Brontides

A dull thud in the distance

Archive for May, 2010

The original title for this fine post, as seen under the banner “Israel’s biggest enemy is itself” on Liberal Conspiracy, was (marvellously) Self-Clowning Lunatics Strike Again. The money shot:

Shorter – there really is an urgent and perilous threat to Israel. It’s called “the Israeli government”.

A neat line, but that’s not really what this is about, and that’s the problem.

The Zionist argument has always been that certain ethical contortions have to be made to protect the state of Israel from its aggressors, and from the threats that imperil its very existence.

This argument resonates with those who were alive to remember the Yom Kippur War, in which Egypt and Syria used Judaism’s holiest day to pour across the border and reclaim their lands, leading to a scramble for mobilisation in which the existence of the state of Israel itself looked, very briefly, to be genuinely imperilled. Israel rallied, and the US (who viewed Egypt as a Soviet proxy) shipped in emergency military assistance; the invading armies were thus pushed back, losing the land that they had reclaimed and more.

The argument hasn’t changed, but the truth is that the situation has. Israel is, up to a point, at peace with its neighbours. In the aftermath of Yom Kippur, Egypt fell out of the Soviet periphery and is now as much a client state of the US as Israel is. Even if that wasn’t the case, neither Egypt nor Syria have the hardware to mount a serious invasion of Israel that wouldn’t be immediately and brutally punished by the Jewish State’s comprehensive and well-equipped war machine.

In short, despite the protestations of those – from both the left and the right – who remember the day when it looked like the Jews were going to lose the only state they’ve ever had, Israel faces no real external threats today. Israeli commandos killed more people last night in international waters than Hamas has killed in Israel during a decade of resistance.

Israel is no longer defending itself.

What it is defending is the siege. It is defending the status quo in Gaza and it is defending its steady encroachment into the West Bank. But it is continuing to use the language of self-defence in order to do so, and that’s a huge problem. For those who remember Yom Kippur, it’s an emotive issue. But times have changed.

It’s no longer possible to argue that criticism of Israeli actions automatically implies a rejection of the legitimacy of that state, because it’s no longer the case that Israel is acting purely in self-defence. By continuing to assert otherwise, the Israeli government and the Zionist movement is perpetrating a deceit that cannot be upheld.

It is now the will of most people – even in the Arab states surrounding it – that Israel be allowed to live in peace. By clinging to a past version of the truth, which asserts that Israel is surrounded by enemies and in a state of constant peril, the Israeli government and its supporters risk creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Israel will always have enemies, but by pursuing the politics of arbitrary cruelty it risks creating more.

Theresa May hates foreigners

Posted by Aosher On May - 27 - 2010

From the Guardian:

So no overlap on the venn diagram between “foreigners” and “decent, law-abiding people” then, Theresa?

(h/t Jenny for the spot)

US Special Forces in West Africa

Posted by Aosher On May - 22 - 2010

They kept that quiet.

OPERATION Flintlock has begun. American special forces have been descending on Burkina Faso, Mali, Mauritania and Senegal in a joint exercise, expected to last another week or so, to combat Islamist terrorism in the region. It is the latest stage of an evolving partnership between America and much of west Africa.

They should probably be wary about that, given what US Special Forces did to Somalia in the name of “Islamic terrorism”.

America the Obstructive

Posted by Aosher On May - 19 - 2010

This blog is not anti-American. While I may criticise the policies of that country’s Government and its many excesses, I feel that America’s stand on most issues is principled and right. The chief failing in America’s foreign policy is inconsistency; its governing motivation is driven by the aforementioned principle, but as a highly political culture it indulges in methods that are frequently tawdry, and too often the means overwhelm the end.

We’re seeing an example of that this week with the latest series of twists in the Iranian nuclear drama. For those who missed the background, Brazil and Turkey brokered a deal with Iran, similar to one agreed several months ago which Tehran reneiged upon, under which they would transport their raw uranium to Turkey in exchange of low-enriched fuel rods – suitable for fuel, but not suitable for weapons. I’ve blogged a little about Brazil’s foreign policy before, but this is the strongest and most visible piece of fruit it’s bourne yet.

The success of these negotiations – where previous bargains between Iran and Europe have failed – is a heavy endorsement of the growing clout of the so-called “emerging” powers. The success seems to have been predicated on the capability of Turkey and Brazil to resolve the most critical obstacle in the stand-off: the issue of trust. Both through the modalities of the new deal as well as by virtue of who they are, Turkey and Brazil have succeeded in filling the trust gap. The collapse of the previous deal hinged on this issue; they were unwilling to hand their nuclear assetts over to a West that had proven its capability to reverse its own agreements and seize Iranian property. But if the enrichment take place in Brazil, rather than Europe or Russia, then Iran can take a lot more on trust.

