The Myopia of Milibandmania

You've seen me writing recently on this blog about Gordon Brown's failings. Well Michael Portillo, writing about Brown's recent misfortunes, has hit the nail on the head multiple times. David Miliband, current British Foreign Secretary, last week embarked on an extraordinary media adventure, setting out what looked to all intents and purposes like an alternate Prime Ministerial manifesto. Miliband has for some time been touted as the true heir to Tony Blair, and with Brown's now numerous failings of substance and style, it seemed as though a leadership campaign was effectively started through this intervention.

Part of his argument makes sense. The electorate is turned off by exaggerations of success. Labour's success in combating poverty has been eclipsed by their embracing of corporate business and extreme wealth, which has caused the gap between rich and poor to accelerate to a size greater than ever before. They may have accelerated markets for parental and customer 'choice' in education and within the health sector, but ignore the realities on the ground which make them fail. Their foreign policy is still a mess and grossly unethical (Miliband take note), their asylum policy grossly xenophobic and homophobic, and the Home Office is doing everything in its power to restrict even the most basic civil liberties, when it should be tackling the true causes of crime. And back we go to the beginning of the paragraph.

Portillo says:

A year ago Miliband famously predicted that we would soon be yearning for Blair again. That is certainly not what most of the Labour party feel. They supported Brown for the leadership, expecting a move away from new Labour. Tired of Blair’s adulation of wealth and of the United States, they looked for a fresh commitment to social justice.

And he's quite right. Miliband isn't offering anything of the sort. He talks of 'belonging', of 'modernising', whilst ignoring the diviseness of the policies which he offers no respite from.

Every member of the Labour party carries with them a simple guiding mission on the membership card: to put power, wealth and opportunity in the hands of the many, not the few. When debating public service reform, tax policies or constitutional changes, we apply those values to the latest challenges.

And yet New Labour does put power, wealth and opportunity into the hands of the few; this is a complete lie. Poverty isn't being combated in any meaningful way, and it's far from the only 'value' being ignored. 'Protection' policies allow the perception of crime to be hyped up far higher than it actually is. We're so afraid of the paedophiles lurking around every corner or every mouse click, that we fail to see abuse where it's really occuring and become paranoid about the wrong people. Asylum seekers are blamed for their own persecution, as New Labour reformulates the world around us into something it isn't, as worker protection offered by the EU continues to be rejected by a government timidly kow-towing to the corporate world. David Miliband, despite what he might say, offers no 'change' from this. Portillo continues:

Last week Bob Marshall-Andrews, the veteran Labour rebel, called on Brown to fire the foreign secretary. He is absolutely right, although if Miliband survives the weekend it may already be too late.

He is indeed right. Miliband's intervention was a thinly-veiled attack on Gordon Brown's authority (admittedly what little there is left of it). A Miliband leadership challenge, if successful, would ignore what Portillo rightly points out is an important lesson of modern history. The Conservative Party and electorate as a whole would much rather now have had the chance to have had Margaret Thatcher voted out, rather than evicted. Her authority had similarly dipped, through similarly falling completely out of step with the country, had clung to power for the sake of it, rather than continuing to offer substantial change, and had tried to legitimise the arrogance which is now (in many quarters) her legacy. Yet in flip-flopping to Major to Blair now Brown, none of them ultimately satisfying anyone, the country was denied a clear picture of the social and political alternatives before it. Blair paints himself the heir to Thatcher, as Cameron does to him, but New Labour has turned out to be a shallow sham, with politics not having truly moved on from the Thatcher era.

Brown might well be an awful Prime Minister, timidly appeasing the right wing whilst merely tinkering with left wing policies, but the electorate is already irritated that he didn't even triumph in an leadership election - that even the Labour Party didn't even truly decide they wanted him rather than a true alternative to Blair. To impose a second Blair clone on Britain, a smug one at that, would indeed be a catastrophe for the party. Under Brown they'll fall, but at least have the opportunity to debate what really should come next, and live to fight another day. Under Miliband, who hasn't even the groundswell of support Blair did in 1997, they would lose all trust and spend another quarter century tearing themselves apart. For all his numerous failings, Tony Blair must be spitting blood.

