Politics | The Obscurer

Tuesday 28th June 2005

Taken For IDiots

In the long battle over ID cards, the argument that they would tackle terrorism was abandoned long ago. Now Home Secretary Charles Clarke is quoted as saying that “the cards would help tackle serious and organised crime, although not street crime.”

With the actual benefits of ID cards seemingly disappearing before our eyes like chilled pints of Stella on a hot summer day, Clarke has apparently thought of a new reason why we should sign up for their introduction.

Mr Clarke hit out at civil liberties’ fears, stressing: “There would be no compulsion on anybody to show their ID card in the street.” They would also help people identify themselves and help attack the “Big Brother society” where a lot of information was already held about people, he said.

Quite brilliant. In one fell swoop, Clarke has taken on the criticism that ID cards could infringe our civil liberties by arguing that the cards would actually act as a guard against just such a development. Genius.

Presumably, if this tactic doesn’t work it will next be revealed that there are other hitherto unforseen benefits of ID cards; that they are vital in tackling global warming, or in making poverty history. Who knows? They may be required in finding the cure for the common cold.

Personally, I would be happy if Mr Clarke could just explain, if there is already a fear about our personal information being kept on databases all over the place, how can yet another database of information possibly remedy the situation?

Monday 27th June 2005

By The By

Following the sad death of my MP, Patsy Calton, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are gearing up for the by-election that will soon be visited upon the Cheadle constituency. Both have recently dropped leaflets through my door.

They are the usual fare, with both side saying pretty much the same thing. They want more police on the beat, they want the A555 by-pass completed. Only the Liberal Democrats say they are “fighting for local pensioners”, but I dare say the Conservatives could say the same.

Things get a bit more interesting, however, with a third leaflet entitled “Community In Touch”, a title suspiciously similar to the name of the traditional local Lib Dem leaflet “Keeping In Touch”. With the headline “Local Cheadle Hulme Man Snubbed” it suggests that there is discontent at the selection of Mark Hunter as the Liberal Democrats candidate in preference to Stuart Bodsworth, Patsy Calton’s “former right-hand man”. Well, that may well be true, but as this leaflet has also been printed by the Conservatives (as the tiny writing at the bottom of the leaflet confirms) I doubt the authors of this gem are really in the know. Indeed, the leaflet flaunts its ignorance by saying that Stuart Bodsworth “must feel devastated”; i.e. they don’t actually know one way or the other. As for Mark Hunter, they say that “all we know is that he leads a deeply unpopular Council and it is his decisions that brought about this unpopularity”; this will be the same council (Stockport) that was solid Tory during the Seventies and is now solid Lib Dem, and becoming more of a Liberal Democrats stronghold year on year.

But the main complaint about Mark Hunter is that he is from outside the area. We get an unattributed quote saying,

“Fancy the Liberal Democrats talking about a local candidate – their candidate
doesn’t even live here. Perhaps if he lived here, and cared about Cheadle, he
wouldn’t charge us so much in council tax. He’s an outsider”.

We then have a rather neat Q&A.

Q. Who decides how much council tax we pay?
A. The Local Council.

Q. OK, so who is the leader of the Council?
A. Mark Hunter

Q. Mark Hunter? Who’s he then? I’ve never heard of him.
A. Exactly. He doesn’t live in the Cheadle constituency but he does decide how much people in Cheadle pay in council tax. He’s an outsider.

So, we have now been informed that the local council sets the council tax rate; bet you didn’t know that. Needless to say, Cheadle doesn’t have a unique council tax separate from the rest of the borough, the council sets the same rate across the whole of Stockport. I am not too sure what the Tories are suggesting here; that Cheadle should have it’s own council? I haven’t seen that as a suggestion in either of their leaflets.

Anyway, just how much of an outsider is Mark Hunter? Fortunately, the Tories are on hand to inform us with this handy map.

Would you look at that! Miles away! Those tricksy Lib Dems have parachuted in a stranger to these part! Don’t let them get away with it!