Stephen M. Walt, professor of international affairs at Harvard and Middle East specialist, has a good overview of the deal and its implications. The key passages, though, are these:

Here’s why I think the United States should welcome the deal. The only feasible way out of the current box is via diplomacy, because military force won’t solve the problem for very long, could provoke a major Middle East war, and is more likely to strengthen the clerical regime and make the United States look like a bully with an inexhaustible appetite for attacking Muslim countries. (And having Israel try to do the job wouldn’t help, because we’d be blamed for it anyway). I think George Bush figured that out before he left office, and I think President Obama knows it too. So do sensible Israelis, though not the perennial hawks at the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, who appear to have learned nothing from their shameful role cheerleading the debacle in Iraq back in 2002.

[...]

So what should the United States do? It should welcome the deal in principle, while making it clear that it will monitor implementation carefully and emphasizing that this particular agreement does not resolve the larger question of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Rejecting the deal would do nothing to advance broader U.S. objectives and would be an unnecessary slap in the face of Turkey and Brazil. Trying to scotch the deal would also allows Iran to blame Washington should the deal fall through, and it will only reinforce Iranian assertions that U.S. leaders are lying when they say they would like to improve relations.

So far, so sensible. It would be nice to think that America’s foreign policy establishment would manage to get to the end of that thought chain on their own; but, sadly, no.

There are a number of unanswered questions regarding the announcement coming from Tehran, and although we acknowledge the sincere efforts of both Turkey and Brazil to find a solution regarding Iran’s standoff with the international community over its nuclear program, the P-5+1, [...] are proceeding to rally the international community on behalf of a strong sanctions resolution that will, in our view, send an unmistakable message about what is expected from Iran.

What is expected from Iran, if not this? Well, America’s stated desire is for Iran to give up all fuel enrichment, for civilian purposes as well as military, despite it having a inaliable legal right to produce fuel for power. But the truth is that America has other reasons for wanting this to fail. It had just finalised a tortuous agreement with Russia and China for further sanctions, and politics demanded that America take its bow on the world stage for that. Doubtless there was some desire to slap down the rising powers – and make no mistake, this is a diplomatic humiliation for Brazil and Turkey, who negotiated in good faith and secured a major breakthrough because of it. And its current Middle East policy is calibrated towards containment and demonisation of Iran. For all these reasons and more, the US Government was never likely to agree a deal that was anything short of Iranian capitulation.

In other words, politics overtook principles.

Equality and the House

Posted by Aosher On May - 18 - 2010


As painted by Monet in 1904.

Pippa Norris has a great analysis of the parlous state of female representation in Westminster. This election has clearly demonstrated that more needs to be done to encourage women to run for high office. This can’t be achieved just by instituting all-women shortlists; not only are they controversial and prone to generating ill will, they also don’t address the problem of a lack of women engaged in politics at the lower levels – councillors, party activists and political pundits. America has a generally more robust mechanism for this; the Democrat party and the leftwing have EMILY’s List, a political action group dedicated to increasing female representation at all levels; a British version sprang up in 1993 but appears defunct. There is a clear need for a similar UK body.

New Labour, Newer Danger

Posted by Aosher On May - 18 - 2010

So, the Labour leadership contest.

What on earth has happened to Labour? They’ve become a party of the spineless. The slimeball Milliband looks like being coroneted all but unopposed, the worst possible outcome in the circumstances. What’s worse is that the main candidates – the two Millibands and Ed Balls – are politically indistinguishable, belonging to the liberal, interventionist, statist school established by Blair, promulgated by Brown and rejected by the electorate two weeks ago. The differences between them are being talked up in the media – David the Ditherer, Ed the Equivocator, Balls the Bully – but their plausible manifestos, cabinets and policy priorities are more or less identical.

Labour needs to recover. It needs a proper, realigning leadership election between a wide range of candidates with competing visions. The Tory relaunch in 2005 was just that – a clash of ideas, between the traditional Conservativism of David Davies, the internationalism and fiscal prudence of Ken Clarke, the social conservativism of Liam Fox and the modernising, “compassionate” neo-conservativism of David Cameron. It’s not that the Labour party lacks these polarities – Alan Johnson represents the traditional left, a slice of the electorate under-represented over the last 30 years, and Hillary Benn, John Cruddas or Yvette Cooper would be modernisers who could pull the party back to the centre. There’s a huge intellectual gap in the opposition vacated by the Lib Dems when they joined the government; Labour could expand to fill that niche quite happily, but they’re choosing not to.

Part of the problem is that Labour has, over the last 13 years, been trained to value unity over intellectual dynamism. The final years of the Blair / Brown “dual government” were horrible; the lesson that Labour learned from them is that internal strife is a fast track to weakness and collapse. Thus Brown’s continued tenure, always keeping a grip on power as those who sought to topple him bottled their chances as quickly as they arose. But it was based on a false premise. Internal conflict can be destructive, but the essence of political renewal – as with any kind of intellectual discipline – lies in constructive debate, in the contest of ideas that are firmly held and passionately defended.

There is a leadership vacuum in Labour and I don’t think that any of the candidates can fill it. I hope that there’s another leadership election within Labour before 2015. Otherwise, the only outcome that seems plausible is that the Tories will find themselves with a much firmer grip on power.

