Our New Shadow Chancellor

There are a few people who lived at the heart of New Labour for years, and yet remain unaffected by the proverbial shit which clings to Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Ed Balls et al. Let us take Jack Straw: this man is one of only a few who can claim to have been at the Cabinet table for the entire 13 years of New Labour rule. He was a central figure in every major Labour disaster (including Iraq), has been implicated in electoral fraud (some of his campaign officers are serving prison sentences for tampering with voting papers), and has spent over a decade slowly corroding Britain’s civil liberties. Despite all this he has now retired from front line politics smelling of roses. Where is the justice?

Now Alan Johnson may not be quite as bad as Mr Straw, but let us be fair-Mr Johnson has not had the same ministerial opportunities as the old Justice Minister. However, when given his moment to shine Mr Johnson has behaved with all the vindictive, careerist and short-sighted paranoia which defined the New Labour years-does anyone else remember poor Professor Nutt losing his job because he dared to present evidence which challenged Alan Johnson’s view of drugs? But fear not for there may yet be time for Mr Straw to be eclipsed. Alan Johnson MP has been declared Shadow Chancellor. Woe betide you if you happen to disagree with this new power-broker in the Labour regime-you may end up like poor Professor Nutt!

Vote Cashley On Lothian List!

I would like to take a minute to urge all SNP members in the Lothian region to give Calum Cashley their Ist preference vote on the List. He is a dedicated nationalist, and his recent article (follow the link to his blog at the side of the screen) proves that he will make an excellent MSP. Vote Cashley!

Blair and Iran

I never really liked Blair. There was always something a little too smug about him. As if he knew he was right. Of course he did know he was right, and there lies the problem. Too sure of himself by far. Well his autobiography is out now and, with the limelight cast upon him once more, Blair has told an assembled audience that it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear capacity. He knows for a fact that Iran cannot be trusted with a nuclear arsenal.

Now I am no fan of the Iranian regime (their human rights record is appalling), but does anyone else think that this ‘Tehran Threat To World Peace’ thing is getting a bit old? At the very least Blair and the rest of the neo-cons are letting some kind of prejudice cloud their judgement on this issue. Say a prejudice to see all issues from a balcony in Tel Aviv. North Korea now has nuclear capacity (which Iran does not) and has threatened to use that arsenal (Iran has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty). From a strategic point of view North Korea has a much greater destabilising effect on its geo-political region that Iran. From a human rights perspective the regime in Pyongyang is the last Stalinist state; despite the executions Tehran isn’t nearly as bad. In other words if we were playing ‘Top Trumps-Axis of Evil Edition’ North Korea would be the winning card. And yet...

And yet Blair and every other high ranking Western diplomat views Iran as a greater threat to the status quo. Why? Principally, I more than suspect, because Israel holds greater influence in Western capitals that its economic clout, military prowess or its population density would naturally allow. When faced with the threat of a nation in its geo-political orbit which could challenge its monopoly on nuclear warheads, Israel’s highly effective lobbying machine spurts into action. Iran is the focus of Western scorn for the principle reason that Japan/South Korea cannot match the Israeli PR machine. I think it is high time that diplomatic circles began to consider situations in their global, not purely Israeli, context.

A Letter

A letter sent to my local MP.


Under the First Past The Post (FPTP) system the Liberal Democrats are not likely to form the sole party of government anytime soon. Likewise another hung parliament at the next election is a rather dim prospect. A far more likely occurrence would be utter rejection by a nation sickened by Mr Clegg’s self-serving betrayal of Liberal values. However, AV is a glimmer of light in an otherwise dark horizon. Under AV far more of Clegg’s MPs shall be returned at the next election than under the FPTP system. As an added bonus hung Parliaments are thrown up with greater frequency, and it is the Liberal Democrats who shall always be the victor in situations warranting a coalition. Nick Clegg can say what he will, but the truth of the matter is that Liberal support for AV is grounded in nothing more than self-preservation.
Sir, you would think me a fool for wasting a letter if the self-preservation of a few Liberals was all that motivated me in my opposition of AV. I think I am with a majority on the left in wishing some vengeance on the Liberal Democrats, but my own dismay at their betrayal is not so strong that I would sacrifice what little chance this country has of escaping the FPTP system. No, it is the precedent set by the only nation on earth to embrace AV which fills me with a dread that the bill will be passed through Parliament. In Australia the National-Liberal coalition has ruled for 40 of the past 60 years. Now, if our own version of the National-Liberal alliance can so easily become bed-fellows under FPTP, what is to prevent such a coalition forming under a new system? Indeed, Australia has shown that Conservative voters placing Liberals as second preference and vice-versa can work as an effective electoral strategy.
Of course, we have our own Liberal Party’s cast iron guarantee that no such electoral pact shall occur, and they have even spread a rumour that they may form a coalition with the Labour Party at the next election (as if a hung parliament were a foregone conclusion). Personally I do not believe that a party which promised the British people that it opposed Conservative policy on immediate cuts, and a party which entertained talks with Labour for the sole purpose of drawing further concessions from their intended partner can be trusted when they talk of guarantees.
Sir, AV in itself presents the spectre of perpetual Coalition rule, but it is what is attached to the bill which makes the threat almost certain: if the bill passes parliament, and if the referendum is supported by the people, the constituency boundaries shall be reshaped in a manner which will make it nigh impossible for Labour, or any other left-wing party, to gain enough seats to form a majority. The gerrymandering of constituency sizes will work to the benefit of the Conservative and Liberal parties.
Sir, I have presented as best as I am able the argument against the upcoming AV bill: in all probability it shall lead to the demise of the Labour party as an effective force of opposition against right-wing dominance. As such I urge you to vote against the upcoming bill on the referendum, and to support a No campaign if the said bill happens to pass parliament.