I don’t know just how stupid the Tories think I am, but it seems they think I am very stupid. You would think that by mentioning that Hunter is leader of the council, most people would get the impression he is fairly local, even if he doesn’t actually live next door to them; but the map to me just suggests that he is, in fact, very local indeed.

In contrast, the best the Lib Dem leaflet can do is announce that “our next MP will be local campaigner Mark Hunter, or Michael Howards’s Conservative”. Pathetic. If they really want to fight it out on this whole “local” versus “outsider” business then they will have to try harder; perhaps by employing Edward and Tubbs in their campaign team.

6 Comments

Wednesday 1st June 2005

Go West

Interesting programme on Channel Five yesterday (and it’s not often you hear me say that) with Mikhail Gorbachev presenting Big Ideas That Changed The World; in this case the big idea being communism. We were given a little potted history of communism, which was interesting if not revelatory, but interspersed with Gorbachev’s own commentary it became quite fascinating.

Gorbachev is still clearly a fan of Marx’s theories, and was at pains to stress how the central planning, repression and cult of personality of the Stalin era had nothing to do with the Communist Manifesto. Growing up in a staunchly communist family it is little wonder Gorbachev was attracted to the theories at first; less so when you learned that his grandfather, who was a party member, was tortured by the secret police for withholding some grain for his family. Self-delusion seems to have been, to some extent, the order of the day, as Gorbachev’s grandfather insisted that Stalin could not have known the true barbarity of the regime; today, Gorbachev tells that he has seen with his own eyes the execution orders signed in Stalin’s hand.

But despite this early eye-opener into the Soviet Union’s totalitarian nature, Gorbachev became a loyal party worker, and rose rapidly through the ranks. The Red Army’s success in the Second World War actually illustrated one way in which central planning, however brutally applied, could be a huge advantage in times of war. Following the end of the war, as communist governments sprang up across eastern Europe and the world, as Gorbachev recalled the Soviet superiority in technology, sport, the arts and the space race, and while Khrushchev made some modest reforms, you can imagine how Gorbachev, amongst others, would be unlikely to question communism, and could see it as a system for the future.

For Gorbachev, disillusionment set in when Brezhnev replaced Khrushchev and turned the clock back to the Stalinist era of centralisation, the arms race, tyranny and ultimately stagnation. Gorbachev laughed when he remembered politburo meetings that even discussed the minutia of the production of women’s underwear.

When he became leader he was still an advocate of communism, but wanted it to be reinvigorated with greater freedoms and democracy. Today he speaks of how Marx’s followers (but not Marx) did a lot of damage, by suppressing trade and enterprise, and much of what drives a normal society. Interestingly he also believes that the west needs its own perestroika; that capitalism suppresses other human values of equality and solidarity, and that the lesson from communism, that it is an error to try to suppress universal human values, can equally apply to capitalism. I am not quite sold on this theory myself, but certainly I feel that any strict adherence to one ideology is likely to be a mistake, and that capitalism is capable of some pretty unpleasant outcomes that we should not turn a blind eye to. Surely, just as elements of free market liberalism were required in the Soviet Union to make it a more free society, so in the west the state must also play an important role in making society a fairer one. Many people seem to have an automatic aversion to either markets or to state involvement, but I think they both have a role to play; it is just a question of balance. But I am repeating what I have said in previous posts, now, so I will shut up.

One final thing, though; this programme was also a timely reminder of Europe’s recent history. As the television screen was filled with images of the Berlin Wall being torn down, Gorbachev spoke of how he refused to use the Red Army to intervene as the old communist leaders of eastern Europe were swept from power. I couldn’t help thinking of how, last year, when he died, Ronald Reagan was considered almost solely responsible for the dismantling of the communist regimes and the end of the cold war. This year it was the Pope’s turn. No doubt next year, when Thatcher dies, she will get all the plaudits. I think that Gorbachev, more than anyone else, deserves the credit.