More on the new Government

Posted by Aosher On May - 18 - 2010

I took a bit of a break from blogging after the excitment of last week. But for now let it be said that I am broadly happy with the outcome of the election, that the coalition document is mostly a delight to read (the civil liberties section gives me a special kind of glee, although the education and environment sections don’t go far enough), and that it’s a genuine thrill to see Lib Dem ministers in government at last. Theresa May grates, but she made the right noises for yesterday’s International Day Against Homophobia And Transphobia, and the awe-inspiring Lynne Featherstone – my constituency MP – is the minister with the actual responsibility for the Equalities portfolio. I don’t think that this government can make itself popular – it’s going to have to make some unpleasant policy decisions over the next five years if Britain is to survive – but the aims to which it aspires are promising.


The House of Commons at Westminster as drawn by Augustus Pugin and Thomas Rowlandson for Ackermann’s Microcosm of London (1808-11). The Commons chamber shown here was destroyed by fire in 1834. Sourced from Wimedia Commons.

Today sees the re-election of the Speaker. Traditionally this is waved through unopposed, but the Tory back benches are in rebellious mood, and Lib Dem grandee Ming Campbell has indicated that he would be interested in the role. For what it’s worth, I don’t think that will happen – I suspect that Bercow will sail through on a 500-30 vote. More to the point, I don’t think it should happen. Bercow has been a fine speaker so far – again, Lynne Featherstone has an interesting perspective on this (and while I’m rhapsodising, it’s so nice to have an MP who blogs) – and the fact that he inspired Nigel Farage to run against him, and won, is a big point in his favour. More to the point, the coalition doesn’t need a big humiliating defeat so soon out of the gate. I suspect that the whips won’t allow that to happen.

Interestingly enough, though, it does go to show how marginalised the Tory dinosaurs are feeling in the new Government. The rebellion is being lead by bluer-than-blue Nadine Dorries (she of the abortion limitation bill and the £25,000 second home allowance expenses claims). One of the more interesting ideas thrown up by the coalition document is that the extent to which the Lib Dem’s proposals were incorporated was inspired as much by Cameron’s desire to beat down his own right wing as it was to pacify the Lib Dems. Whether or not that’s true, certainly the right wing of the Tory party feels beaten down. The Tories could be in the midst of their own Clause 4 moment, which would be entertaining if they weren’t having it while simultaneously trying to govern.

Anyway, I like Ming, but I hope that Bercow keeps his job.

The Hail Mary Pass

Posted by Aosher On May - 11 - 2010

That’s how Stephanie Flanders describes the €750bn bailout for Greece and the other troubled economies of Club Med: it looks impressive, and it buys the Europeans some crucial time. But they may not like where the ball eventually ends up.


Europe’s leaders have wedged their heads firmly in the sand.

I think that’s wrong – I think that Europe has a very good idea of where this is going, but is trying to pretend that it doesn’t, so when it happens they can look as surprised as the rest of us.

Is the bailout itself good news? Undoubtedly. The shock-and-awe action, forcefully advocated against a resistant Europe by government economists from America, Japan and the UK, probably saved the Euro and prevented the trashing of the continental economy, as well as ensuring the domestic stability of Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Italy. There’s pretty much no question that strong action was required to prevent a global fiscal collapse, of the kind that would erase the precarious recovery that the world economy has enjoyed over the last six months.

The intent is not in question, then. But the manner is somewhat more dubious. The Freethinking Economist does a better job of explaining the perverse incentives that the bailout has created than I could – politics is my writ, economics is really just a hobby – but political questions about the process that underlies the action remain. To whit: why would the EU have pursued such a knuckleheaded approach when a better, simpler alternative was on the table?

Sadly, it seems to be a result of weak government, both of individual member states and of the EU apparatus of agreement by consensus. As Simon Johnson and Peter Boone give us a flavour of the problems that afflict the governance of the Euro in today’s FT:

Given the incentive problems in the eurozone, it is no wonder more nations want to join – the requirement is just to appear prudent for a few years. No wonder also that it blew up. Nations with profligate governments or weak financial systems have a bonanza; overall, this system encourages a “race to the bottom” – led by governments in smaller countries, which relax fiscal and credit standards to win re-election (or just to enjoy a boom). They borrowed funds from the (unnaturally) less profligate in the eurozone. The Germans were austere; the periphery enjoyed the boom.

The Germans were the only parties to the carve-up who had an interest in arguing for more a sensibly constructed bailout, but – not to put too fine a point on it – Angela Merkel botched it. She failed to prepare Germany for the necessity of a bailout, spinning from cool, popular disdain to agreement in a manner that bewildered and alienated her government and her country. She failed to articulate why the bailout was necessary for Germany and the Eurozone to support the Mediterranean’s failing economies. Many of Germany’s voters believed, and still believe, that clause 125 of the Lisbon Treaty – the one which mandates that there will be no bailouts for members who pursue reckless fiscal policy – was binding and should have been adhered to.