Restrict Religious Groups?

I don't think so. Take a look at this:

Four out of 10 Muslim students in Britain support the introduction of sharia into UK law for Muslims, according to a YouGov poll. Almost a third of them said that killing in the name of religion was justified; 40% said they felt it was unacceptable for Muslim men and women to associate freely; and nearly a quarter do not think that men and women are equal in the eyes of Allah.

A quarter of Muslim students said they had little or no respect for homosexuals. As for whether British Muslim servicemen should be allowed to opt out of hostilities with Muslim countries, 57% said they should and a further 25% said they were not sure.

More than half of the Muslim students were in favour of an Islamic political party to support their views in parliament. A third don’t think or don’t know whether Islam is compatible with the western notion of democracy, and a third said they were in favour of a worldwide Islamic caliphate based on sharia.

Alarmed? From the words, you're clearly supposed to be. An Islamic political party? What a terrible thing. Next thing you know we'll have a Calvinist as Prime Minister...and a quarter of Muslim students with little or no respect for gay people? Why not try canvassing Christian students and see if you get an even bigger number! And speaking of Christians, Muslim servicemen should 'opt out' of hostilities with Muslim countries? Gosh you'll get civil registrars and policemen trying to opt out of their secular duties next.

What follows inescapably from this is that religious people and their views should not be officially recognised in groups. Religion should not be allowed a public space or public representation. This is hard for those of us who used to love the muddled Anglican compromise; it means the disestablishment of our national church – if it doesn’t self-destruct first.

The challenge of other, fiercer and more divisive convictions has forced the issue; multiculturalism has been subversive. There must be no more religious schools – personally I would leave those that exist alone. There must be no public recognition of religious associations as representatives of anything or anybody: not on campuses, not in student unions, not in government consultations or in parliament.

Absolute hogwash, and I say that as an atheist. Whilst I agree that Church and state should indeed be separated, this argument is tantamount to advocating that all MPs should be atheists, which is ridiculous. But for religion to have no public space at all would be insane. In a recent talk I watched by Bishop Gene Robinson, he and Sir Ian McKellen jointly argued that we can only progress together in society - that means atheist lobbyists working alongside gay bishops, that mean civil rights and religious rites side by side, but not one excluding the other. Only by making the civil and religious spheres distinct can we see the deficiencies in both and how each can aid the other.

Sure it's past time for the sake of fairness in society (for Muslims and non-Muslims alike) that disestablishment should take place, but to then say that religion should as a result wither on the vine would be ignorant. And to exclude religion from places of learning is downright inane. I agree that it should not be the means of learning (you're right, I think faith schools should be stopped - by which I mean Anglican and Catholic ones too), but not to allow its free expression by those best able to articulate it would be the most dangerous act of extremism of all.

Yet how can young Muslims fit into a liberal western democracy if they believe things that are intolerant, illegal and, in plain English, unBritish?

There's that fear thing again - the writer blaming Muslims for attitudes widely held by Christians. Want Islamophobia? That's how it's transmitted. Try attacking the levels of domestic violence and rape perpetrated by chuchgoing Christians. Try attacking the Christian Institute for trying to change the law to allow religious opt-outs such as Lillian Ladele's disgraceful example in Islington. And for that matter if we really don't like dictators maybe we should try to oust all of them rather than just the Islamic ones.

Brown is Gutless and Hypocritical

Gordon Brown indeed witters on again and again about 'Britishness', as did Blair's first Home Secretary David Blunkett. He discusses new ideas about 'British' bank holidays, citizenship ceremonies, flag flying, all sorts of petty nationalistic ideas which might buy him some extra time with the electorate, yet when challenged by David Davis to fight a by-election on civil liberties and their 'strangulation' he bottles it again. Surely Davis is right, that these values are quintessentially British, and to fight for them is the most British quality of all.

