Corbynmania is just madness

JEREMY Corbyn's election as the leader of the Labour Party has not come as a surprise to many political analysts. The signs have been there in the polling data, which unlike during the British general election actually appears to be accurate this time round.
Despite the expectations his election has not been roundly welcomed by MP's within his party. He has been accused of being too left wing, of failing to find compromise and of flip flopping on crucial policy areas. For many in his party he has destroyed their chances of regaining power. For his supporters however is landslide victory during the leadership election demonstates an ability to motivate disaffected voters and draw people to the party.
Only one side can ne right though and at the moment the facts seem to favour the pessimists. Mr Corbyn did appear on paper as having mobilised a previously uncounted portion of the electorate which took advantage of the £3 registration fee to sign up and throw their support behind the left winger. If the numbers are taken as a sign that those registered voters who didn't turn out for the last election will vote for Labour then it could mean a parliamentary win.
The reality of the situation is that the areas where Mr Corbyn is drawing non-voters back to the fold are in large part already Labour held. While the party may increase its majority in seats it already holds the drive to mobilise a new base is unlikely to help then win new regions.
The next phase of Mr Corbyn problems is his lack of ability to compromise. By placing the hard left MP John McDonnell, a self proclaimed "enemy of capitalism", in the position of Shadow Chancellor he will have made the chances of reconcilliation within his party that much harder.
Within days of being elected splits were already showing in the shadow cabinet. Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn pledging Labour's supporter for staying in the EU quickly undermined by Mr Corbyn's speech to the Trade Union Council for example shows a lack of cohesion on key policy matters.
Then there is Mr Corbyn himself. There is something praiseworthy in this day and age of plastic politics for someone to rise to the top on old fashioned principles. The problem is that the old fashioned principles may not be suited for the modern day. The time for Michael Foot's donkey jacket are long gone. People expect certain things from a party leader.
Most notably among these is at least a passing respect for the armed forces and monarchy, whether genuine or just out of professional courtesy. Mr Corbyn's failure to sing the national anthem or confirm that he will wear a red poppy rather than the white will have just as much of an impact on the electorate as his poorly thought through outdated policies.
For now Jeremy Corbyn remains a sideshow to the real running of the country but as he begins to fulfil his role as leader of the opposition he needs to start facing facts. The 1970's are long gone and we live in a different world.  No amount of wishful thinking will bring it back. If Labour are to have a hope for the future they must move with the times not backwards.

Rise of right down to the fear it creates

WITHOUT realising the world seems to be sleep walking into an era of increasingly right wing and xenophobic principles.

All you have to do is look at the number of people reposting the supposedly harmless links from groups such as Britain First, many doing so without realising what and insidious and dangerous organisation this truly is.

The recent win by the United Kingdom Independence Party of a parliamentary seat in England is yet another sign of the inexorable rise of the right wing and the closing of minds across the world.

It is not just in Britain that this steady rise of the politics of fear and hatred has been seen. It is increasing across the globe, as with it brings a diminishing opportunities for solving the very problems which are pushing people towards the extremes of the spectrum.

Fears over terrorism, economic woes and increasing calls for isolationism are driving the focus of voters while hiding from them the long term impact removal from the international system would have.

Using Nigel Farage's UKIP as an example again, his calls for an exit from the European Union play well with voters but what would it actually mean for the country? Has anyone actually considered why so many countries want to join the bloc? Turkey has been in negotiations to join for years, is this merely because it enjoys the process? Of course not. It is because it knows that the benefits of joining far outweighs the negatives.

"I'm not prepared to wait for three years. I want us to have a referendum on this great question next year and if UKIP can maintain its momentum and get enough seats in Westminster we might just be able to achieve that," Farage told the BBC.

Essentially what he is saying therefore is that he is not prepared to wait until all the facts are in and people have had time to rationally analyse the arguments rather than being pushed into a decision which could, and will, diminish Britain's power in the international system for generations to come.

Parties on the far right play on fear. They attract the dispossessed not because they are any more motivated to move towards them than anyone else but because they make people believe that they are dispossessed. 

It is all too easy to think of xenophobic bigots as tattooed shaven thugs, and some still are. They have learned from the lessons of the past though. They are using social media to get people to share their insidious views, often without realising it, they preach there messages of hate coached in the language of sense by using half truths and distorted facts. They play on ignorance and fear. 

At their very worst, and here we go far beyond the hyperbole of Mr Farage's party of malcontents, and the recruitment by the global far right has much in common with that used by terrorist groups such as that calling itself Islamic State. The truth is that fear one is driving people to support the other. It is only through teaching tolerance and inclusivity that both can be defeated because it surely must happen that go one to go so must the other. 