So Ms. Merkel has done the only politically expedient thing: joined the rest of her European collegues in pretending that the package’s obvious failings aren’t there. Germany has become a truly European state. Few are fooled; as Sunday’s result in North-Rhine Westphalia shows, Germany’s voters are inclined to punish their government for its prevarication, lack of leadership and deceit.

This bailout may have stopped the immediate contagion from spreading beyond Greece. But it has driven the longer-term rot deeper into the heart of the single currency, by reinforcing the system of perverse incentives and by undermining the will of Germany, the currency’s salward defender and balwark, to resist the excesses of its neighbours. More worrying is that Germany’s governing CDU is only one year into its term, and will likely not be replaced until 2013.

A bit of good news though: apparently UK manufacturing a booming, albeit from a low base. So that’s nice.

Finally, for those in the UK expecting a government to emerge soon, the chart below may prove instructive. Click for bigger.

This has just appeared as a guest post over at All Lit Up. Any comments would be appreciated over there.

A Winter In Arabia by Freya Stark is not a straightforward book to read, but it is extremely rewarding for anyone with an interest in history, archaeology, the Middle East, and kick-ass female explorers who make it look easy.

The book was published in 1972, some 45 years after it was written. In it, the author chronicles the season that she spent – along with her companions – searching for the ancient city of Shabwah, the capital of the southern Arabian state of Hadhramaut. Long since lost, the city had been a capital of culture and trade in the region; Pliny catalogued it thus:

Almost in the very centre of that [South Arabian] region are the Atramitae [Hadramis] – the capital of whose kingdom is Sabota [Shabwah], a place situated on a lofty mountain. At a distance of eight posts [days' travel] from this is the incense-bearing region inaccessible because of rocks on every side, while it is bordered on the right by the ocean, from which high plateaux shut it in. The forests extend eighty miles in length and forty in width.

In search of this city, Stark travelled through pre-Westernised Yemen, detailing the culture of the people with whom she interacted and the landscapes through which she journeyed. Her heroics are matched by the land she describes; Hadhramaut is a particularly dramatic part of Arabia. Comprised of an immense valley, which runs for 160 km from open plains in the west, where the cliffs of the rocky plateaux to north and south close in about it, near Shabwah, towards the dry and inhospitable Wadi Masilah in the east, the area is a curious mix of desert and fertile river plains. The main Wadi (Wadi meaning river or river-cut valley) Hadhramaut itself is 12 km wide in some places, and is fed by innumerable tributaries, but beyond the city of Shabwah one quickly reaches the desert of Saihad – ‘an empty desert, a wilderness where the winds blow in all directions, a country where crows are king ‘. Only after travelling west across this desert for three days would one come to irrigated fields and settled lands once more, the beginnings of highland Yemen. This is the country that Stark describes.

The first thing that should be said about this book is that it is deeply poetic. Stark’s writing is fluidly lyrical, and is as evocative as it is enlightening. Her voice is not that of a dull-but-worthy academic, in pursuit of esoteric potsherds, any more than it’s an echo of the manly heroics of Thesiger and Lawrence; it’s… well. It’s a voice the deserves to speak for itself:

In the dry bed of the canal, close to where it takes off from an ancient “damir” or dam, we pitched our camp. A lithab tree (ficus salicifolia) hung above with long and pointed leaves; from its boughs my mosquito-net and the guns of the beduin were suspended… As I lay in bed I could hear Sayyid ‘Ali entertaining, and the entranced laughter of the company: he was imitating the
sayyids of Meshed, and the voices murmured on into my sleep; till a shock-headed man, creeping round my bed for his gun, woke me – the last inhabitant of Radhhain going home. I lay then, enjoying the warm delicious night. A sickle moon was shining; the pointed leaves of the lithab hung black before it, in Chinese loveliness; a small wind woke suddenly from nowhere, flapped the leaves against each other and died as it had come. The moon sank. Voices of foxes echoed in the cliffs – echoed and re-echoed, like some lost chorus high above the world. When I woke again it was to the singing of birds. The branches, so lovely against the moon, were the everyday branches of the lithab. Only their enchanted memory remained.

Stark’s writing conveys deep knowledge and understanding, but also profound affection for the land, the people, and the life that surround both. It’s not necessarily easy to read; you have to concentrate, or otherwise after an hour or so it all starts to elide into a formless mass of undifferentiated beauty. But this is a book to dwell over, and it rewards the persistent reader with keen insight and human detail.

The star of the book is the character behind the narration, however. Stark was an incredible woman. This book doesn’t document her first trip to Yemen; a previous expedition had failed due to an illness that almost killed her. Before then, she had already travelled extensively throughout Arabia, notably completing three dangerous treks in western Iran and being the first European to reach Alamut, the long-lost fortress of the Assassins. She was more than just an explorer, however, and A Winter in Arabia is littered with passages expounding upon her own philosophy (of which a lengthy excerpt can be found here). She continued to travel until her death, at the age of 100, in 1993. To experience Arabia with the benefit of her perception, humanity and fierce intellects is one of the great draws of this book.