He added: "Mr Brown likes to talk about Britishness - fundamental to Britishness is being free. He should come out and argue the case."

Why not? Unless of course Brown feels that being free means to have a surveillance society, ID cards and the hugest period of allowable time for detention without charge anywhere in the Western world...

A Lack of Principle

It may have started before Tony Blair took office in 1997, but New Labour sure has made the disengagement of the electorate from their elected representatives almost an art form. Sleazy financing, friendships with war criminals, launching illegal wars, privatising almost everything that moves, and of course trashing civil liberties. Gordon Brown came to power saying he'd listen, and that his would be a new government. Don't you believe it, it's more of the same bilge. Without any change in circumstances since his predecessor tried to raise the potential period of detention without charge to 90 days, Brown is now trying to raise it from 28 (already too high) to 42 days. What's deplorable is that out of what used to be a left-wing party there were only 'rebels', and now even many of them are being successfully bought off, ostensibly to shore up Brown's crumbled authority and to recast him as a strong, decisive Prime Minister, even though he's anything but.

Mohammad Sarwar, Labour MP for Glasgow Govan, has also decided to back the government after he was given an undertaking that anyone locked up for as long as 42 days and then released without charge would receive compensation on a day-by-day basis.

I'm sorry but this is dreadful. The very basis of doing this is wrong, as former Prime Minister Sir John Major quite rightly pointed out. But it also shows no understanding of why it's wrong. Financial compensation couldn't hope to repair the damage of the destruction of someone's life without definite proof. And it's naive beyond words to think that these powers wouldn't be used abusively - even local councils now regularly abuse the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). And they're all like this - principle used to be the guide at least to most of the Labour Party, but no longer. They're more interested in voting tactically to shore the worst Prime Minister in generations up in the futile hope they'll keep their jobs in 2010. It's no wonder people aren't voting in general elections anymore

Gordon Clearly Doesn't Get It

Gordon Brown brings the Labour government closer to inevitable defeat, almost by the day.

Harriet Harman, the Labour deputy leader, acknowledged there were "discordant voices" in the party but insisted: "The overwhelming majority of people in the Labour Party – and I speak to constituency chairs up and down the country in my capacity as deputy leader – are solidly behind Gordon Brown and what he stands for, which is a strong economy and fair society. He is the man with the experience to make sure that happens."

No, he isn't. He himself contributed to the current credit crunch by building an economy on the basis of cheap credit; he encouraged us to spend irresponsibly for a decade. That was always an artifice ready to collapse at a moment's notice under the right conditions, and they're now here. Even now he and his idiot counterpart in America are trying to get us to spend, and to get the banks to revert to form, but noone's having it. And I'd love someone to tell me where this fair society is. Under his and Blair's watch, British society has become more unequal than at any time in history. It's true that poverty has been tackled, but the top end has raced away disproportionately. And this whilst Blair and Brown have wantonly ran away from civil liberties as if they didn't matter. They do, and everyone knows it. From ID cards to 42 days, to the police abusing legitimate protest and the Border Service abusing asylum seekers, this country under Brown couldn't be more unfair.

This is not at its core about high fuel prices, high energy prices or high food prices. This is about an electorate so convinced the government isn't listening that it's even prepared to look at the party which didn't listen in the past. It's a real tragedy - I remember watching Brown on 'Question Time' before Blair snatched the top job from under his nose and he was all about progressive politics. But he's so wedded to New Labour triangulation that he's unable to see that the electorate aren't just trapped between two unpalatable choices, but they're so fed with him being the one to listen least, that they're leaving him and not coming back.

The other week he tried to buy off the electorate from the 10p tax debacle, but it made no difference to his popularity. What the electorate wants is honesty and backbone. He needs to do something, not just play for short term gain, but he's like a rabbit in headlights. Even just a commitment to walking away from ID cards would make a difference, but I bet he doesn't.

Better Transport? Maybe...