2 Comments

Saturday 7th May 2005

Cattle Prods And The IMF

I probably shouldn’t be writing this, after the amount of Stella I have been drinking tonight, and at this time of the night/morning, but time is pressing. Anything I write that is particularly stupid will be deleted in the morning, leaving only the plainly stupid to remain. What the hell; here I go.

As you may have noticed, I haven’t managed to do any live-blogging of the general election. It was never going to happen. I was watching the television coverage in bed by 1 am, and I was asleep by 3 am; so kudos to NoseMonkey, amongst others, who managed to cover the whole event. I hope their insomnia is soon cured.

Here in sunny Cheadle the LibDems managed to turn a tiny majority of 33 into a comfortable majority of 4,020. Bizarrely, in the most marginal seat in the country, the Con Club at the top of my road only put up their “Vote Conservative” posters last week. They really didn’t deserve to win here. It looks as if the LibDems won because of a collapse in the Labour vote. I really don’t understand this whole business of swings, though. The BBC website reports a 4.2% swing from Conservative to Liberal Democrats, when if you look at the figures, the Tories vote was largely static, while Labour voters switched to the LibDems (Cheadle is fucking weird, though; this time there was a swing to the LibDems; in 1992 the Tories increased their majority. Madness).

Across the country a similar story seems to have emerged. Labour has simply shed voters in all directions; they have done a starburst towards any other party. The war seems to have played a larger part in the election than I suspected it would, but Labour are still by far the largest party in parliament. There was never much doubt that Labour would form the government in this election, but next time it may not be so clear cut, and so it will be interesting to see if in the next election people still feel they can afford a protest vote against the government. Whatever people think of Blair, or the war, I don’t think that there is a feeling at the moment that people want to see the back of Labour, whereas in 1992 the country was thoroughly sick of the Tories and wanted them gone, they just lost their nerve in the polling booth; by 1997 nothing short of divine intervention could have saved them. In improving their share of the vote by just 0.6% this time it still doesn’t seem as if the nation is particularly enamoured with the Conservatives just yet.

Well done to Jon Chatfield by the way, an old college friend of mine, for increasing the LibDem vote in Cambridgeshire South East; I was in the land of nod, unfortunately, by the time that result came through. I was also sleeping for the exchange between the God-like Paxman and the twattish Galloway (no prizes for guessing which side I am on in this argument), but thanks to the wonder of the Internet you can watch it again (and again) here. Wherever you stand on the war, I think it is a terrible thing that Galloway has won in Bethnal Green and Bow; egos like his don’t need feeding any further. I would like to think that he has delusions of grandeur, but unlike Kilroy he actually does seem to have some supporters; and let’s face it, they are welcome to him. On a better note, I am happy that the deeply irritating television presenter Esther McVey has failed to win Wirral West. When I heard they were doing various recounts in the constituency I did hazard a guess that she had lost, but just couldn’t accept it. I don’t know the woman, so I may be doing her a disservice, but that is the way it appeared to me.

I mainly watched the coverage of the election on the BBC which was pretty good; I just wish they wouldn’t give Peter Snow so many electronic toys to play with. That graphic of the party leaders walking down Downing Street was totally embarrassing, and I don’t ever want to see it ever again. That said, whenever I flicked over to ITV or Sky (usually when Dead Ringers’ Jon Culshaw appeared on the screen) they also succumbed to the corny graphics; it must be obligatory in the media these days.

What now? Hopefully we will see the government taking more notice of parliament this time round. Blair I suppose will have some more of his “difficult decisions” to make for a while yet, but for how long? He has looked rattled and grumpy all campaign, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he just wants out now. Some have mentioned that he would like to see Britain through signing the EU Constitution, but as there is not a cat in hell’s chance of winning that referendum (that’s if another country hasn’t scuppered it by the time it gets to us) there is not much for him to hang around for. Perhaps he may stay long enough so he can hand the leadership over at a convenient time, so Brown can still call the next election during his own honeymoon period. I guess we will wait and see.

