Tony Benn- National Treasure

There were a lot of good things to be said of Tony Benn, but because he was a "national treasure", when he behaved appalling it gets passed on as loveable character foibles. Take this anecdote for example:

That was a more fortunate experience than a [journalist] colleague. An interview he conducted did not go to the liking of Mr Benn. So much not to his liking that he suddenly drew from a cupboard a magnetic device and waved it over the reporter's machine, erasing the tape.

This seems in character for an unrepentant admirer of Chairman Mao.

Nice Business You've Got There- Shame If Anything Were To Happen To It

People often think of the relationship between politicians and big business as being business corrupting politicians through the influence of their cash.

In actual fact the relationship seems to be more like a case of politicians seeking rent from business. Politicians know they control the ultimate levers of power and can in effect run a protection racket. As this piece on Microsoft in the late 1990s makes clear:

But it grated on Hatch and other senators that Gates didn't want to want to play the Washington game. Former Microsoft employee Michael Kinsley, a liberal, wrote of Gates: "He didn't want anything special from the government, except the freedom to build and sell software. If the government would leave him alone, he would leave the government alone."

This was a mistake. One lobbyist fumed about Gates to author Gary Rivlin: "You look at a guy like Gates, who's been arrogant and cheap and incredibly naive about politics. He genuinely believed that because he was creating jobs or whatever, that'd be enough."

Gates was "cheap" because Microsoft spent only $2 million on lobbying in 1997, and its PAC contributed less than $50,000 during the 1996 election cycle. "You can't say, 'We're better than that,' " a Microsoft lobbyist told me on Friday. "At some point, you get too big, and you can't just ignore Washington."

"You can sit there and say, 'We despise Washington and we don't want to have anything to do with them,' " the lobbyist said. "But guess what? We're going to have hearings about the [stuff] you do."

It's no shocker that lobbyists think companies should hire lobbyists. But so does Capitol Hill -- Orrin Hatch included.

In a 2000 speech to technology companies, Hatch called Microsoft "knuckle-headed and hard-nosed," according to Wired magazine. "I have given [Microsoft] advice, and they don't pay any attention to it." In that same speech, Hatch warned: "If you want to get involved in business, you should get involved in politics."
"The industry had an attitude that government should do what it needs to do but leave us alone," one Hill technology staffer complained to Business Week at the time. "Their hands-off approach to Washington will come back to haunt them."

After the Hatch hearings, Microsoft complied. Its PAC increased spending fivefold in each of the next two elections. In the 2010 elections, Microsoft's PAC contributed $2.3 million to House and Senate candidates. The PAC has contributed the maximum $10,000 to each of Hatch's last two campaigns.

I would regard the Leveson inquiry as of a similar ilk- News International's behaviour has undoubtedly been poor, but it is hard to believe the fact that Tom Watson- the leading MP behind the attack- is a noted loyalist of Gordon Brown is a coincidence. When he and other Labour MPs went beyond what had been dicussed at the committee and concluded that Rupert Murdoch was not a fit and proper person to run News Corp, it was similarly thuggish- if the press oppose us we try to sabotage their business.

Quick: Lets Ban Something!

The government has floated the idea of shutting down social networking sites during major riots, so that trouble makers will not be able to use them to coordinate their activities. Needless to say this idea is stupid, knee jerk authoritarianism of the worst kind, as Obo explains here.

When looking at history it soon becomes apparent that riots occasionally occurred before Twitter was even invented- hard to believe I know but when I looked it up on Wikipedia it turned out there have been a handful of high profile riots throughout British & indeed World history. Who knew?

The only difference between people inciting violence by word of mouth or by Twitter is that with Twitter anyone dumb enough to advocate violence (Hello Jody McIntyre) leaves a trail of evidence. Shutting down Twitter & Facebook would make it harder to convict rioters later on.

There is also the small matter of it being a punishment for the innocent as well as the guilty- some people have used social media to instigate violence but many more have used social networks to find out where trouble is happening and avoid it.

All in all the proposal is gimmicky, counter productive and unworkable.Witless authoritarianism did not die with New Labour.

Another Politician

Rowan Williams is quite entitled to attack the government just as much as anyone else is. What he has to realise though is that if he wants to get into politics he should not be treated differently to any other pundit and should expect to be subjected to the same kind of criticism and support as Polly Toynbee, Richard Littlejohn or Peter Hitchens receive.

He should expect to receive no deference or respect on the basis of who he is or to use the moral authority the C of E has earned over the years through running schools, conducting funerals for all parishioners and not systematically abusing children as a shield against the backlash he has provoked.

Milidoomed

In the Grauniad, Dan Hodges argues that Ed Miliband needs to reach out to"Labour's lost Tories", who voted for Blair in 1997, 2001 and 2005. Which is true in one sense- to win a majority Labour need to get a number of habitual Tories to vote for them not rely on the "progressive majority" which isn't a majority.

