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...

McCain Won't Win...Will He?

Take the Democratic insurgency under Barack Obama, which has rallied millions under a banner of hope and change, add eight years of divisive and disastrous rule under George II, sprinkle a touch of Republican disillusionment with their maverick and slightly-less-right-wing-than-your-average-conservative candidate and you'd conclude that John McCain really shouldn't have bothered freezing his proverbials off in the bleak New Hampshire winter to win his party's presidential nomination.

And yet the 'Nam veteran-turned-Arizona senator has, remarkably, drawn more or less level with Obama in the polls and for the first time we are seeing cracks appear in the inevitability of the Democratic Messiah's inauguration.

Just a blip, surely? Isn't it?

Well, we hope so. A McCain presidency would – despite his weak claim to being an agent of change in Washington – be disastrous for American foreign and domestic policy. With McCain moving further to the right in a bid to shore up the conservative base he’d only further consolidate the socially repressive policies of President Bush. Sure, he’s less repugnant than most of his colleagues, and he’s taken a few principled and modernising stands against the grain of the Republican party, but an economic and social Republican he still is. And his imperialistic and arrogant foreign policy stance, particularly towards Iran, is hopelessly out of step with the collective thinking of other world nations at a time when – amidst the threat of international terrorism – the global community should be working together.

But wishing doesn’t make it so. The fact is, firstly, that McCain’s canny selection of 45-year-old Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has enlivened Republicans, with her God-fearingly, gay-bashingly, gun-totingly conservative credentials appealing greatly to the Dubya faithful. To be sure it was a cynical move – looking at pre-convention polling it was clear that McCain’s No.2 choice needed to be a game-changer if he was to counter the history-making nature of an African American presidential candidacy – but that doesn’t seem to have backfired. At least for now. And whilst in the early days following her unveiling it seemed that McCain’s desire to put a woman on the ticket had been achieved at the expense of a thorough vetting process – I’m thinking here of her stance on the infamous pork-barrel ‘Road to Nowhere’, her teenage daughter’s pregnancy and the impending criminal investigation into her conduct over the dismissal of her estranged brother-in-law as a state employee – the campaign has moved impressively to play down these issues and, indeed, project the image of an ordinary ‘hockey mom’ in tune with the lives and needs of ordinary Americans. They’ve also been able to subvert – at least to moderates and independents – her total opposition to abortion rights, her unequivocal support for the NRA and her lack of both executive and foreign policy experience, even successfully portraying Palin as at the very least matching Obama in terms of qualifications for the presidency.

This all links, secondly, to an impressive shift in the McCain campaign outfit over the past few months. Some wise personnel shifts have given a new lease of life to his flagging candidature; McCain seems more energetic, more visible and more focused, and he’s beginning to push a cohesive message and display a winning campaign structure. Of course, McCain’s message has changed – he's bowed to the Republican sceptics by coming out against Roe v. Wade and doing his best to espouse his religious bona fides – but the strength of his campaign team is not to be underestimated. The most impressive campaign achievement, and thirdly, has been the seizing of Obama’s mantle of change and the strengthening of Hillary Clinton’s argument that the ability to deliver change – through extensive experience and a deep understanding of the Washington-based political oligarchy – is more important than rhetoric. He’s made great hay from his aversion to earmarks and pork-barrel appropriations and has used his maverick status to create the image of being a changemaker. He’s had the courage to continue and reinforce Clinton’s strategy of questioning the qualities necessary to bring about change. This was an especially bold tactic given its failure to work for Hillary; but he accurately observed that, towards the end of the primary campaign, in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, it was beginning to win the public's sympathy. Just too late for the former First Lady to re-take the initiative. Just as change has thus far formed the basis of the election so too will it be the basis on which, if they do pull it off, the McCain-Palin ticket will attract defectors from the Obama camp. I don’t buy the argument that it is purely Palin’s gender which changes the game. The implication that female voters would vote for a candidate simply on the basis of gender, regardless of policy, is both patronising and insulting, not just to women but to all thinking voters. The battleground will be waged on change. Not sex. This is, fourthly, no longer resoundingly good news for Obamaniacs. The simple truth is that the whole ‘change’ and ‘newness’ act becomes old after a while and he’s been hammering it home for almost two years (yes, it really has been that long since he announced his candidacy). It’s getting increasingly difficult to stay fresh. That’s the problem with running a campaign which is devoid of substance. And that’s why, incidentally, I was a staunch Hillaryite. In acknowledging all her faults, which I do freely, she was a strong, seasoned and substantive candidate. She didn’t pretend to be anything other than a tough-minded Democrat. She didn’t try to be all things to all people. Obama, on the other hand, has united a vast swathe of folks around a vacuous notion of change. The fact is that change means different things to different people. When you bring Democrats, Republicans and independents together in this way you’ll soon find, once in office, that their policy expectations are very different. That will inevitably lead to alienation. It’s particularly galling in 2008, too, because popular disillusionment with the Republicans has made the American electorate more receptive than ever to a solidly and unapologetically Democratic partisan message. Moreover attempting to be on everybody’s side is damaging to democracy. This is particularly true in 2008 when many of the energised and engaged are young people. More specifically, young people for whom the political process has hitherto had no relevance. It’s great, of course, that they’re going to vote. My day job’s all about engaging young people with democracy, after all. But the worst thing you can do is engage young people with a single event or a single personality, especially one which is vacuous. Participation is a process not an event. If Obama wins the presidency without engaging young people in issues, in substance, then they’ll fall away.

Of course, Obama remains the only choice for any thinking progressive at this election. But McCain’s fightback means he has a race on his hands. What appeared to be a cakewalk has become a close contest. And whilst the Illinois senator’s fundraising machine coupled with the general unpopularity of the Republican brand puts him at a distinct advantage, it’s no longer a dead-cert that he’ll win.

Game on.