Recent Articles

Majority of public think voting system is unfair

by Newswire     April 29, 2010 at 12:28 pm

A majority of the public believe that the current voting system is unfair, and that it is now time to start thinking seriously about alternatives.

57% of voters said that the current system of voting in the current system is either ‘very unfair’ or ‘generally unfair’, compared to 39% who think it is fair.

In addition, 54% agree with the statement that ‘we need to start seriously thinking about alternatives’ to the current first past the post system. A much smaller proportion (34%) think that ‘we are better off sticking with it’.

The poll, taken by the Ashcroft owned PoliticsHome website, also found that voters believe it is more important for an electoral system to reflect the proportion of votes cast nationwide than to produce a clear winner.

Poll shows press attacks on Clegg help Libdems

by Sunny Hundal     April 29, 2010 at 11:32 am

An official poll carried out for the LibdemVoice blog shows that press attacks on Nick Clegg and the Libdems have actually increased their support.

When asked:

The newspapers in this country tend to take a position and support different parties at election time. It has been suggested that the Sun, Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph do not want Nick Clegg to be Prime Minister. If those newspapers were to take this stance would that make you more or less likely to vote Liberal Democrat?

15% said it made them more likely to vote Liberal Democrat and only 4% said it made them less likely.

Of the rest, 19% would vote Liberal Democrat regardless, 35% would not vote Liberal Democrat anyway and 27% said it wouldn’t alter their vote but they weren’t yet sure which way to vote.

LDV’s Mark Pack said yesterday:

The question doesn’t capture the potential agenda setting power of these three newspapers, but on the other hand the question was (deliberately) asked in a low key way, with no reference for example to the tax or residence status of newspaper proprietors such as Rupert Murdoch or the Barclay brothers.

Moreover, so far part of the impact of the three titles running strident anti-Liberal Democrat stories has been to generate coverage by TV broadcasters about whether or not a smear operation is taking place.

Libdem support has fallen slightly from its peak but that was to be expected. As yet however, most polls show the Libdems at above 30% support.

The poll was carried out for LDV by Angus Reid.

Sun planning more propaganda on Labour

by Sunny Hundal     April 29, 2010 at 10:46 am

The following leaked email came to light yesterday (via Left Foot Forward):

From: [redacted]
Sent: 27 April 2010 11:15
To: [redacted]
Subject: request from Jenna Sloan, The Sun

If you have relevant information for the media professional concerned please click this link to reply: jenna.sloan@the-sun.co.uk

Request deadline: Thursday 29 April, 2010, 4:00 pm

Contact me by e-mail at jenna.sloan@the-sun.co.uk

My request: I’m looking for a teacher and a nurse to be case studies in The Sun next week.

This is for a political, election feature and both must be willing to say why they feel let down by the Labour Government, and why they are thinking about voting Conservative.

We’ll need to picture them, and also have a chat about their political opinions.

We can pay the case studies £100 for their time.

Please do let me know if you think you can help.

Coming on the back of revelations that the Sun’s political editor has been reported as saying “It is my job to see that Cameron fucking well gets into Downing Street”, we can safely assume the propaganda campaign hasn’t finished yet.

‘Should have never put me with that woman’-gate

by Chris Dillow     April 29, 2010 at 10:35 am

Most people, I fear, are missing the point about “Bigotgate”. What’s truly appalling about Brown’s words is not that he called Ms Duffy a bigot: as Paul and Matthew point out, all candidates have badmouthed voters behind their backs at sometime, maybe with less justification than Brown had. Instead, Brown’s most outrageous remark was:

Should never have put me with that woman.

But Ms Duffy was, sadly, a fairly typical voter. If you don’t want to meet voters, you shouldn’t become a politician – unless, of course, your lust for power overcomes your aversion to genuine politics.

What’s more, anyone with half a brain could have said a lot to placate her incoherent concern about east European immigrants. Such immigrants are contributing to the public finances and have helped the economy grow whilst keeping inflation down.

And east European migration is not new; Poles have lived in England for decades with no ill-effects. Far from it; they made a significant contribution in the Battle of Britain.

That Brown did not say any of this merely highlights the cretinism of his immigration policy. On the one hand he’s pandered to bigotry and failed to make a case for immigration, but on the other hand he’s just given grist to the mill of every moron who bleats that “you can’t talk about immigration.“

What we saw yesterday, then, were two features of Brown’s Labour. There was the lofty managerialist aversion to arguing with real people; as Fraser says, the sight of someone in a Jag slagging off ordinary folk will resonate. And there was the inability to make a coherent argument for a just and proper cause.

But there’s another thing – Brown’s felt need to apologize. There are many reasons not to have done this. He should have debated properly with her instead. But having failed to do so, he should either have stuck to his guns, or figured that prolonging the story would merely do more damage. Instead, he rushed off to grovel.

This, I suspect, reveals much about his “moral compass.” He figured: “I sinned so I must repent.” This suggests that, to him, morality is a matter of external rules, any breach of which is to be punished.