Having said that, Blair in 1994 was appealing to Tory voters who hadn't endured Labour misgovernment for 15 years. Miliband can't do what Blair did.

He faces the same problem that William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith faced as leaders of the Conservative Party- trying to reach a centre ground that isn't listening risks alienating the core voters which sinks parties at a low ebb even lower. Hague and IDS both had to retreat to a core vote strategy after early efforts to reposition the party were rejected.

Miliband's best option is to rebuild Labour's infrastructure so that when voters are ready to give them another go they are able to campaign on the ground to win them. Mopping up left wing Lib Dems is part of that as is gaining local councillors.

He probably won't gain anything from this personally but he will his successor a much better chance of being Prime Minister. A fine fraternal gift.

Quote Of The Day

Over at 'A Tangled Web' Mahons comments on the resignation of Alan Johnson:

Tough times. Losing one’s Johnson but keeping your Balls

Labour Recovery?

Before the last election Lib Dem voters were split between preferring a coalition with the Tories or a coalition with Labour. Since then they have lost most of their Labour leaning supporters. This is probably why Labour now have a solid lead in the opinion polls despite the disastrous performance of the last government and the widespread lack of faith in Ed Miliband.

This isn't to say the Lib Dems made the wrong decision in May, had they gone into coalition with Labour then their more right leaning supporters would have left instead.

What this means though is that Labour will do much better in bye elections, such as the one yesterday in Oldham, between now and 2015 than had previously been anticipated and could be a much more substantial force at the election than previously believed.

Shameless

The shooting of a US Representitive, Gabrielle Giffords, and a crowd of other people has inevitably been seized upon by various factions to advance political agendas and find a way of blaming their political opponents. This is inevitable I suppose even thought the evidence about the shooter's political leanings is highly patchy and paranoia seems like the common theme rather than a left or right ideology.

The Guardian's Alex Hannaford's effort is particularly nauseating though because after running through a litany of smears: along with a wide eyed protestation of innocence- "Of course, there's no suggestion that the suspected gunman – a college graduate from Arizona who lists reading as his favourite pastime – was particularly inspired by Sarah Palin"- he then has the chutzpah to express outrage that people are expoiting the
shooting to advance their political agendas:

Incredibly, though, what happened on Saturday is already being seized upon by the pro-gun lobby. One comment on Sarah Palin's Facebook page reads: "This will be another avenue for gun control groups to further their sick agenda."

I didn't detect one hint of irony.

Me neither Alex, me neither.

Spot The Spin

From some neurological research into brain structure and political leanings:

Scans of 90 students' brains at University College London (UCL) uncovered a "strong correlation" between the thickness of two particular areas of grey matter and an individual's views.

Self-proclaimed right-wingers had a more pronounced amygdala - a primitive part of the brain associated with emotion while their political opponents from the opposite end of the spectrum had thicker anterior cingulates.

See what they did there?

Educate Me

As most people familiar with US politics will be aware there used to be a sizeable contingent of conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, not just in the sense that the phrases are used now to indicate that they were conservative or liberal relative to their parties as a whole but liberal or conservative in an absolute sense, so it was perfectly possible for Democrats to be way more conservative than conservative Republicans like Ronald Reagan.

I can understand the division among liberals between the two parties a little better because even when they aligned on social issues, liberal Republicans tended to be more conservative about things like spending and unions. The conservative split is harder to explain.

It was obviously partly a race and regional thing thing, but presumably there must have been reasons for conservative Democrats and Republicans to be in different parties in the first place, so what were the underlying differences between the two groups and why have they ceased to be relevant? The only obvious policy difference I can see is that Southern conservative Democrats tended to favour a more active foreign policy whereas the Mid Western GOP conservatives like Senator Robert Taft tended towards a more isolationist position.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!

HA Ha HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

Doesn't say much about Ed Miliband's judgement that the sleazy little pixie was appointed a shadow minister even with this hanging over his head.

Just Because You Got Stabbed Doesn't Make You An Expert

We have laws against inciting violence so what exactly is Stephen Timms proposing here:

An MP stabbed by a high-flying university student inspired by al Qaeda told how it was like a "bolt out of the blue".
Stephen Timms backed calls for an overhaul of websites hosting terror videos as he said Roshonara Choudhry's online radicalisation was "puzzling and alarming".

Indeed given that he acknowledges that his assailants radicalisation is "puzzling" he appears to acknowledge that he doesn't actually understand what motivated her so he is essentially calling for a ban on a wide range of unspecified material.

Happy Times Are Here Again

The Republican wins in the US mid terms remind me of what PJ O'Rourke said the last time the GOP won the House- "Repuiblicans have always argued that government doesn't work, and now we're going to prove it".