This book deserves to be regarded as belonging to a corpus of European works which, when taken together, provide an overview – albeit Eurocentric – of pre-Westernised Arabia. The aforementioned Thesiger’s Arabian Sands is perhaps the most famous of this body of work. In many ways, Stark and Thesiger had a great deal in common. Thesiger was an explorer, too, most famous for crossing the Empty Quarter of the Arab peninsula – several times. He was only the third Westerner to do so, and often operated contrary to the wishes of the local and international authorities, but with the respect, admiration and friendship of the local Bedu – a respect that lasts to this day; an adventurer in the classic sense of the word, but also a gifted social observer. He shared Stark’s dismay at what he perceived as the growing Europeanisation of Arabia and its indigenous culture. A major theme of both books was the deterioration of an old order, just as it was about to be swept away: Thesiger’s last journey across Arabia’s sands was from the oasis of Al Ain to the trading port of Muscat, now a city in the UAE and the capital of Oman respectively. He spent nearly two months in 1949 in that interior. It now takes just under 4 hours to drive from the Hilton in Al Ain to the Sheraton in Muscat; I know because I’ve done it. Thesiger would have hated it, and the power of the book is such that it made me hate it, too, even as I was doing it.

Stark’s work evokes a similar sense of deterioration, but unlike Thesiger, the bland, monied future that she feared, cleansed of all of its identifying features by a glut of RAF bases and oil revenue, didn’t come to pass. What did come to pass was worse; an awkward halfway-house between modernity, with its guns and narcotics, and tribalism, poverty and alienation. Unable to resist the world that developed around it, and lacking the resources to preserve its heritage, the Yemen of today is a much-changed beast.

An alternative perspective on the issue comes from Geoffrey Bibby’s Looking for Dilmun. At the outline level, these books have a great deal in common; like Stark, Bibby was an archaeologist seeking the remains of a long-lost civilisation. Bibby’s obsession was the empire of Dilmun, a long-lost – and supposedly mythological – empire which was mentioned in Sumerian legend but never geographically placed. Contemporaneous with the Indus Valley civilisation, Sumer, Babylon and Akkad, Dilmun was found by Bibby on the island of Bahrain, although hints have since been found of an earlier civilisation on the same grounds; it is thus one of the oldest sites of human civilisation that we know of.

Unlike Stark, however, Bibby was an oil man himself, based in Bahrain and gifted only with an intellectual curiosity and a slightly more moralistic outlook than many of his contemporaries. Where Stark and Thesiger detailed an Arabia as yet unsullied by the graft of Europe’s finest grubbers, Bibby’s story is all about the cracks in the façade as they slowly spread, and the desperate attempt by Arabia’s last traditional rulers – such as the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi, who distrusted Bibby enough to eventually exile him despite Bibby’s professed academic and historic mission. Compare that with the reaction earned by Stark and her companions in the excerpt above!

Many of the characters and locations appear in two or even all three of these books. Between them they chart a heartbreaking story of the decline of an indigenous way of life, albeit – and this has to be stressed – from the somewhat Eurocentric perspective of a motley band of explorers and outsiders. Their value thus exceeds their individual conceits; these are more than just travelogues or historical diversions. They are records of a way of life that has deteriorated over the course of a single lifetime.

In that capacity, Stark’s work immediately stands out as the most successful. The human warmth and compassion that she has for her Yemeni and Bedu hosts is apparent on every page (“We cannot be completely isolated, like European delicacy in cold storage”), and her relationships with the people that she encounters transcend the vignette. In an early passage, she returns to one of the sites of her earlier journey, and “wonder[s] uneasily which of the many delicate causes that ruin eastern relationships could possibly have ruined my friendship with those two, Sa’id and Husain;”when, a few pages later, they reconcile, there is a sense of human connection that overcomes cultural barriers.

For me, this was a wonderful, nostalgic read. As an account of an a culture that has long since passed on, it’s stimulating. But what makes the words jump off of the page is the lucid, witty prose of Stark, and the character that lies behind it.

The Agony of the Clegg

Posted by Aosher On May - 9 - 2010

The blogs (and twitter feeds) of the left have been talking about the need for a Lab-Lib government as part of a “progressive majority”. The term was coined last year by Will Straw, when he demonstrated that the combined Labour and Lib Dem vote has exceeded the right wing vote – and has, in fact, accounted for more than 50% of the electorate – for the entirety of the last sixty years.

The danger in that assumption is that it assumed that Labour and the Lib Dems have more in common than they actually do. The truth is that the Lib Dem party has become host to a bunch of squatters – statist left-liberals disenfranchised by Labour’s collapse and determined to see the Lib Dems as a kind of junior partner in anti-Tory axis. They supported the Lib Dems loudly in the run-up to the election but abandoned them at the polling booth, and now expect a diminished Liberal party to fall into line.