We can, however, contrast this to conceptions of virtue ethics. A virtuous politician might have argued on the spot, or decided he was right to call her a bigot, or made the tactical calculation that the apology would lose more votes.

Herein, however, lies perhaps one root of Labour’s illiberalism. Brown fails to see the possibility that people might, in the right circumstances, behave virtuously – as citizens or as public servants – and so their behaviour, like his, must be constrained by rules. 

How politics makes hypocrites of us all

by Paul Sagar     April 28, 2010 at 5:42 pm

Is Brown a hypocrite for calling a woman, whom he’d just been nice to on camera, a “bigot” when he thought he was off camera? At one level obviously so: surely if anything counts as hypocrisy, it’s being nice to someone’s face and then saying the exact opposite when you think they’re out of earshot.

But is this the sort of hypocrisy we should or can condemn…without being hypocrites? The answer is pretty obviously no.

To say otherwise, we would have to entertain the belief that (say) Nick Clegg or David Cameron don’t sometimes complain in private about the people they’ve just met in public.

It’s only human to whinge, after all. When you’re on the campaign trail in a very stressful election, letting off steam when you think you’re in private is what everybody short of sainthood does. What’s special about the case of Brown is that he got caught.

Clegg, Cameron and pretty much every other politician in the world will have done what Brown did – they were just alert enough to check their mics were off first.

Accordingly, the Tory condemnation – ironically centering on the claim that Brown is a hypocrite – is itself utterly hypocritical. It could just as easily have been Cameron caught out today.

Imagine: a gay activist challenges him on his party’s lack of tolerance for homosexuals, and when D-Cam gets into the waiting car he mutters about “the whining gays”. Hardly beyond the realms of possibility, is it? So the Conservative assault on Gordon Brown stinks of hypocrisy because they all know it could just as easily have been their man instead.

But it doesn’t end there. Because we all know this is politics. What matters, ultimately, is precisely who gets caught. If it had been Cameron putting his foot in it, I and the rest of the left-wing blogosphere would be whooping with pleasure.

So in calling the Tories hypocrites for calling Brown a hypocrite, I guess that means I am also a hypocrite.

Except that I just admitted it, so maybe now I’m not. Or maybe that’s just what I want you to think.

This is why we shouldn’t shy away on immigration

by Sunny Hundal     April 28, 2010 at 2:05 pm

Just some quick thoughts on what is obviously a gaffe of some epic proportions.

1. I agree with a lot of people who say (on Twitter) the problem is that Brown behaved in one way with her and then slagged her off later. That two-faced approach is what will sting people the most.

2. Was it bigoted? Don’t think she she said was bigoted per se, though if people start talking about immigrants “swamping” or “flooding” or “flocking” into the country then you have a good idea of what newspaper they read and how they stand on the issue.

3. The problem here is that it goes to the heart of how Labour has dealt with the issue of immigration. Rather than confront tabloid hysteria and try and make a positive case for immigration, the party issues platitudes and then tries to hide from the issue.

Labour should either confront the point of Eastern European immigration or stop it entirely. Instead we have this fudge, which allows the tabloids to claim that there is some big conspiracy to forcibly push immigration on them.

What Gordon Brown needs is a brave speech like Obama made after the Rev Wright’s comments came out. He needs to accept people have concerns about immigration and accept that we have a problem talking about the issue because one side is constantly in hysteria and the other not willing to take a stand on the issue.

I doubt it will happen though. Oh well.

Brown’s “bigoted woman” gaffe: full video

by Sunny Hundal     April 28, 2010 at 1:15 pm

Ouch! What a disaster.

But I think Tories are being quite hypocritical here – I thought they were all for free speech and not being politically correct?

As @thedancingflea rightly said on Twitter:

In all seriousness, the question posed by Mrs Duffy is exactly why we shouldn’t use the language of the right to talk about immigration.

How liberals forced the Libel debate

by Guest     April 28, 2010 at 11:20 am

contribution by Victor Noir

It looked like a crude right-wing fantasy: frontbenchers from the three big UK parties kowtowing to a gathering of highbrow Metropolitan media liberals, with Pimm’s flowing at the bar, in the middle of an election campaign.

Whatever the fantasies about supposed left-wing domination of the national media, radical campaigners know that politicians won’t go within a mile of anything that looks like confirming them.

That was until two recent events: the report on libel law from Index and English PEN, and the success of science writer Simon Singh in defending the outrageous action brought against him by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA).

These joint campaigns convinced Justice Secretary Jack Straw, a former far from liberal Home Secretary, who now set up a working group and promised legislation.

And last week, when Index, PEN and Sense about Science invited him and the Tory and LibDem frontbenchers to an election hustings meeting on libel reform they all had to accept.

In the event Jack Straw cried off, pleading pressure of business, but he sent junior minister Michael Wills, and the others sent their top men, Dominic Grieve and Evan Harris respectively.

Making the pitch
In truth, for all their friendly noises — and their tributes to Simon Singh, who stood in the crowd with a sceptical gaze – the others promised nothing new. All parties were already committed to a “single publication” rule that would prevent actions against websites over articles that would be out of time if in print.