The joy of conference season

IT'S AUTUMN and for the British political establishment that can mean only one thing party conference season. 

As politicians and party members meet for the last time before next year's General Election MP's are feeling the pressure to reassure people that they will be fighting fit for the campaigns ahead of them. The conferences are politicians opportunity to try out new ideas before committing to them in their manifestos. It is the equivalent of Paris or London fashion week for political junkies as they get a peek at the upcoming policies on offer. 

This year has been no different as the key parties look back at the mistakes and successes of the past year and lay out their future plans. 

For Prime Minister David Cameron it is an opportunity for back slapping over the debatable success of the Scottish referendum. For Labour it was a chance to prove that they had moved forward from its defeat at the last General Election and was ready for a new future. For the Liberal Democrats it is a time to demonstrate that they still exist, something which hasn't always been obvious since it joined the coalition government. 

As always though it is the crackpots and cranks which lead the way and monopolise the news cycle, which could explain the amount of coverage given to the UKIP party conference despite it having no MP's in Parliament.

It also a chance for individual politicians to flex their muscles and attempt to stand out from the crowd. It was no surprise to many that London Mayor Boris Johnson was among the forefront of this particular group.

In true Boris style he managed to someone try and stabilise the Conservatives and reaffirm his support for Mr Cameron while stealthily positioning himself as the saviour of the party.

Speaking at a fringe meeting ahead of his formal speech on Tuesday Mr Johnson demonstrated this ability with his usual panache.

"It is only if the great conservative family unites and we stop Ed Miliband seizing back control of this country that we will be able to deliver the referendum that this country wants and deserves," Johnson told activists.

"I say to the quitters, the splitters and the 'Kippers, there is only one party that can sort out the European issue."

"When you look at the vast leads that this party enjoys on the key questions of the economy and prime ministerial qualities, I think they (voters) will come over in droves," he said.

Being entirely honest though, while there is a certain interest in hearing plans for the future and debating which ones may actually make the grade, it is for the blunders which many will get the most entertainment. Staying true to form Labour leader Ed Milliband provided the greatest faux par so far by forgetting to mention the deficit in his speech, after all who would think the economy would be an important point.

With the Tories suffering body blows from defections and resignations, Labour trying to persuade people that Mr Milliband isn't completely incompetent, the Liberal Democrats pleading for someone to throw them a life ring and UKIP posturing on its overblown ego if the conference season is a good opening to the political season then the election campaign should be interesting to watch at the very least.

Green's looking at new direction

THE season of political party conferences gets underway today with the Green Party starting its annual roundup.

During the course of its four day conference party stalwarts are expected to signal a change of direction from its previous focus on environmental issues. Instead leader, and former Guardian journalist, Natalie Bennett aims to position the party to the left of Labour as an effective alternative to current parties.

Speaking at the People's march this week she said: "We marched from Bedford to Luton, there was massive support. We don't believe there is any place for the profit motive in the NHS, the internal market with NHS services competing is a failed policy - we would keep it public owned and free.

"We are really the only opposition to three parties who all back the same political and economic system, which is not working. We are proposing real change," she added.

As part of its new agenda there is expected to be more discussion about plans for a £10 minimum wage to be imposed across the board, regardless of age or circumstances.

Bennett told the Guardian: "We need to offer people hope for the future – a living wage, secure employment and no more zero-hours contracts.

"Under our plan no one would be paid less than £10 an hour in 2020," she said. "It is a scandal that under the coalition government the number of workers earning less than the living wage has risen by a staggering 50%. It makes a mockery of David Cameron's 2010 statement that a living wage is 'an idea whose time has come'."

The change of direction reflects the impact which the coverage received by the United Kingdom Independence Party during the European Elections had on the party.

At the time Green members, who have long stated that they are the fourth political party, complained that the UKIP media exposure was unwarranted and damaging to its own campaign.

"A difference between the Greens and UKIP is that we are not a one-person party, we are team and we have three women - Caroline Lucas in the House of Commons and Jenny Jones in the House of Lords and myself - all happy to work together, not competing," said Bennett.

Separately adding: "We got 6.6 per cent of the vote in May and I would be very happy if we got the same percentage of political coverage in the national media - but we are seeing our figures going up anyway,"

It is a change which poses risks for the party, which is polling below the Liberal Democrats, as they may alienate core voters with drastic and seemingly ill conceived policies.

Promising to impose a wealth tax of 1% on top earners will appeal to some voters, however, it seems unlikely to provide the necessary capital injection needed to fulfil additional plans for benefits and the health service. Meanwhile as the three main parties have already discovered raising the minimum wage dramatically would have detrimental impact on small business owners unable to meet the higher outlay, thereby driving up prices, the living wage and creating a potential inflationary spiral.