As he has not managed to get elected I suppose Jon Chatfield’s mind will be allowed to wander this weekend to the possibility that his beloved Everton could qualifying for the Champion’s League. I sincerely hope they do, for my many Everton acquaintances such as Jon (in Cambridge, via Weymouth), Mike (Cheadle Hulme, via Formby and Canberra), John (Wallasey) and AJE (the blogosphere). I think it is quite right that if the FA have four positions for the competition then they fill them with the top four teams in their premier competition. If UEFA want their champions to appear in their competition, they should change their rules. End of story.

Will City join them in Europe? Well, it is a tough call. By tomorrow the UEFA cup could be out of reach, a slim possibility, or even in our own hands since we play Middlesbrough in out last game. Whatever happens, I think Stuart Pearce has shown enough to get the job permanently. As was said on Occupied Country “all we are saying is give Pearce a chance”. Well, he has had his chance, and I actually feel more confident about City’s progress now than I have done for a while. Off hand, I can’t think of anyone I would prefer to be our manager.

And at the bottom of the table? Well apologies to Saints fans, but I really hope Southampton go down. It is about time. I never used to mind them; they used to have the Le Tissier for one thing; for another, they allowed my ultimate hero, Gio Kinkladze, to carve them open for this goal. However, the very same season that Kinky scored that goal Southampton and Coventry both stayed in the premiership on goal difference while we were relegated. The following season both clubs once more finished just above the relegation places, and I decided they were living on borrowed time. Employing Gordan Strachan as my emissary I despatched him to get both sides relegated. He worked wonders at Coventry, and when he left them for Southampton it all seemed to be falling into place. It was my idea for him to initially be successful at Southampton in order to avoid suspicion; but during the Saints’ “relegation year” he let it slip that he would be leaving at the end of the season; so he was sacked and Southampton survived. With luck, perhaps this season is the time that my thwarted ambitions are finally realised.

So, in this post we’ve had politics, and sport; what about Fimbles? Well, hopefully I will have a few weeks free from their annoying influence. I am off on holiday tomorrow for a fortnight; to Rumbling Bridge in Perthshire for a week, followed by a further week in Bowness on Windermere (picture above). Where I go, I hope Cbeebies can’t follow. As a consequence there will be no blogging from me for the next few weeks, unless I spot a passing Internet café by a lonely tarn, and even then…

I will see you all in a couple of weeks; take care, and look after yourselves.

PostScript: if you are unhappy about a Labour victory in the election, then just look at what you could have won, (via Shot By Both Sides). Not far from the truth, if you ask me (but did you?).

Tuesday 19th April 2005

Election Update

Everybody else is doing it, so why can’t (I)?

Who should I vote for?

Your expected outcome:Liberal Democrat

Your actual outcome:

Labour -23
Conservative -19
	Liberal Democrat 32
	UK Independence Party 8
	Green 19

You should vote: Liberal Democrat

The LibDems take a strong stand against tax cuts and a strong one in favour of public services: they would make long-term residential care for the elderly free across the UK, and scrap university tuition fees. They are in favour of a ban on smoking in public places, but would relax laws on cannabis. They propose to change vehicle taxation to be based on usage rather than ownership.
Take the test at Who Should You Vote For

A few points here…

Why am I shown as more anti-Labour than anti-Tory? Very odd.
Why am I shown as even slightly pro-UKIP. At all!
Why does it mention the ban on smoking in public places when I am not in favour of it. Unless of course I pressed the wrong button, in which case the whole validity of this survey is thrown into doubt.
How fares the election? I have just spent the past few days in Malta, where the only British TV channel was the news-free BBC Prime (it did show The Office, though). It was bliss. The only news I received from the locals was that United had beaten Newcastle; they looked bemused that I wasn’t pleased with this information.

Category: Politics

Share:

Share:

Share:

Share:

Share: