Thank goodness for...the Lib Dems?

Having seized the initiative with his plan to halt Labour's planned National Insurance increase George Osborne, somewhat irritatingly, has been winning the media war all week, rolling out legions of businessmen supporting his position and convincing the electorate that they, rather than the Dear Leader, know how to stimulate economic recovery. This despite the fact that his plans, as per usual, are completely uncosted, and, also as per usual, will screw the poor by leading inevitably to a rise in VAT. But winning elections often has little to do with the merits of policy and rather more to do with controlling the message.

Imagine my joy, then, at the decision to fight back. Tomorrow's

Guardian headline reads, 'Cable attacks 'nauseating' businessmen', with dear old Vince describing as 'utterly nauseating all these chairmen and chief executives of FTSE companies being paid 100 times the pay of their average employees lecturing us on how we should run the country'. Finally! The Independent, too, leads with a firm 'Mind your own business' article. Until now no-one has seen fit to ask with what credibility big business - the practitioners of which recently led Britain to the verge of financial meltdown - speak when it comes to the economy.

I'm disappointed, though, that the attack has come from the Liberal Democrats. Alistair Darling, the Dark Lord Mandelson and the Great Leader have confined their criticism to pathetic mumbling about how the £6bn hasn't been adequately worked out rather than getting to the heart of the problem: it's the same old Tories protecting the same old big business interests at the expense of the lowest-paid.

Johann Hari has written a fantastic article explaining why Labour might be reluctant to go all-out attack [http://johannhari.com/2010/04/09/if-youre-looking-for-class-war-you-can-find-it-in-david-camerons-policies]. Once again, he says, it relates to spin rather than substance. Any Labour criticism of the Conservatives is painted as a class war by a media which peddles false assumptions about how wealth should be distributed. The fact is that class is an important factor in this election. David Cameron's background makes it much harder for him to understand the struggles and hardships faced by ordinary people. It's even harder when you consider that his acolytes are drawn from the same social circle; of the 34 members of the Shadow Cabinet 19 were privately educated. It's not surprising, then, that Cameron comes out with policies that reflect his ignorance. He has no idea, explains Hari, about modern life. Thus you get idiotic policies such as marriage incentives.

But rather than take on the Tories and inject a bit of fire into the campaign Labour prefer to occupy the middle ground. Thank God, then, for the Liberals; they decried marriage incentives as 'patronising drivel that belongs in the Victorian age'. It's amazing the truths you can speak when you're not desperately trying to avoid offending anyone.

Business first, workers last...same old Tories!

In his questions to Gordon Brown about the British Airways strike at today's PMQs, David Cameron revealed himself to be an old-style Tory in the Thatcher mould: blind support for big business over the rights of workers; lending a hand to company directors rather than seeking a better deal for the lower-paid.

Of course, this isn't particularly surprising - it's what the Tories have always done - but it is striking that he's learned nothing from such greed-fuelled catastrophes as the collapse of the banking system (greedy financial speculators ruining the economy) or, more mundanely, the National Express default on the east coast main line (greedy company bosses bailing out when the going got tough). Surely he should have grasped the idea that unchecked capitalism is not always a good thing? That sometimes we have to stand up to big business to protect ordinary people?

I'm not a blind loyalist to the trade unions. I believe passionately in the notion that workers should have a forceful advocate for their rights; that colleagues should act collectively to address legitimate grievances and prevent exploitation; and that unions provide workers with an essential collective voice and strength. But I also believe that unions shouldn't be able to hold employers to ransom and that some unions give the movement a bad name (for example the RMT which continues to cause mayhem on the London Underground despite tube drivers getting a bloody good wage).

But David Cameron simply believes that strikes and unions are bad no matter what the grievance. Now's not the right time for a strike, eh? So when is the right time? How would he suggest that the workers make their views heard? Or would he prefer that they just do as they're told and bow to a deal which will make them worse off - business first, workers last?

The fact is that BA workers have very legitimate complaints against the company:

• A 2-year pay freeze from 2010
• Reductions in the number of cabin crew on long-haul flights
• Different contracts for newly-recruited and newly-promoted staff which provides for only one single-point management grade and no incentives for length of service

What makes it more egregious is that the way it was presented by management - 'we're all in it together and need to make sacrifices' - is laughable. BA Chief Executive Willie Walsh has a basic salary of £735,000 plus the potential for large bonuses. I remember a while back when BA were trying to make economies; they asked their staff to go without pay for a month to show 'support and loyalty' to the company. It became pretty clear that, in the event of redundancies, the first to go would be those who hadn't signed up to this - but it's a bit easier to go a month without pay if you're earning close to a million a year than if you're cabin crew on £20-odd thousand! Shameful!

Cameron just sees the unions as evil. He doesn't recognise their right to strike. He's seeking to politicise the strike by putting pressure on a Labour prime minister to 'bust the strike' and allow workers to 'cross the picket lines'. His conduct in relation to the affair is opportunistic and his views on the matter are ill-informed. Same old Tories...

Check out:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/2107987/BA-boss-Willie-Walsh-gets-huge-pay-rise.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/15/ba-strike-unite-willie-walsh

Keep Your Nose Out!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8361987.stm

I'd never vote for this person in a million years (and as a Calder Valley voter I had the chance to do so in 2005 had I wished). But that's because she's a Tory. I disagree with her politics. I couldn't care less who she's been sleeping with.

Ms Truss has been defending herself by saying that the affair has been public knowledge for some time and that she informed the national party about it ahead of the selection. I'm deeply uncomfortable with this:

Firstly, why should she have to defend what she does in her private life? As long as she's not breaking any laws then it's hardly anyone else's business.

Secondly, would she be subject to the same scrutiny by Norfolk Tories if she was a bloke? I suspect not.

Might I therefore suggest a different defence she could offer the local association? It goes like this: "My personal life has got nothing to do with you. Keep your nose out".

Hillary 2016?

I know it's far too early to get into all this, but: http://www.politickerny.com/2412/hillary-2016 The only cautionary remarks are: * there's a danger that, if she stays for a while, she could become inextricably linked with an Obama administration which might - just might - not enjoy eternal popularity (John McCain was about as far away from Bush as humanly possible but was still tarred with the administration's brush during the 2008 campaign). * the unpredictability of international relations makes the job a risky one for a presidential aspirant. Hmmm...

Clarke Inherits Howe's Mantle

If anyone deserves to inherit Geoffrey Howe's infamous mantle - dished out by then-Chancellor Denis Healey in 1978 - as parliament's Dead-Sheep-In-Chief it simply must be the walking irrelevance that is Charles Clarke. Clarke is, to put it plainly, deluded. Since being removed as Home Secretary - largely due to gross incompetence in dealing with foreign prisoners - he's tried to position himself, utterly ludicrously, as a party kingmaker and elder statesman. First, he decried Gordon Brown's coronation as Labour leader in 2007, insisting that a Brown accession was "not inevitable" and forming the painfully-badly-disguised anti-Gordon website 'The 2020 Vision'. But he didn't find the guts to stand himself. He instead agreed, ever-so graciously, to give Brown his "conditional" support. I'm sure Gordon was able to sleep more easily after that, Charles! Then, a year later, after the Great Leader's spectacular drop in the polls following a series of balls-ups and crises, he declared that he was "very sceptical personally about his capacity to pull in round and therefore I do think he probably should stand down". Quite an ironic statement coming from a bloke who criticised Tony Blair's decision to drop him from the government in 2006 on the grounds that he wanted more time to sort out the mess he'd presided over at the Home Office! And did he challenge for the leadership? Of course not. That'd take guts. But his latest salvo leaves me, quite simply, incredulous, telling a BBC interview that "I've worked half my life to get Labour into a position where it could be a good government and I do see that fading away". What?! I mean, the odd bit of screaming-from-the-sidelines criticism is one thing, but setting himself up as a father of New Labour? Are you having a laugh, Charlie? John Prescott - a genuine Labour heavyweight - had the right idea when he branded Clarke a "bitter-ite" in a Politics Show debate last September. He didn't have the guts to put up for the leadership in 2007. He didn't have the guts to challenge Brown in 2008. And now he's portraying himself as the founder of the modern Labour Party. Please, Charles, I'm begging you: shut up and go away.

False Hope for Zimbabwe

If Morgan Tsvangirai's capitulation to Robert Mugabe augured well for a revival of the decimated Zimbabwean economy and a reduction of the factional violence gripping the country then his decision to share power with his arch-nemesis could be easily accepted as the selfless action of a true statesman. But it doesn't. If Prime Minister Tsvangirai thinks that 'President' Mugabe will allow him to govern effectively then, at best, he is a hopeless optimist and, at worst, a deluded Charlie Brown-figure to Mugabe's Lucy. Mr Mugabe's pitifully-concealed attempt to rig the mid-2008 presidential election - inciting and overseeing violence and brutality against MDC voters until their leader had the good sense to withdraw - demonstrates powerfully his intent to remain in power at all costs. It was only a few years ago when a visibly bruised and battered Tsvangirai was being ruthlessly persecuted by Mugabe's regime and only a few months ago when his supporters were being terrorised by 'The Dear Old Man's' Zanu-PF thugs. Mugabe was condemned across the world for his reprehensible behaviour but despite the indignation of the West - and in a striking example of the toothlessness and futility of international law - his grip on power remains absolute. Britain's Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, described Mugabe's rule as "Sadism" in June 2008 and stated, quite unequivocally, that "the Mugabe regime is not a legitimate representation of the will of the people of Zimbabwe". Yet he has now been persuaded to remark that "Morgan Tsvangirai's appointment offers the possibility of a change for the better". Surely he understands that in supporting Tsvangirai's accession under an illegitimate president he undermines the force of his scathing comments about Mugabe? And surely he understands that Tsvangirai cannot possibly deliver change to Zimbabwe whilst the key ministries are in the hands of Zanu-PF and the economy is being crippled by UN sanctions (which, quite rightly, will not be lifted until Mugabe is out of the picture). Tsvangirai's acceptance of the Prime Ministership and the West's acquiescence to his doing so represents at least a tacit acceptance of Mugabe's legitimacy. With this acceptance disappears the solitary piece of authority Tsvangirai's cause had: moral authority.

Who'd Have Thought It: Gay-Bashing California

November 4th may have brought a promise of 'hope' and 'change' to a nation exhausted by eight years of George Bush but in California it would appear that the old forces of division were alive and well and out in force. Proposition Eight - a ballot-initiative proposal to amend the California Constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman and thereby prevent same-sex couples from marrying - passed by a slim 52-48 margin in a supposedly liberal Democratic state.

So, how did it pass? Let's begin with the more trivial reasons.

Firstly, it is alleged that opponents of Proposition Eight irritated the electorate. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who is seen as kicking off the game of legal football which led to California, for a short period, conducting same-sex ceremonies, wound up conservatives by boasting (at a rally following an earlier judicial setback to the cause) that same-sex marriages were "going to happen, whether you like it or not." It is also argued that the behaviour of the gay community aggravated social tensions during the campaign. One such example is that of Tara Miller, a teacher in Hayward, CA, who got her kindergartners - in the run-up to the vote - to sign 'pledge cards' issued by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network promising 'not to use anti-LGBT language or slurs' and to 'intervene...in situations where others are using anti-LGBT language or harassing other students'. Now that seems perfectly fine to me - schools should promote understanding and tolerance of all cultures and lifestyles - but it was hardly a political savvy move. Gay rights groups know just as well as anyone else that legislative success is more about tactical campaigning rather than changing hearts and minds.