Re-branding themselves as a left wing party may seem like a good idea in an increasingly politically apathetic era. Without clear solutions though they could find that they have moved too far away from the policies which have brought voters to them in the past. 

Lost spirit in politics

WITH polling stations across the country gearing up for a lacklustre turnout tomorrow there is concern that Britain is losing its political spirit.
Thursday's local and European Union elections are expected to be a defining moment for the three main parties, ahead of next year's General Election, as they battle the political encroachment of Nigel Farage's United Kingdom Independence Party.
Apart from a drop to 24.02 per cent in 1999 overall voter turnout to the EU elections has remained relatively stable at the mid to high 30 per cent mark for the last 25 years. Despite being lower than many EU countries the stability of the figure has been used to demonstrate that it is a national malaise about the particular elections, rather than in politics in general. For Britain the EU elections have been seen as something unnecessary and tedious.
As Europe take a more prominent place in the public consciousness, and with local elections taking place on a national level, this may be about to change. A low turnout tomorrow could be indicative of a larger problem with British politics according to some spectators.
For the last decade there has been a gradual rise in the number of spoiled ballot papers being submitted as people use the opportunity to protest against the political establishment. Between EU elections in 2004 and 2009 the number of invalid votes jumped from 1.76 per cent to 3.18 per cent.
The rise of the right wing UKIP has highlighted the growing discontent the public have with their political peers. Part of the driving force of the party's surge to the lead has been an increasing concern about the immigration issue, in large part created by UKIP's own members.
It's growth, however, is being seen by some in the political system as just another sign that the EU elections are used as an outlet for protest, stating that it is the local elections which will give a clearer image of the state of British politics. With UKIP, on 17 per cent, lagging behind the Conservatives and Labour according to the latest ComRes survey they seem unlikely to create a significant shift in the political landscape.
Tomorrow may demonstrate a lack of faith in the system by voters, however, based on the evidence it is unlikely to generate any surprises for the future of the British political spirit.

Posted via Blogaway

The rise of the right

AS EUROPE gears up for the May 22^nd European Elections the rise of right wing politics has become increasingly noticeable. This is not isolated to the European Union though.

In America the Tea Party Movement has made inroads into mainstream politics. The United Australia Party may not be seeing the gains of some right wing parties, however, it is starting to have an impact on the political establishment. Despite, or possibly because of, being led by a comedian Beppo Grillo’s Five Star Movement in Italy has surged forward, challenging the old guard of the Democratic Party and Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia. Nowhere seems immune from the politics of fear these groups play upon.

It was only a few short years ago that groups such as the American Tea Party Movement, a group which United Kingdom Independence Leader, Nigel Farage, has revelled in being compared to, were seen as fringe and dismissible. In the current political environment they are starting to pose a problem for the main political parties.

In America and Britain it seems unlikely that the establishment could be overturned by these groups. In 2015 UKIP may gain a couple of seats, this would be a far cry from the number they would need to put them in a position of serious power though. The threat they pose is by splitting the vote of the more moderate parties and diverting the debate away from areas where it needs to be focused.

For countries such as Italy and Germany, where coalition governments are more frequent than in the US and Britain, these parties can have a genuine influence on the way the country is run. For groups such as Tea Party or UKIP, however, they are fighting against an entrenched establishment where it is a near certainty that one of two parties will be in power.

This has not stopped them from shouting their causes from the rooftops, however. It is perhaps even more of incentive to create ever more outrageous and right wing agendas for these groups than ones which know they may have a chance of power, and therefore would have to meet their manifesto pledges.

UKIP has claimed that they will fight back against unlimited immigration from the European Union, while failing to address how they will do this, or exactly how far reaching the levels of immigration will be. In its EU election manifesto for example UKIP claims that the Office of National Statistics estimates from 2010 that the UK population will rise by 3 million by 2020 through immigration. The ONS actually forecasts a growth of 4.9million, of which 56 per cent would be from ‘natural increase’.

Additional figures provided by UKIP also fail to take into account the rate of emigration from Britain by naturalised citizens. The same story is repeated in America with the Tea Party Movement. Statistics are taken out of context, or fabricated. Both groups use volume and self proclaimed righteous anger ahead of genuine debate and solution.

In part this rise of the right wing has come about from the groups themselves. An increase in communications technology has made it easier for them to reach the electorate, and by repeating the same phrases enough they have instilled them into the minds of people as fact.

An increasing level of fear and disillusionment in the system has given them the crack to force themselves into. Membership of the more mainstream political parties has diminished over the years, with approximately only 1 per cent of the UK belonging to a party,  as people lose faith in the process. Fear of terrorism and crime is also on the increase, which gives certain right wing elements the fuel they need to feed the fire of xenophobic attitudes.