Irish Politics- Confusing But Interesting.

I don't follow Irish politics as much as I probably should, mostly because I find it baffling- the main point of difference between the two major parties- Fianna Fail and Fine Gael- isn't socialism versus the free market or social liberalism versus conservatism, instead it appears to be whether you support the people who supported the treaty that granted Ireland independence in the 1920s. Even so as Ireland is one of my favourite parts of England* I think it is worth looking at.

Fianna Fail appear to be ideologically flexible with no real principles whereas Fine Gael are like a European Christian Democratic party except they are in semi-permanent coalition with the Labour party when they govern.

Ireland's economic woes have been more severe than the UK's though and unlike the UK the party in power making the cuts (much more severe than ours) were also responsible for getting into the mess. Anyway the current polling suggests that enough damage has been done to Fianna Fail to push them from being Ireland's permanent largest party to lagging in 3rd place. From the outside that suggests the potential for a realignment in Irish politics.

It also suggests that the British Labour Party may have been lucky to lose the 2010 election- getting into a mess is one thing and cleaning it up is another but when you're responsible for both things the electorate don't like it one bit.

* I tried a variation of that line on a Welshman once, he didn't like it.

Meet The New Boss

Whilst British politics is usually characterised as being more left wing that the United States, compare the very real cuts in public spending being made by the very centrist coalition with what is on offer from the Republican Party in the upcoming midterm elections.

Even propelled on a Tea Party inspired wave, the GOP's platform pretty much rules out any cuts in spending, with promises to protect the most bloated areas of federal spending- social security, medicare and defence.

When you're being outflanked on fiscal conservatism by a coalition that includes Simon Hughes then it is hard to believe that the likely electoral success of the Republican party in November will mean any real change from the big spending ways of Obama.

My Compass

I take the Political Compass thingy once every few years. My current score is:

Economic Left/Right: 6.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33

Feel free to enter your scores in the comments.

Headline News!

Do defecting local councillors usually make headline national news? I don't recall hearing anything like this in the las 13 years, I wonder what has changed.

The Ten Most Irritating Politicians Since The War

I missed Rod Liddle's poll to find the most irritating politicians since the war so he is my list. Obviously there is a strong bias towards politicians whom I am old enough to actually remember with only Bevan and Williams being from before the 1980s. I don't suppose being irritating makes someone bad at their job, I suspect I would have found Gladstone insuuferable had I been alive in the 19th Century but he was still a great figure. None of these people are though:

1. Shirley Williams- sanctimonious, hypocritical and destructive.
2. Denis Macshane- Hyper partisan and a compulsive liar.
3. David Mellor- Useless, incompetent, arrogant and hypocritical.
4. Edwina Currie- John Major has my sympathy.
5. John Bercow- Horrible little man, models himself on Mr Toad.
6. Harriet Harman- Don't worry Hattie women won't be underrepresented on this list thanks to you.
7. Alan Clarke- No he wasn't a "character" or a "wit" he was a boorish, insecure charlatan with an mystifying level of belief in his own abilities.
8. Mo Mowlam- Despite carefully cultivating a "people's politician" image she was just another politician with a deluded sense of her own importance.
9. Nye Bevan- To me he sounds like "Kinnock Mk 1" rather than an inspirational figure. His voice grates.
10. Lembit Opik- A very cheeky boy.

Honourable mentions for: Tony Benn, Tam Daylell, Patricia Hewitt, michael Portillo, Douglas Hurd, Simon Hughes, Charles Kennedy, Chris Huhne, David Owen, Roy Jenkins, Stafford Cripps and Virginia Bottomley.

Sometimes Banning Things Is Good

Like wheel clampers. The idea that people have the right to essentially confiscate your property with no due process is an outrage, so I'm glad that the government is going to stop this. Except on government property because they're special.

Back Like A Really Tedious Zombie

I can see the political benefits of recruiting Alan Milburn as a policy czar, but in terms of good government what is the point? In his most prominent position in the last government, as health secretary, he didn't achieve anything of note other than in spending more money. Maybe it wasn't his fault, he was reputed to have tried to implement reforms, but even so he left without any major accomplishment to his name.

He supposedly had an important role in advising the Australian Labor Party in their last landslide election victory although even his skills as a political strategist must be called into question when you consider that as the UK Labour Party's election supremo in 2005 he had to be rescued by Gordon Brown (remember when Gordon Brown was popular!?).

So why is he being entrusted to devise the government's policy on social mobility? Being broad minded enough to consult policy experts regardless of party affiliation, and few people would object to an acknowledged expert advcising the government even if he was a member of the Labour Party, Frank Field is exactly the right person to appoint to advise on welfare reform for example. The only reasons that I can think of for appointing Alan Milburn though are to embarrass the Labour Party and provide political cover for the Coalition.