Secondly, there was also a notable lack of prominent political support. Whilst both Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi - a rare example of Democrats and Republicans coming together in common cause - made clear that they opposed Proposition Eight they were not especially active in the 'No' camp. It must be said, of course, that even acknowledging opposition was a particularly brave move for Schwarzenegger, who risked undermining his Republican base in an overwhelmingly Democratic state ahead of a possible Senate run in 2010, but nonetheless both he and Pelosi weren't out on the stump urging voters to reject the amendment.

Thirdly, it is argued that people didn't really know what they were voting for, considering that the ballot was asking for their personal view on gay marriage as opposed to their view about the state's provisions in this regard. Pelosi herself, in analysing the result, said "Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their view of same-sex marriage was...I don't know if it was clear that this meant that we are amending the Constitution to diminish freedom in our state."

Fourthly, the effect of a higher black turnout. We should take a moment to consider the rather perverse effect which now-President-Elect Obama's candidacy had on the result. Black voters - inspired to vote in massive numbers, many for the first time, for the first African American presidential candidate - were shown to be more socially conservative than their white and Hispanic counterparts and voted in favour of the amendment 69%-31%. This can be compared with the 55% of white voters and 52% of Hispanic voters who rejected the amendment. It is unfortunate that a group which for so long was denied civil rights and, indeed, continues to suffer discrimination and subjugation, would opt to deny freedoms to another oppressed minority.

But regardless of the closeness of the result and the abovementioned reasons why it was tipped in favour of the 'Yes' camp we really are splitting hairs if we dwell on the margin too much.

The real and worrying fact is that, even if the result had gone narrowly the other way, almost half of the Californian electorate would have chosen to deny gay couples the right to marry. That reveals something very worrying about social attitudes in the 21st century and suggests we still have a long way to go to achieve equality.

I have a very simple piece of advice for anyone opposed to gay marriage: don't get one! If you don't believe that it's 'right' or 'moral' then - whilst I personally don't understand what planet you're living on - I respect your view. But please don't seek to impose your own moral view on others. Americans are always banging on about how their country was founded on the principle of freedom and, as far as I'm concerned, this permits citizens to use whatever means they like to seek 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' provided that they don't, in so doing, impede anyone else's right to do the same. This basic libertarian concept - which is widely manifested in other areas of American culture - underpins all stable and cooperative societies. Gay people aren't hurting anyone. So how about leaving them to get on with it?

What is perhaps most disgusting about the continued debate into Proposition Eight, which promises to ramble on through appeal after appeal, are the attempts by the 'Yes on 8' campaign to undo the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters stepped in. They filed a brief telling the California Supreme Court that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognised or valid in California the state can no longer recognise the existing marriages. I'd respectfully submit that the utter arsewipes pushing this twisted plot should take a running jump. Banning same-sex marriages is one thing but nullifying the marriages of those who wed legally is quite another. It would frankly be extraordinarily cruel to seek to tear up the marriage certificates of legally-wedded couples and I don't quite understand how any compassionate human being could advocate such a move. Marriage isn't something to be entered into lightly. There is deep emotional (and financial) investment involved. And no decision, however democratic, should be allowed to reverse that.

The fate of those couples already married rests with the California judiciary who are also considering, alongside this, the more general question of the legality of Proposition Eight. The 'No' camp was boosted the other day by California's Attorney-General (and former Governor) Jerry Brown - who had pledged to respect the voters' decision despite personally disagreeing with it - changing his mind to judge that "It [is] evident that the Article 1 provision guaranteeing basic liberty, which includes the right to marry, t[akes] precedence over the initiative...Based on my duty to defend the law and the entire Constitution, I conclude [that] the court should protect the right to marry even in the face of the 52 percent vote."

Whilst it seems a shame that the constitutional amendment might be struck down on a technicality rather than being rejected by the electorate - the latter demonstrating that attitudes towards homosexuality are changing for the better - this is a rare example of where democracy has to be reined in (to protect the interests of a minority group). If America truly wants to live up to its reputation as the 'Land of the Free' it must accept and embrace the diversity of its people. And political leaders, where public opinion lags behind this inclusive sentiment, must be bold enough to impose the necessary change.

The trial continues...