On May 22^nd the British electorate, and others across Europe, will have their say for who represents them in the European Union. For right wing groups the world over it will be seen as a test of whether volume and propaganda has swayed the people over debate and solutions.

A political presence

The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) has had to cancel its Freepost service after receiving faeces to their offices. While I disagree with UKIP on almost every topic this was never going to be the way to make a political statement.

We are fortunate in Britain that we are able to have freedom of speech, to hold widely differing views and to argue those views. We live in a democracy where we can choose our elected representatives based on what they stand for, something denied to millions of people around the world. It is this which gives us the ability to participate in such childish pranks but it is also this we gives us a moral duty to not do so.

In our political system if you disagree with someone’s point of view then you are free to debate it with them. Changing minds through discourse, that is surely the basic premise of any free thinking political system. Sadly, however, we as a populace seem to have forgotten how to hold an argument, how to hold a view for that matter. We seem to be only interested in meeting the intellect of the lowest common denominator. We have dumbed down our society so much that we have forgotten the very principles upon which it was founded.

We have forgotten that millions of men and women have fought and died to preserve our right to free speech and freedom of political protest. We have forgotten that our leaders used to be intelligent men, and rightly so. We valued honour and intellect. We may have disagreed with someone’s views but we had the character to respect their right to have them. All of that seems to have been lost somewhere along the way.

Instead we now have celebrities telling us that the system is broken and we should stop voting. We should stop voting? We should sacrifice the right which so many people would still die to just have a glimpse at, which so many already have, as a form of protest. If the system is broken then the way in which we change it is by voting, by choosing better leaders.

Nigel Farage’s greatest selling point is his “voice of the common man” approach. People like him because he makes them feel on the same level. Surely our leaders should be the best and the brightest. They should be men and women of conscience and intellect, they should be brighter than the majority and we should feel that we can respect them.

As it stands at the moment we have very few such politicians in place. This is not the fault of the system though, this is the fault of us the electorate. We voted these people in. We chose them, we gave up on wanting the best.

If you want to prove that UKIP is wrong, something which does not take the best and the brightest by any means, then join in the debate. Show how flawed their ideals are, show why they are wrong, show that you have a better plan, don’t act in a way which would have your peers in primary school look down at you for immaturity.

Catching up for festive period

Well it’s that time again when we say goodbye to one year and welcome in another and what a year it has been for all of us here in wet and soggy Somerset. Looking back it has seemed like the better half, little bit and I have barely had a chance to stop. First off we celebrated Liz’s Diamond Jubilee, 60 years in the same job and no matter what Charles says she doesn’t look like she has any plans to retire yet.

Everyone threw a big party for her which was all going swimmingly until Philip had to be taken off to hospital, he really hasn’t been well this year.

Sports day went brilliantly, you may have caught some of it yourselves. Cousin Mo really showed his stuff and Jess won gold in her events. Bradley, you remember him he was the one who got the new bike last year, has had a brilliant year in cycling.

It hasn’t been all smooth sailing, well apart from for Ben but enough of sports day for now. Aunty Beeb has been having a few troubles again this year. It looks like Jimmy, he was the one who always smoked those foul cigars and wore too much jewellery, and some of his friends have really gotten out of line. Beeb had tried to keep it out of the press but as Uncle Rupert found out last year that doesn’t work. It turns out that quite a few of the people who belong to their club have being having a spot of bother but we try not to get involved in all that sort of thing.

In a slightly better turn of events Paul finally managed to get most of the squatters out of his father’s house earlier this year, although some of his friends and family weren’t too happy with the decision I can tell you.

Mark’s little internet venture has had a few problems. It seems that some of his investors weren’t too pleased with their payoff. That is just the way this year though, no-one seems to have enough money to around. Then again what’s new about that?

After last year’s holiday debacle in Syria, we checked into it but decided not to go again this year, we thought that a quiet cruise would be nice. Next year I think we are just going to stay at home, it was an absolute disaster. Mind you the captain did seem like a decent enough chap.

I mustn’t forget to tell you the good news it looks like Will and Kate, they were that nice couple I mentioned in last year’s letter, are expecting a baby. It made up for some fiasco earlier in the year when some pics of Kate were doing the rounds we heard.

Anyway that pretty much sums up everything got to crack on with sending out the rest of the cards. That couple we met in America a few years back for instance are still contacting us, apparently he has done well for himself becoming President of something or other, it may have been his golf club for all I know. It amazes me how many people contact you around this time of year with all sorts of info you wouldn’t care about. Anyway bye for now.

Auntie’s in trouble from big brother

While it may be perfectly possible that the whole British Broadcasting Corporation Newsnight fiasco may have escaped the attention of the majority of the press outside of the United Kingdom I somehow doubt that it has gone entirely unnoticed. This is partly because as a former British journalist I am steadfastly resolute in my belief that the world hangs on every word which we print and broadcast.

Okay Newsnight messed up, in quite spectacular style; it is not the first news programme to get its facts wrong though. It probably doesn’t even rank as on the top 100. For one thing Newsnight did not actually reveal Lord McAlpine’s name, which seems to be what the majority of the online commentators are accusing it of doing. If anything Newsnight’s greatest flaw, and by extension that of now former Director General George Entwistle, was to underestimate the power of social media and the internet. What was once the purview, more or less, of the investigative journalist is now in the remit of a 10-year-old with a computer.

While this may have become apparent to a number of people it seems to be something which the more traditional elements of the press still have trouble coming to grips with. The recent debacle with the BBC has proved that the old divide between broadcast and print journalism still has some grounding, despite having a common enemy of sorts in the internet. The BBC’s downfall has been exacerbated by the reaction of the print press and the clear determination to take some of the attention away from the actions being raked over in the Leveson enquiry. This is a fact which has not been lost on the Chairman of the BBC Trust, Lord Patten.
“I think my job is to make sure that we now learn the lessons from the crisis,” he said. “If I don’t do that and don’t restore huge confidence and trust in the BBC then I’m sure people will tell me to take my cards and clear off,” he was reported as saying. “But I will not take my marching orders from Mr Murdoch’s newspapers.”

It isn’t just their colleagues in the press who appear to be trying to make the most out of the situation.

Auntie is under attack from big brother it would seem as politicians wade into the debate. It isn’t the first time that the British government has used a crisis at the Beeb to try and assert an additional element of control over its editorial stance. Combined with the Leveson enquiry into the press and the Saville enquiry, however, it may be that this time they get their wish.

The internet has allowed for a greater spread of information than ever before. Social media has also created a greater awareness of the power of that information and with it if not outright fear than at least a healthy respect for it. It would be a mistake though to allow that fear, or respect for, information to lead to news outlets having its control removed from their power, particularly over one misjudged and disproportionately reported on program.

All the same on the Western front

Well that’s it, all that money, all that time, all those speeches, adverts and debates and what has changed? Pretty much nothing actually. President Barack Obama is safely in the White House, Governor Mitt Romney is stumbling over his words and Donald Trump is making a ranting fool of himself on twitter, all in all pretty much business as usual it would seem in American politics, from my cynical Brit viewpoint anyway.

I like to try and stay objective when it comes to commenting on breaking events, particularly elections. Once they have been decided though it is a different story. Whether liked or not it cannot be argued that whoever is sitting in the Oval Office has a massive influence over the rest of the world. It is for this reason that I for one was relieved that President Obama won a second term. The thought of Mitt Romney being President has actually left me with sleepless nights. I’ll be fair though I am sure that Governor Romney honestly had the best interests, as he could see them, of the country at heart. Then again I also have to wonder if his comment to “earnestly pray for him [President Obama] and for this great nation," was meant in good faith or just as a sly dig, back to that cynical British attitude again.

If anything has convinced me, however, that it is a far better thing to have a Democrat in charge of one of the most powerful countries in the world than a Republican it has to be Donald Trump’s spectacular political analysis on Twitter.

Tweeting: “We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!” was perhaps not the most balanced response of the evening, and possibly treasonous, but it was by no means Trump’s only one: “This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!” Demonstrating perhaps a slight misunderstanding of what the purpose of the whole election thing was all about and how democracy works.

What was perhaps most surprising about the election though was how unsurprising it really was. During the run up to voting day we have seen pundits predicting that first one side then the other would win a close race. We heard how Hurricane Sandy would influence the vote and how Governor Romney’s showing in the first presidential debate would change the outcome in his favour. At the end of the day, however, what appeared to be demonstrated by several polls was that a large proportion of people had already made their minds up about who they were going to vote for back in September.

The biggest question now is whether or not having secured a second term in a decisive victory President Obama will now be able to work with the Republicans in government to ensure that he can implement some of his proposals.

While President Obama may have pledged that “the best is yet to come” he will have a tough job on his hands to prove this. Donald Trump may not be entirely representative of the Republican Party but there will be those who follow his call not to give “anything to Obama unless he terminates Obamacare.” Essentially he is calling on people in power to block proposals and plans to help the country and rectify its ongoing economic strife is President Obama does not reverse legislation which ensures that everyone has access to medical treatments and people wonder why I despair with hardline Republicans.

The final word on the subject for now should, justly, come from President Obama himself. Delivering his victory speech he addressed not only those who voted for him but also those who oppose his views. He demonstrated once more why he is a global leader and provided at least some hope that he understands the differences in America and wants to find a means by which to heal the divide which the bitter battle this election has been has caused:

 "Democracy in a nation of 300 million can be noisy and messy and complicated. We have our own opinions. Each of us has deeply held beliefs. And when we go through tough times or we make big decisions as a country, it necessarily stirs passions, stirs up controversy. That won't change after tonight. And it shouldn't.

"Despite all our differences, most of us share certain hopes for America's future. ... We want our children to live in America that isn't burdened by debt, that isn't weakened by inequality, that isn't threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet."

"Forward, that's where we need to go. Now, we will disagree, sometimes fiercely about how to get there. As it has for more than two centuries, progress will come in fits and starts, it's not always a straight line, it's not always a smooth path... That common bond is where we must begin."

A passion for politics?

If ever there was an ideal demonstration of the amount of influence the United States of America has over the rest of the world it is undoubtedly the impact which the run up to its election has. The fact that there are more elections going on than just the Presidential one, more candidates that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, seems to have been missed out of the global enthusiasm.

When America does something it tends to be on a huge scale. Everything is a show, everything is turned into a show. When they are electing their President why would anyone assume that it would be any different?

With the two key candidates racking up something in the region of £2billion dollars, or as Mitt Romney may describe it “pocket money”, it is understandable that they would generate a reasonable amount of interest.

As a Brit the way American elections play out is something which at once amazes me and then amuses me, it is just so different from our own relatively grey and dull affairs. The concept of attack ads for instance is just something which wouldn’t really work in the United Kingdom. It may be that we are just so cynical that we always look at the worst of our politicians but they just wouldn’t have the same impact in this country.

Whereas in America politicians are seen as larger than life symbols of a nation in this country they are seen as somewhat grey and uninspiring for the most part. When American politicians take to the airwaves they are filled with passion. They spout memorable and carefully crafted quotes; they espouse rhetoric worthy of a blockbuster script. When politicians in the UK try something similar it is “I’m a Celebrity...get me out of here” and they get suspended from the party. It just isn’t the same really.

From our perspective across the pond it does seem that Americans vote with a passion which we Brits just cannot seem to muster. If our politicians spent $2 billion on campaigning they would be roundly demonised. Once there may have been a loyalty to the party, a passion for politics, a sense of duty in Britain, once people felt that voting was important. Nowadays, however, it seems at times as though no-one cares anymore, and that includes the politicians we vote for.

In America it can seem to us poor out of touch Brits that any form of election is an opportunity for a pageant. In Britain we are rapidly approaching electing Police and Crime Commissioners and no-one seems to know who the candidates are, let alone what a Police and Crime Commissioner actually does.  There just doesn’t seem to be the passion for politics in Britain that there is in America, perhaps that is why we follow our cousins in America so closely, they get to have the excitement we miss out on and then some.

A stormy time for the news

The impact of Hurricane Sandy has thrown up more than just chaos in America. While houses are being ripped up, Wall Street shut down, power outages and lives lost something far more important seems to have gripped the minds of a rather substantial amount of news agencies and bloggers, the cause of the storm.

While it may come as a surprise to many people it would appear that Hurricane Sandy is not, as may have been foolishly  thought, a natural meteorological event. Instead it is in fact anything from the wrath of a vengeful god, a callous campaign stunt from President Obama or alien intervention.

For the most part we are all aware of the rants which some conspiracy theorists come out and have become inculcated against. As such it is reasonably safe to assume that the views of Pastor John McTernan, who argued that the storm was a punishment from a divine being for America allowing homosexual marriage, or that the storm itself was foretold by little green men from a galaxy far far away (and not as suspected at Disney studios) would be dismissed as ever so much rot.

When the conspiracy ideas start to form in relation to President Obama or the American elections the sheer weight of people jumping on the bandwagon has to make people start to wonder about the sanity of those people allowed to report on the news.

Articles accusing Obama of orchestrating the storm via a genuine scientific experiment the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme (HAARP) caught the attention of people shortly before certain rather right wing republican news organisations started to accuse the President’s administration of using the storm to hide bad news, cover up employment figures, postpone the election or in one case create some form of dictatorship.

When the religious and political right start to use a natural event to help them spout ideas of a vengeful god, intolerance and bigotry, hatred and just plain stupidity, then the news and those who write and broadcast it must step back and question where it has all gone wrong.

Hurricane Sandy is obviously a huge story. As with any big story the challenge is finding a new angle, something to capture people’s attention and beat out the competition. When news agencies resort to publicising the rants of the mentally ill and delusional though they degrade the integrity of journalism and diminish the true impact of the hurricane on the lives of innocent people. Conspiracy theories can be fun to read but at the end of the day they are not news and must never be treated as though they are or else the real news will be lost in the maelstrom.