This isn’t how the Lib Dem party sees itself; much of the core Lib Dem support is as repulsed by Labour’s offences on civil liberties and market control as they are by the Tories’ anti-immigrant and socially intolerant stances, and that’s evidenced by their selection of Nick Clegg, a man once assiduously courted by the Tories for parachuting into a safe seat, as their leader. Perhaps the Lib Dems can’t reign in the excesses of a Tory government, or perhaps they can; they have as much chance of that as halting Labour’s next attempt to ram ID cards or detention without trial down the throats of an unwilling populace, though, so it’s not like that’s much of a disincentive.

Meanwhile, the economy continues its gentle decline even further towards southern European standards. A strong government with a safe majority is required to halt that, and there’s only one scenario under which that is possible. Let me make this clear: it is even worth choosing to play a longer game on electoral reform in order to deliver stable government.

Which isn’t to say that I want Clegg and co. to crumble. I want them to extract the most flesh for their support that they can, especially in terms of voting reform, and preferably even by installing Cable in the Treasury. But ultimately, I want them to do the right thing and allow the country to be governed.

#ge2010 – Prognostication

Posted by Aosher On May - 5 - 2010

I PREDICT that the Tories will edge a tiny majority – 4-5 seats tops.*

I PREDICT that the Lib Dems will do well but nowhere near the giddy heights of mid April – 25% or thereabouts seems fair. Labour will come second by a thread.

I PREDICT that the next government, no matter what the outcome tomorrow, will have collapsed or been wound up within 18 months.

I PREDICT that the winner of this election will make themselves so unpopular that they will not win another election this decade.

*If they don’t, then I’d be prepared to bet that they still govern – either minority or in exchange for electoral reform.

#ge2010 – Conclusion

Posted by Aosher On May - 5 - 2010

Whatever your opinion – and you only have another 20 hours or so to decide – make sure that tomorrow you go out and vote. You may not feel like it has an impact and you may, ultimately, be right. But the act of engaging in a political process is its own virtue. Own your vote, own your issues, and own your own little corner of the debate, and you will find that the politicians work pleasingly hard to meet your needs.

Over the last few weeks I’ve written an implausible amount on the three parties, their manifestos and their policies. I hope that someone has found it useful; it’s actually been quite handy for me as a way of gathering my thoughts on the various topics and investigating them at length.

But now it’s time.

#ge2010 Brontides Election Coverage
Topic Subsets Winner
The Economy Banking
Manufacturing and Business
Employment and Inequality
Weak Lib Dem
Crime and Migration Immigration
Crime and Policing
No clear winner
Tory
Public Services Schools
The NHS
Lib Dem / weak Tory
No clear winner
Europe and Foreign Policy None Lib Dem / Tory
Civil Liberties and Equality Women
Lesbian and Gay
Black and Minority
Elderly
Civil Liberties
No clear winner / Lib Dem
Labour / Lib Dem
No clear winner
Labour
Lib Dem

#ge2010 – Civil Liberties and Equality

Posted by Aosher On May - 5 - 2010

Equality

I’m going to be slightly unusual here and admit that, as a young straight white male, I’m probably not your most likely source of insight into equality issues this time around. I can read the manifestos, certainly, but as an explicitly privileged generalist I’m unlikely to be able to deliver the kind of quality analysis that these issues deserve.

For that reason I’m going to point you in the direction of some excellent, non-partisan primary sources. I know that equality issues tend to be the province of the left, but there are a few scrupulously fair resources out there.

For issues of women’s rights and and how the manifestos will affect women in general check out the Fawcett Society. They sent a raft of questions to each of the parties on a wide array of issues and got detailed responses from all of them.

On issues of gay rights it’s pretty hard to find a single source that doesn’t editorialise. That’s somewhat unsurprising; only 4% of gay voters are planning to vote Tory, which is itself perhaps the only information you need on this topic. MyGayVote gives a fairly stark indication of how the voting records of the three main parties stack up.

On black and minority politics check out OBV. They’re doing great work on keeping minority issues in the spotlight, and I’ll be keeping an eye on them long after the election is done.

Issues related to the elderly and elder care haven’t received anywhere near enough attention online or off. Mary Ridell, the Telegraph’s token leftie, argues fairly persuasively that Labour would be the best bet, and my own read corroborates this.

Civil Liberties
An area in which I am much more comfortable.

First off, forget Labour. The party of ID cards, detention without trial, the massive extension of the surveillance state and the Digital Economy Bill couldn’t give less of a shit about civil liberties, and their manifesto reflects that. Labour would extend CCTV coverage to 700 new areas, strengthen the DNA database and ram through ID cards by hook or by crook.

The Tories are better – the party of David Davis and their excellent Shadow Justice Minister, Dominic Grieve, has a significant wing dedicated to the rollback of liberty-encroaching legislation – but their approach is too punative. It’s moderately good to see that the party commits itself to rolling back the database state – ID cards, the ContactPoint children’s database and the vetting and barring scheme will be scrapped or reduced. The Tories would also curtail the surveillance powers of local councils, giving more power to the information commissioner, and would introduce privacy impact assessments on all new legislation. However, the party does not go far enough on changing the law in respect to the DNA database, and they still insist on repealling the Human Rights Act, which gives the European Convention on Human Rights full force in the UK. They would likely replace it with a UK Bill of Rights, which would be softer on prohibitions of torture and harder on legitimate asylum seekers. The Tories don’t even fully leverage their own dogwhistle policies of overturning the smoking and foxhunting bans.