To Jargon and Beyond

Why does the political establishment insist on referring to itself as ‘progressive’? The Coalition pursue ‘progressive’ policies. Labour is the only ‘progressive’ party left in British politics. The SNP want to join a ‘progressive’ alliance to stop the (presumably) non-progressive Conservatives. The whole idea of ‘progressive’ politics is faintly amusing really. For instance, if the Coalition is ‘progressive’ what exactly is it progressing toward? Electoral oblivion it is to be hoped. And if Nick Clegg is really progressive does this mean Lord Pearson is regressive? Or perhaps we are standing on the platform as the Coalition’s bullet train of progress speeds toward ‘New Politics’?

The point is that the whole idea of progressive politics, like so much else which is birthed in Westminster, means nothing. A sound bite. Meaningless jargon which sounds quite nice. So, dear reader, the next time ‘progressive politics’ is mentioned ask the speaker what s/he what they actually mean by that phrase. Chances are the speaker will resort to the last refuge of the struggling politician condescending jargon-speak.

Dave on the World Stage

I despise the Conservative Party. Living in an area which was ravaged by Thatcher, I see them as the party of the corporations who would destroy the rights of the common citizen if they believed they could survive the ensuing electoral blood-letting. This hatred is why I find it so painful to write this post: God help me, I support David Cameron’s foreign policy! Since becoming Prime Minister he has come out in full support of Turkish membership of the EU; he has reversed the New Labour dependency on the US; he has criticised Israel by calling Gaza a prison; he has strengthened ties with democratic India rather than the Chinese dictatorship, and to cap it off he has realised that the war in Afghanistan must end at some point. All these foreign policy decisions I can happily support. Of course it may become apparent that there is some kind of Tory hidden agenda to all these moves, but so far so good. As long as Cameron keeps this up the Coalition Government may yet prove itself as a far better alternative to New Labour on the world stage. Now if only he could do something about that domestic policy...

The Big Conversation-Justice

The Budget of the Glorious Coalition shall be announced today, and rumour has it that Osborne (henceforth known as the Boy Wonder) has scheduled up to 1 million fewer public service jobs over the next five years. This will not result in 1 million jobs losses (retiring public service workers not being replaced etc) but even taking ‘natural loss’ into account this is still hundreds of thousands more able workers swelling the ranks of the unemployed. Not only is this a further burden on an already stretched welfare state, it is almost inhuman to force hardworking men and women out of work when there is no need to do so: that is correct Boy Wonder, the deficit can be slashed, and society improved without punishing public service workers. The fact the Chancellery does not use alternative means is either evidence of Danny Alexander and the Boy Wonder’s collective stupidity, or their piggish ideological hang-ups. This leads me on quite nicely to the next in my series of posts on where I would allow the axe to fall if I were Chancellor.

Phil Wheatley, the ex-director general of the National Offender Management Service, has come out in support of axing prison sentences that are shorter than 6 months. His comments have the endorsement of the Prison Governors’ Association, the National Association of Probation Officers (Napo), and the Howard League for Penal Reform. Sentences of six months or less cost the Justice Department £350 million a year, and research (by Napo I believe) has shown that 74% of these short-term convicts will reoffend. Now there is a place for such short-term sentences, but in the vast majority of cases they should be replaced by community service and fines. This would cut reoffending to 34%, save £300 million a year (not including the indirect savings of reduced crime rate), and solve the over-crowding in our prisons all in one stroke. Another great saving by the Marquis-now if only someone would listen to me...