 

Back to basics, finding the truth

When I started writing this blog the idea was that it would give a different analysis of the top news stories. The principle of good journalism should, must, be to provide people with all of the facts so that they are able to have the tools they need to form their own judgements.

While journalists can have their own opinions it is a crucial part of the job that they must not allow those opinions to colour a story. The reality of the situation is somewhat different, as reality tends tp be when put up against an ideal. The very best journalism should engage the reader, it should make people want to learn more and read further. Without putting something extra into an article, without putting something of ourselves into it then why should the reader engage with it?

The key is that when we do write with passion we do not allow our judgement to be clouded. The facts must still be reported fairly and accurately, the angles must all be covered, the information must be gained ethically and the article itself must be in the publics’ best interest.

Blogging, and the hypocrisy of my nest statement is far from lost on me, has opened up an arena whereby anyone with an opinion can publish it as news, it has taken away the professionalism of journalism and removed the objectivity. That was why I decided that this blog would provide a different approach. It would be an objective approach to news analysis. In time it may even be a source of unbiased and fair reporting.

After a couple of blogs, however, I have realised that it is something else, it is a place where the top stories of the day can be simplified, explained and treated to an analytical approach which provides the reader with a way in which they can find their own angles to the story. If it achieves anything it should be that it encourages people to look at articles in a different way and conduct their own reading to ensure that they are being given all of the facts.

A perfect example of this today has been the news released by the Office of National Statistics. Prime Minister David Cameron and Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osbourne will be slapping  themselves on the back for being so clever in solving the country’s economic woes. After his “good news” slip up yesterday Mr Cameron must be feeling rather pleased that the good news has eclipsed the slip, something which there was distinct risk that it may not do.

Despite the potential for jubiliation, however, the story must also be tempered by reality. Once again the story has different angles from which it can be approached. Some could say that it is superb news and shows that the coalitions policies are having the desired effect, some could argue that it is inflated due to the Olympics, others that it is unreliable as data from the eurozone is giving the pound a false sense of security. 

Even George Osbourne has signalled a note of warning: "There is still a long way to go, but these figures show we are on the right track. Yesterday's weak data from the eurozone were a reminder that we still face many economic challenges at home and abroad."

The outlook could be many things, the key is looking at all the data, from different sources, and coming up with your own conclusion.

 

Good news, bad news for PM

It has really been a good news, bad news, what was he thinking news day for Prime Minister David Cameron.

While his stance on maintaining the ban on prisoners being allowed to vote will have gained a certain mixed reception it must be his jumping the gun on hinting that there may be an improvement in the gross domestic product which will be his moment of the day to try and escape from.

The seemingly innocuous statement that there may be “good news” ahead could potentially lead the PM into very bad news situation. It is a testament to the need for carefully coordinated communications when dealing with politicians, and the press. Many people would not think of the phrase as an explosive revelation breaching regulations on the release of sensitive information.

At the end of the day, however many people will be wondering whether or not the slip means anything other than that the Office of National Statistics, which is due to release the actual figures tomorrow (Thursday 25^th October 2012), will kick up a fuss over losing its thunder. In and of itself it may mean very little, taken in a wider context though it becomes a serious matter. The markets rise and fall on the slightest whiff of information, rumour and suggestion can have as much of an impact on the price of stocks and bonds as cold hard facts, something which the ONS is keen to maintain its control over.

What it also demonstrates is that once again politicians, no matter how senior, do not appear able to maintain a confidence on something which has national importance. It would not be seen as incontrovertible that Mr Cameron made the ‘slip’ as a means by which to get ahead of the ONS releasing the figures to the press and thereby ensure that his government, which up until now has been taking something of a battering on the economy, could bask in a bit of the glory before it was eclipsed by everything else.

Instead what he has successfully done, however, is removed any good news from what could have been an incredibly positive story and turned it into another government fiasco article.

There is always the chance that Mr Cameron’s ”good news” has nothing to do with the soon to be released figures. If having received the figures at 9:30am and being one of the few politicians allowed to see them he did mean something else though then he must surely be accused once again of mistiming his comments. What appears to be the core to this case is that either the Prime Minister knowingly let slip confidential information regarding the financial markets, albeit in an oblique way, or he made an ill timed and misjudged comment about an unrelated matter which will surely demonstrate that he is unable to think about the bigger picture of what impact his statements may have. Either way it does not bode well for the Prime Minister’s communications ability for the future.

