, not a Brownite; which in Brown’s world makes him an enemy. More importantly though it ties him to the leader with whom Labour’s time in government did start. That leader of course being Blair, not Brown. On the one hand this statement could be considered nothing more than a call, Bush-like, for Labour to stay the course, but juxtaposed against the preceding two statements there is also the distinct possibility that this statement acts as a signal that Brown’s premiership is in fact a departure from what was started, and that Labour needs to return to that proven path; and ultimately needs to return power to someone in the Blair mould…
The Upshot
So is there something to be read between the lines of what Miliband had to say earlier today? Maybe, maybe not. He could just have been making a completely frank, straightforward statement, without any kind of gloss or spin… you know, the kind of straight-shooting statements we expect from New Labour ministers.
But then again maybe Miliband senses a change in the wind. Let’s not forget that a leadership challenge from Miliband was not out of the question in the spring of last year when Brown’s strength was beyond question; now that Brown is in a position of great weakness why wouldn’t Miliband revisit the prospect of leadership?
…even Lord Levy feels justified in attacking you.
Still you can’t fault what the good Lord had to say (or at least the last bit of what he had to say):
"I really am saddened to see the polls at the moment, what’s happening with the party, the bickering within the party, and frankly what I and many others now perceive as a lack of strong leadership."
The not so good ship Brown is sinking; the only question is where the rats will run to…
Every other Friday, starting today, I will be blogging for the Centre for Policy Studies, and for my first post I decided to tackle the incredibly sexy topic of online reputation management (yup, I really am that cool). Here’s an extract:
"We’d all like to think the only thing that mattered in politics was policy and ideas. Of course at heart that’s very much what politics is about. But we’d be kidding ourselves if, even for a second, we discounted the importance of reputation in the battle of ideas.
The reality is that policies and ideas, very much like a new car or chocolate bar, rely on the ability of individuals to sell them. And those individuals in turn rely on their reputations to enable the sell. At the end of the day if the consumer doesn’t like the salesman they aren’t going to buy anything.
And therein lies the challenge for the modern politician – the individuals who ultimately have to sell policy to the electorate – maintaining a reputation in the modern world; a world where Youtube, Wikipedia, and Google are king…"
You can read the rest here.