It's interesting at a time when Gordon Brown is so weak that new, environmentally friendly transportation policies are being pushed so hard. Given this government's failings on the environment and in transport, we can only hope that they listen in the time they have left.

On the one hand we have a cable car being recommended by the Stockholm Environment Institute, University College London and the University of Wuppertal, in place of the much-derided and unwanted Thamesmead Bridge. It's a novel and worthy idea, getting neatly around the 'if you build it they will come' maxim. But of course the drawback is an existing need for some road link between the Blackwall and Dartford tunnels. Would this cut the demand for road users crossing the Thames?

The Sustainable Development Commission, chaired by Sir Jonathon Porritt, said there were big question marks over the environmental and economic arguments underpinning the proposals for British airport expansion.

Yet the government and the disgraceful BAA have already dismissed its findings; hardly surprising considering the report questions the entire economic and environmental rationale for a third runway. Is the solution to this though to get the aviation industry to 'pay its part in meeting environmental costs'? I don't think so.

Ken v Gordon

So it looks highly likely that Ken Livingstone will lose the London Mayoralty. It proves without any doubt that people are stultifyingly stupid everywhere, not just America. I can't wait to see him lose his patience with the Labour Party and go on the attack against Gordon Brown - the only remaining Labour Party member who is even slightly electable against the Prime Minister currently destroying it.

Gordon Grows a Spine

At long last Gordon Brown, no doubt reeling from being horribly damaged from the PR disaster which was the London leg of the Olympic Torch Relay, has decided to pull out from the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics. Of course he can't help trying to spin this as always having been the case, rather than having changed his mind to limit the damage Sunday's fiasco did to him, but the bottom line is it's the right decision.

The more the outrageous relay stunt goes on, accompanied by brutal, authoritarian defensive statements like Qiangba Puncog's, the worse it'll be for China's reputation. Already bad, they could always stop jailing people like Hu Jia, but that seems not to be on their agenda.

Planning on voting Labour?

It's a two-parter, this. And it's a biggie. From The Independent:

"marriage has never been less popular, as the Government's own statistics revealed last month, and we are fast heading for a situation in which 45 per cent of marriages will end in divorce. Millions of people live in a network of relationships which embraces close friends, blood relatives, step-families and gay couples, suggesting that the populace is considerably more sophisticated in this respect than the political class which governs us. A fifth of women born in 1961 remain childless, many of them by choice, and there is widespread acknowledgement that the maternal instinct is not universal.

...These days, the choice not to have children is as widely respected as the desperate desire to become mothers which inspires infertile women to opt for IVF treatment."

So why then are they restructuring the tax regime to disadvantage just this sector?

"This week, the abolition of the 10p lower rate of income tax which they voted for last year came into force, leaving 5.3 million people on low incomes worse off. The big losers are childless people under the age of 65 earning less than £18,500 a year, some of whom will be paying a couple of hundred pounds more in tax while higher earners benefit from the restructuring of the tax regime."

So in a stroke, Labour alienates 40% (ish) of its electorate? Stupid much or is the whole point of New Labour now purely to try to supplant the Conservative Party rather than improve on them? Gordon Brown's obsession with 'hard-working families' for electoral advantage is blinding him to the now near-absence of social justice provided by the party whose mission statement it is to provide it. It'll bite him on the ass at the next General Election, not to mention the rest of us when (assuming we retain first-past-the-post) the only viable other choice will be the Conservatives, who are even worse.

Voting Reform in England?

As the polls get inexorably worse, as people realise that NuLabour is once and for all morally and intellectually bankrupt, finally a decision is made to go for voting reform. Why noone had the backbone to attempt this while Robin Cook was alive is beyond me, but there's no doubt in my mind that Gordon Brown needs this to have any chance at all of winning the next General Election.

I also agree with compulsory voting with one big proviso. There needs to be an alternative on the list of 'none of the above'. If enough of the electorate chooses that option in the constituency then that election would have to be re-run with candidates more acceptable to voters. If they're looking for greater legitimacy that would have to be a core component really.