They had already agreed on the need to limit the lawyers’ outrageous 100 per cent “success fees”, but that’s not new and there was no firm suggestion on what the limit should be.

But there was nothing on legal aid, nothing on reversing the burden of truth and nothing on the High Court’s willingness to take cases from wealthy overseas claimants over foreign publications with negligible audiences in the UK.

An informal poll was taken, with votes for the party representatives from those present and those watching online. Following the fashion of the moment, the LibDems’ Evan Harris swept ahead with a stonking 95 per cent.

There was, however, one unseen gain: that media policy has been brought into the open. This has not been the case since Labour in the 1970s and 1980s used to include all the radical media ideas of the time — none of which were ever carried out.

Since then the combination of popular revulsion at the tabloid press and the politicians’ fear of it have kept media campaigners at arms’ length. Ministers would pay court at corporate events but always shun the critics.

Now all three major parties have libel reform in their manifestos and the politicians are prepared to go public. Like so much else, it is down to the internet.

The internet is bringing more people into the political discourse; it was the forum for Simon Singh’s campaign. It is cool to talk about, and that makes media a cool topic too.

Now will these politicians listen and join in discussions on protecting the BBC and public service media, and on dispossessing the old media corporations and taxing the new ones to pay for them?

——–
Index on Censorship carries more coverage from the Libel debate

Why I’d like a Hung Parliament and a Lib-Lab coalition

by Sunny Hundal     April 28, 2010 at 9:00 am

A few weeks I wrote that New Labour remained the key political vehicle for lefties while the Libdems were so far behind in the polls. A week is a long time… etc, and here we are.

So where does a leftie like me go?

We’re almost certainly heading for a Hung Parliament according to the polls, un Cameron pulls out a blinder in the third debate. Nevertheless, the Libdem surge isn’t falling away despite the Daily Mail’s best efforts and that makes it near impossible for one party to gain a majority.

This is a state of affairs I welcome.

I have always been dedicated to a left-wing movement and ideals, never as a Labour tribalist who wants the party to hang on to power at all costs. I would like to be part of a Labour party that stays true to its egalitarian and left-wing principles (within pragmatic constraints of course).

But right now the only narrative Labourites have left is: ‘the Tories are much worse‘. That may be true – and I have nothing but contempt for the right – but that’s not good enough. It makes me feel helpless as a voter and a left-wing activist.

I want to see Labour adopt Libdem policies on: the environment, civil liberties, cutting taxes for the poorest, killing Trident, offering an Amnesty to illegal immigrants and of course electoral reform.

A standalone Labour government would not embrace those policies (and their record on the environment is still terrible), and frankly that drains much of my enthusiasm for them. And so my ideal situation is that Labour and the Libdems work in a coalition government.

I’d like to see Labour led by visionary people who aren’t constantly afraid of what Mr Dacre or Mr Murdoch might say about them. Leaders who aren’t so scarred from the 70s and 80s that they keep moving right-wards to out-flank the Tories.

Will Clegg do a deal with the Tories? I don’t know and neither am I in a position to influence votes. I’m merely saying I want that a Hung Parliament is the only scenario that forces some proper political change on this country.

However, I do think Labourites and lefties greatly exaggerate how right he is of the party. If many of you actually studied Labour and Libdem economic plans you’d find their plans (public sector spending cuts, reducing deficit after recovery, taxing banks) are remarkably the same. Both parties also want to increase taxation on high earners.

I don’t know why for the life of me highly intelligent people like Don Paskini believe that Libdems will carry out ‘savage cuts’ while Labour won’t. In fact Libdems pledge to cut £5billion less than Labour!

Let’s get back to the main point. I’d like to see Labour stop being so self-destructive and realise the political atmosphere has changed. Permanently. The party will utterly destroy itself unless it renews itself – either in opposition or in a coalition.

If the aim is to merely help and protect poorer Britons by keeping the Tories out, then I submit that the party should be willing to adopt key Libdem policies and form a coalition. They’re not going to win the popular vote or get a majority – that is almost certain.

So it makes logical sense to not only support a Hung Parliament, but support a coalition government that is truly liberal-left in its policies.

Tories consider pact with others to avoid Libdems

by Newswire     April 28, 2010 at 8:45 am

David Cameron’s campaign team is exploring the possibility of a deal with unionist politicians in Northern Ireland and Scottish and Welsh nationalist MPs in the event of a hung parliament, in an attempt to avoid giving in to Liberal Democrat demands for electoral reform.

The Conservative party leader insists he can win the election outright, but Tory strategists are drawing up contingency plans – including the possibilities of a deal with smaller parties – if the Tories fail to win an outright majority.

The unionists, the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru say the price of any support would be to protect their parts of the UK from the worst effects of any spending cuts – a tough demand on a government looking to reduce the £163bn deficit.

But Mr Cameron’s team believe it may be preferable to doing a deal with Nick Clegg’s Lib Dems, who say that electoral reform would be the price of any post-election pact.

…more at the Financial Times