EU-broke or just bust

There is something to be said for the recent contretemps which has caused friction between Britain and the rest of the European Union. Then again perhaps the standoff between David Cameron and Angela Merkel over EU spending is not such an unforeseen event.

Cameron has already demonstrated that he is prepared to take a firm stance when it comes to Europe. Likewise Ms Merkel has postured plenty of times before in the belief that she who shouts loudest lasts longest.

The current friction between the British and German leaders is, perhaps one of the more predictable that have been faced over recent years. With so much uncertainty surrounding the euro, and the lack of fiscal control being demonstrated by other EU countries, it is not surprising that Cameron has promised to use the United Kingdom’s veto any type of deal that does not impose a total freeze on spending.

What has struck the writers of this blog, as well no doubt as it has the policy makers at Number 10, is that if Ms Merkel does attempt to cancel next month’s EU budget summit then she will be demonstrating exactly why the Prime Minister, on one of the rare occasions, is right to stick to his guns.

The question must be asked as to what Ms Merkel hopes to gain from cancelling the summit, other than to stoke her not inconsiderable ego, that Mr Cameron could not achieve by implementing his veto. At worst she would leave the EU without any clear direction to focus its energies, at best cancelling the summit could ensure that Cameron’s position is strengthened by demonstrating that he has the power, albeit by proxy, to influence the entire bloc just by threatening a course of action.

What the whole debacle has clearly demonstrated is that the EU is clearly being run by school yard rules writ large. Whereas Ms Merkel could have used the summit as a place whereby leaders could debate their opinions and hope to turn people to their sides through reasoned debate she has decided to take the stance that if people won’t play by her rules then she will take the ball away and ruin the game for everyone.

Whether Cameron actually would use his veto is a matter which can only be judged after the fact. He has already demonstrated that he is not afraid of alienating EU leaders, and UK politicians, over his stance to the bloc. All Merkel has managed is to push him into a corner whereby his only option is to use the veto no matter when or where the summit is hosted. Rather than creating an atmosphere of discussion she has generated a toxic scenario where no-one will achieve anything. If she had taken the wiser path then a reasoned debate could have taken place instead of posturing and strong arming. This unfortunately has become the norm within the EU and its governance. It is also perhaps one of the most crucial reasons why any economic decisions involving the bloc must  be treated with scepticism by the individual states. Ms Merkel has argued to cancel the summit if she does not get her own way, Cameron has argued to veto any decision which is not in line with his feelings, with two out of the 27 acting in such a way how can the EU ever be trusted to succeed on solving an economic debacle on the scale that it is supposed to be tackling?

The press' whipping boy

If the recent resignation of Conservative Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell has demonstrated anything it is that the power of the press is stronger than it ever was. Unfortunately in this case it was also shown that the power which it wields can easily be subverted to suit the purposes of interest groups and lobbyists.

Andrew Mitchell’s resignation was not forced because of anything he may, or may not have said, to police officers. It was forced through a determined effort by the police federation, the press and MP’s, both opposition and from his own party. At most his comments, if they were said, merited a disciplining by the Prime Minister not resignation.

The whole situation has weakened not just the coalition government but David Cameron’s own position as Prime Minister. By exposing the Prime Minister’s key weakness, bowing to the pressure of the press, he has irredeemably opened himself and his government up to attacks from every interest group, union and protest movement who may disagree with a policy.

What has also not been stated clearly enough during this whole sorry saga in British governance is that the issue has never really been about his use of the word pleb. As insults go it is fairly tame, particularly when Mr Mitchell freely admits and apologises for using the F word in anger at the officers in question. The whole issue is one of class, or the perception thereof. 

Perhaps this is why it has grabbed the attention of the press so much. The poor downtrodden masses being once again walked over by the arrogant elite was always guaranteed to get some coverage.

The sad fact is that the coalition government has continually demonstrated far more newsworthy levels of ineptitude, as has the opposition in the interests of objectivity. Until the papers picked up on the word pleb it wouldn’t have crossed the mind of many for any other reason than being an anachronistic word with little to no relevance anymore.  Reporting the hard facts, however, and attempting to find relevant news stories is far harder, and seemingly therefore less important, than playing on outmoded concepts of class.

George Osborne’s mistimed train ticket fiasco has if anything highlighted just how class orientated the press is becoming in regards to the articles which they are running. The fact that a government minister failed to purchase the correct ticket should if anything demonstrate that he is just like the vast majority of the so called plebs who the papers are sticking up for, rather than being a elitist who feels that he is above the rules of the little people.

We are no longer living in an era where the class which you are born into determines the rest of your life. We live in world where anyone can make anything of themselves which they wish, provided that they are willing to put the work in to do it. The class system in the UK is not about holding people back, it is about giving them a reason to fight and strive to improve their lot in life.