But the truth is that this is the one area in which the Lib Dems have a clear, unambiguous and historic tradition of strong performance. They would curtail the use of CCTV, restore the right to protest, guarantee the safety of investigative journalists from prosecution, protect whistleblowers, scrap ID cards, role back “Escelon” measures (laws and secret doctorines governing government monitoring of email and internet traffic), repeal the Digital Economy Bill, scrap ContactPoint, reduce pre-charge detention to 14 days and scrap secret evidence. The DNA database would be heavily curtailed. It’s an absurdly complete wish-list for anybody who cares about the erosion of liberty in this country.

It remains unclear why the Tories were so anaemic on this issue, but they hand a clear win to the Yellows on what should have been a major plank of their election offering.

Protesting too much

Posted by Aosher On May - 4 - 2010

Most of the endorsements are in now, and the biggest surprise for me was that the FT – which has really been significantly to the left of its readership for much of the past decade – went blue. Guido suggests that the endorsement is a recalibration, attempting to halt the steady erosion that the paper has suffered in recent years at the hands of its bluer competitors. I wasn’t convinced; I thought that this endorsement was too tepid to act as a harbinger of the FT’s transition to the right-wing press fold.

But then I read the FT and Economist endorsements side by side. I was struck by the similarity; intriguingly, the FT and the Economist used very similar arguments when endorsing the Tories.

On themselves:
From the Economist:

The Economist has no ancestral fealty to any party, but an enduring prejudice in favour of liberalism.

FT:

The Financial Times has no fixed political allegiances. We stand for a liberal agenda: a small state, social justice and open international markets.

On what matters:
The Economist:

But in this British election the overwhelming necessity of reforming the public sector stands out [...] For Britain to thrive, this liberty-destroying Leviathan has to be tackled. The Conservatives, for all their shortcomings, are keenest to do that; and that is the main reason why we would cast our vote for them.

FT:

Their fiscal plans, while vague, suggest they would do most to reduce the size of the state – cutting more and taxing less than their opponents. They would create the best environment for enterprise and wealth creation… Britain needs a stable and legitimate government to navigate its fiscal crisis and punch its weight abroad. On balance, the Conservative party best fits the bill.

On Labour:
Economist:

In some ways, Gordon Brown is underappreciated. [...] (But) above all, the government is tired. Mired in infighting and scandal, just as the Tories were in 1997, New Labour has run its course… It is better for the country that Labour has its looming nervous breakdown in opposition. A change of government is essential.

FT:

As a crisis manager, Gordon Brown has been a better premier than his critics claim. But after 13 years, Labour needs a spell in opposition to rejuvenate itself.

On the Lib Dems
Economist:

Mr Clegg’s surge has been thrilling, all the more so since the viler attempts to smear him by a panicking Tory press seem to have backfired… We share his enthusiasm for civil liberties and his willingness to stand up for immigrants. And he is right that the current voting system [...] But look at the policies, rather than the man, and the Lib Dems seem less appealing [...] Their policies towards business are arguably to the left of Labour’s. A 50% capital-gains tax, getting rid of higher-rate relief on pensions and a toff-bashing mansion tax are not going to induce the entrepreneurial vim Britain needs. Vince Cable, the Lib Dems’ chancellor-in-waiting, recently dismissed the bosses who argued against the government’s planned National Insurance increase as “nauseating”; that feeling might well be reciprocated by the nation’s wealth creators if the Lib Dems came into power.

FT:

The Liberal Democrats are more attractive. Their instincts are right on civil liberties and they are internationalist, albeit with the odd whiff of anti-Americanism. They would champion political reform, having fewer vested interests at Westminster to protect. It is on the economy that doubts creep in. Their policy is an uneasy mix of sanctimony and populism.

On the Tories:
Economist:

They plainly have faults. [...] But, more than their rivals, they are intent on redesigning the state.

FT:

They are not a perfect fit, but their instincts are sound.

Economist:

We dislike their Europhobic fringe and their exaggerations about Britain’s broken society.

FT:

The Tories’ reflexive hostility to Europe, for instance, is worrying, whatever his protestations that he wants a constructive relationship with Brussels.

What is clear is that neither party was prepared to entertain the prospect of endorsing Labour. Under those circumstances, this seemingly co-ordinated retreat to the safety and predictability of the Tories befits the highly, almost reflexively, risk-averse business end of the print media. But a deeper truth is being revealed here. These two papers are well-connected in the City, and the similarities in their arguments are likely not coincidental. For all the inane talk of capital flight and a gilt market collapse in the face of a hung parliament (mostly blether), the true temprament of the City and its financiers has been largely opaque in this election. I suspect that these two newspapers are simply reflecting the attitude of their core demographic; and the level of synchronicity suggests that the reflection is accurate. This may be the best window into the mind of the City that we’re likely to see pre-election day.

