Monday, August 13, 2012 

Reality bites.

Well, the less said about the closing ceremony the better, yes? There are after all enough innate contradictions in Jessie J's Price Tag dirge without her arriving to sing it in the back of a Rolls-Royce, in surroundings which confirm that err, yes, it really is all about the money.

Musical apocalypse aside, even a hardened pessimist such as myself has to admit the last two and a bit weeks have been both a success and thoroughly enjoyable. Despite the media's overwhelming positivity though, the Graun's poll on whether it was all worth it is hardly as conclusive as portrayed; 55% compared to 35% thinking it was is a percentage that will soon fall if, as expected the Olympics hasn't done as much for the economy as the coalition insisted it would. The far from universal euphoria will soon fizzle out (And check also the depressing numbers that, while supporting multiculturalism, still think that immigrants don't bring anything positive).

Some of the waste involved has been obscene, none more so than the ridiculous levels of security. According to the police up until Friday they had made a grand total of just less than 250 arrests, the vast majority of which were for ticket touting. Would a minister now like to remind us just why there was a need to put missile silos on the top of blocks of flats, or indeed why we had to have the Zil lanes that went almost completely unused? There was also no need whatsoever to close off vast swathes of land surrounding the areas where the events where being held, but such were the restrictions we were told were necessary.

As should now be obvious, the only thing the Olympics is really about is the sport. If they provide something resembling a legacy to deprived parts of London then that's a bonus. Instead, apart from the left over buildings and arenas, the one other likely to remain is yet another poxy unneeded shopping mall. Much of the responsibility for this does have to be levelled at the Blairites who convinced themselves the Olympics was just what London needed, and whom inevitably fell completely for the commercialisation of everything. Remember Tessa Jowell introducing the horrid logo, informing us all that this was a "iconic brand"? Everything followed on from there, and if we needed any further confirmation then the "VISA party" to mark the closing of the Beijing Olympics provided it.

Considering those involved in the planning then, that everything went almost entirely smoothly barring a few minor hiccups to begin with was a bonus. A successful games wasn't enough though, 65 medals for "Team GB" or not. Heaven forfend that everything built specially for the games should then be handed over to local communities to enjoy and run, as that would just be a waste. Hence the early sale of the Olympic village to the Qataris, and more is likely to follow. When David Cameron sets a ludicrous target of bringing in £1bn in investment, he sets himself up to fail. Everyone enjoys a change for a couple of weeks, being in a different city that bends over backwards to welcome the foreign guests and athletes, and then they move on to the next one. This is what the modern Olympics is about, as Sydney, Athens and Beijing have demonstrated. Rather than indulging in fantasies, we could have been realistic. For all the excitement and achievements of all and sundry, it's now back to earth with a bump. Still, hows about Jess Ennis, Mo Farah and Usain Bolt, eh?

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Share |

Tuesday, January 04, 2011 

The misery of politics.

Like with most everyday things in life, it's a must on occasion to get away from politics for a while. Even at its best, the age old description of the profession as showbiz for ugly people still has a certain truth to it which raises it above mere cliché. At its worst, and boy, have we had it bad recently, it starts to resemble not so much anything approaching noble and responsible as the equivalent of two dogs a couple of gardens apart repeatedly setting each other off through the occasional bark; they get nothing out of it and everyone in hearing distance either tunes out or eventually, starts screaming themselves.

Take today's pitiful skirmish over the rise in VAT. One of the very lowest forms of modern politics as well as journalism is the demanding of apologies. In a matter of years we've moved from asking politicians to apologise when they get things either seriously or disastrously wrong to other politicians asking them to essentially say sorry simply for forcing through a policy which the opposite side disagrees with, or at least professes to oppose. Labour's plan was to raise national insurance rather than VAT, which was Alistair Darling's preference, although whether if they had won the election or ended up in coalition with the Lib Dems they would have carried through with that is another matter. Darling himself has said today in response to the pointing out of his position that he wouldn't have raised both, yet in any case the argument has once again revolved around whether or not the move is "progressive". Progressive, if it ever had an easily identifiable political meaning has long since become denuded of one, making such a debate all but meaningless to the vast majority of those likely to take a view, let alone anyone just listening in on the sidelines. Just to make things even more murky, both sides have a case for it being either progressive or regressive (regressive, conversely, is something that everyone can agree is a bad thing); the Institute for Fiscal Studies no less has deemed it progressive, albeit over a lifetime, which isn't going to mean much to those hit in the pocket now at a time when they can't afford to save.

For Ed Miliband to then urge George Osborne to apologise for misleading the public, something he clearly hasn't in this instance done, is cheap and lazy politics. As such it also grabs the attention of similarly lazy journalists, who get to either screen or play off in words two talking heads disagreeing with each other over something which means incredibly little when most have long been resigned to the rise. Labour's Chris Leslie has just on Newsnight summed up his party's position without the tacked on nonsense in response to the Tories' Justine Greening: "[W]e just wouldn't be as unfair as you".

Modern politics however has to be more than just simple statements of position backed by age-old ideology. Such homilies don't appeal to the increasingly cohesive society Britain has become, as no less than that well-known political sage Tessa Jowell has so appositely theorised. Jowell, dispensing with such antiquated and passé distinctions of class notes that in a world where we all shop at Ikea, fly Ryanair and watch The X Factor it's clearly nonsense to view people according either to their job or how much they earn rather than how they live their lives. This 21st century version of the progressive centre seems to involve not so much action at Westminster to further help create the old vision of a classless society as instead Labour locally helping people plant flowerbeds, set up homework clubs and engage young people, perhaps by asking them whether they know what the work vacuous means and how they would apply it in a political context.