And what it tells us is that, while the financial sector would be dismayed by a Frankenstein Labour government, and while they would probably prefer a Tory majority, any other outcome would not trouble them greatly. This should quietly encourage the Lib Dems and their supporters on May 6th.

#ge2010 – Europe and Foreign Policy

Posted by Aosher On May - 4 - 2010

Rolling these two together makes sense for a couple of reasons. First, I’m secretly lazy, and in any case I’m running out of time before the election. And second, these areas are by far the most subjective, and thus don’t entirely benefit from an evidence-based approach.

Foreign Policy and Europe
If you want reliable, world-class journalism, you could do worse than The Economist. This London-based weekly magazine excels in reporting of the respectably serious kind. Serious, as in fact-based, business-oriented and usually not a little dry. But that obviously does not prevent its editors from having a sense of humour and, occasionally, a bit of fun. As is demonstrated by this map, of a Europe rejigged. Although an exercise in nonsensical fun, this folie is interesting in a non-nonsensical way too – it inadvertently lays bare some of the editorial bias of the presumedly impartial Economist. Which ones? Judge for yourself…

I noticed the above on Strange Maps this morning, from the Economist. You can click through for a more thorough discussion. The bit worth highlighting here is the magazine’s take on where the UK fits within Europe: in the south, with the PIGS, contemplating its denuded public finances.

That’s one view. Predictably enough, I have three more views here, one for each political party. Whodathunk.

First, it’s worth noting that of the three, the Lib Dems are the only ones to have promised a manifesto on Britain’s membership of the EU. This is in reality a slightly nasty piece of political theatre. They’re pretty confident that they would win cleanly, and they’re probably right, as the UK has been largely comfortable with EU membership for the last generation. This isn’t to say that the UK is entirely comfortable with the Union in its entirity, however, and an easy majority of Britain’s population would resist a further drift of power away from Westminster; however, by holding and passing a referendum on EU membership, Clegg and his cohort would be able to plausibly claim a mandate for further integration over the heads of Britain’s largely Euroskeptic public. It’s a move that would earn them a deserved savaging in the press, but like it or not, the Lib Dems aren’t the blushing political neophytes that they like to claim to be.

Broadly speaking, though, the characatures of the positions of the three parties on Europe are correct. The Lib Dems favour more integration and a more enthusiastic leadership role for the UK in Europe; they are not unaware of the EU’s failings but thinks that Britain could do more ot mitigate those failings if it robustly assumed the role at the top table that it deserves, and that much of Europe is still looking to it to take on. The euroskeptics of the Open Europe thinktank are predictably dismayed, but have some not unreasonable criticisms of Clegg’s position on the Euro. It seems to me that Clegg himself (like his putative Chancellor) is personally ambivalent to the currency; certainly both accept that Britain’s reliance on the Pound has eased the UK’s passage through the economic storms of the last two years. But the party and its faithful remain strongly pro-Euro. This is one kink that won’t be ironed out in a hurry.

Meanwhile, Labour’s transformation into a Europhilic party is complete. It seems hard to believe that, before Blair, Labour was as torn on the question of Europe as the Tories; but now their manifesto is unequivocal:

We are proud that Britain is once again a leading player in Europe. Our belief is that Britain is stronger in the world when the European Union is strong, and that Britain succeeds when it leads in Europe and sets the agenda for change. Sullen resistance and disengagement achieve nothing.

Nevertheless, there is no appetite in the party for the kind of battles that a Lib-Dem-esque europhilic policy would entail. Its manifesto stops well short of calling for Turkish membership to the Union, and entry into the Euro is hardly discussed. Labour are clearly content to occupy a status quo position.

The Tories are what they are: while stopping short of opposing Britain’s EU membership altogether, they want existing powers to be rolled back and future treaties to be put to referendum (i.e. to fail). Their alignment with Europe’s hard-right and Eurosceptic parties is clearly mischievous, and may be actively malign. And so on. That said, there are still plenty of good reasons for Euroscepticism, even if the Tories are as bad at articulating them as the Liberals are at defending their pro-Europe positions.

On Europe, then, the question is very much one of personal choice.

The rest of the foreign policy gauntlet is somewhat dependent upon events. Of the leaders, Clegg has by far the most international experience, while the Tories are the most reliably Atlanticism of the three parties. The Lib Dems would be less likely to uphold the doctorine of liberal intervention (which states that a country can invade another pre-emptively to head off a threat or a catastrophic abuse of human rights; used to justify Iraq, as well as Bosnia and Rwanda, amongst others) in countries like Iran or Sudan. The Tories would be less likely to criticise Israel or support Palestine. Beyond that, predictions are a mugs game.

VIDEO

TAG CLOUD

Pins

About Me

A boy and his blog.

Twitter

    Photos

    Wind directionOoh, sprayNozzleFlee, pitiful humansLungsNice ole facadeRain and shineLambs in a manger