In one article Jowell inadvertently captures Labour's failings while in government, yet somehow comes to the conclusion that to succeed next time the party has to do nothing more than simply come to terms with the scale of their loss while changing the way in which they convey their message to potential voters. It was exactly through the triangulation Jowell and the other Blairites in the party permanently espoused that no one knew any longer what the party truly stood for, with the party's enemies and even one time friends in the media stepping into the breach to provide the labels for them. As Sunder Katwala sets out, everyone over-estimated David Cameron last year. One of the reasons Cameron failed to win an outright majority was down to his similar tendencies, being not right-wing enough for some while not having moved the party forward enough for others. Now with both the Conservatives and Labour moving back towards their traditional positions, it just so happens that the Liberal Democrats, having stolen ground from both parties are now flatlining in the polls. It isn't just down to their performance in the coalition; it's that they can no longer present themselves either as above the fray or through their carefully chosen policies as a realistic, viable alternative.

The real danger of the spouting of this nonsense, especially the patronising variety as delivered by Jowell, or Miliband deciding for the public whether they're being treated like idiots when they'll do that themselves is that this is the year when the party has to start deciding whether it's going to continue with the politics of the dead centre or really begin organising opposition to the Tory-led coalition as they've decided to christen it. Treating the voters as if they're stupid when in power is bad enough, but when you do it in opposition it's actively suicidal. Nothing is more likely to breed such contempt than active hypocrisy, such as calling for a no vote in the alternative vote referendum when the system is used to elect their own leader. While few will have read or see Jowell's discovery that we're all middle class now thanks to our supposed shopping, flying and television watching habits, they will note a large section of the party thinks the hoi polloi shouldn't be allowed to have something they do. Everyone's going to miserable enough without opposition politicians adding to the general mood of depression.

Labels: , , , ,

Share |

Saturday, February 02, 2008 

10 years of not much.

Yesterday was the periodic time when the few remaining Blairites that haven't been told to go forth and multiply attempted to yet again move the "debate" their way. Reports the Grauniad:

Labour modernisers, with the support of a group of cabinet ministers, will today press Gordon Brown to offer a radical reform programme, warning Labour is now engaged in a serious fight for the centre ground with a new, more socially liberal Tory party.

...

A statement drawn up by the Progress thinktank goes on to address one of the key questions for Labour since Brown took over, that of the legacy of Tony Blair. It urges "a future agenda which is post-Blair, not anti-Blair; building on the achievements of the past decade, not running away from them".
It warns the party it cannot win the next election based on its previous tactics, because the Tory party has changed. "The public no longer view the Conservatives as the 'nasty party' of the 1990s. We are now engaged in a serious fight for the centre ground with a party which is socially more liberal and constantly engaging in counter-intuitive positioning."

This is naturally supported by the most delightful of the Blairite clique: Hazel Blears, Tessa Jowell, James Purnell, Alan Milburn and Ed Miliband.

As ever, they've got the wrong end of the stick. It's not that Tory party has changed; you only have to read the rantings of some of them on certain blogs, or the report which John Redwood helmed to realise that. Instead, the Conservatives have simply decided that they'd like to win again. This has involved dressing themselves up in New Labour's not centrist, but centre-right clothes. When the Tories have gone occasionally further towards the right, Labour has then said, oh, that's just what we were about to do! Inheritance tax? Terrible thing, having to pay it when you die after paying it all your life as well, we'll raise the threshold too. Easier stop and search powers for the police? Why, that's just what our former copper doing a review is going to suggest!

The other main reason that the polls have turned is that New Labour is obsessed more than anything else with winning the next election and forgetting they're actually meant to be governing before that happens. If there's one thing that has screamed more loudly since Brown took over, it's been incompetence in department after department, whether it's the fault of the minister in charge or not. 25 million families' details going missing was just the straw that broke the camel's back and brought it completely into the open.

Moreover, when there has been an opportunity to move leftwards and where the public would certainly support it, they've decided it would be too dangerous. Everyone and their mother told them to nationalise Northern Rock, including the Economist and the Financial Times for God's sake, while the Conservatives hadn't got a clue what to do, let alone a policy. Instead Brown and Darling asked Goldman Sachs to come up with a solution, and amazingly, it involves the taxpayer keeping all the liabilities while the City will reap any of the eventual benefits. It took the Tories to propose a tax on non-doms before Labour did anything, then it backed down over the capital gains tax rise, instead of excluding those who were selling their businesses, which would have brought down the entrepreneur ire. Martin Kettle in his companion piece says that no one is talking about further crime crackdowns. Where on earth has he been this week?

We need to provide a stronger narrative about the overall purpose of a Labour government and the direction it wishes to take the country in.

But doesn't that just say it all? After 10 years, what has been the purpose of a Labour government? Or, what has been the point of a Labour government that contains such deadwood and flotsam as Hazel Blears, who doesn't seem intelligent enough to even have joined the Conservatives, or Tessa Jowell, who didn't know about her husband and the mortgages on her house but is the Olympics minister in control of however many billions being spent on a 2-week long sports day? The best thing Alan Milburn ever did was decide to spend more time with his family. When these were the people responsible for bringing the party to its current state, why do they think that they have the solution, or that we should listen to them? It used to be enough to frighten the voters with "think what will happen if the Tories get in!", but the obvious reply to that now is, how would we know the difference?

Labels: , , , , , ,

Share |

About

  • This is septicisle
profile

Archives

Powered by Blogger
and Blogger Templates