'Cablegate' is political reprieve for Lib Dems

Unless Vince Cable is forced to resign due to the media furore surrounding the 'Cablegate' controversy, it will prove a victory for the Lib Dem propaganda machine.

The Telegraph's revelations are superbly timed for a party at a historical low in terms of public relations. The tuition fee fiasco threatened to blow the Lib Dems apart and seriously eroded their credibility, but recent controversy surrounding Vince Cable and other senior Lib Dems - such as Norman Baker, Michael Moore, Ed Davey and Steve Webb - acts, in a bizarre way, to rehabilitate their sullied image. They may be stooges, but at least they're not complete stooges - or so the journalistic stings would have us believe.

Call me cynical, but I think it's highly unlikely that all these senior Lib Dem figures could be duped by undercover journalists. Surely, as experienced public figures, they have more political nous. Instead, it smells like a co-ordinated media ploy to resurrect their reputation as an unsilent partner which is curtailing the Conservative right and championing progressive politics. The sidelining of Cable also has the convenient side-effect of removing senior Lib Dem officials from the firing line of front line government. For now, the Lib Dems have shifted the focus. Instead of spineless political chameleons, they look like spineless political martyrs too enamoured with power to stand up for their crumbling beliefs.

If the Lib Dems had any backbone at all then they wouldn't boast to undercover journalists, they would resign. All Cablegate has shown is that the Lib Dems lack all sense of political principle. Let's hope in the local elections next May - and future General Elections - the electorate doesn't forget the Lib Dem betrayal or their continuing love of 'old' politics.

Working towards the Führer

Tory MP Nicholas Boles recently criticised central planning and called for local government planning to be replaced by ‘chaos’. Bole’s revelations draw alarming parallels with the power structures of Nazi Germany.



There are obvious conceptual obstacles to comparing Nazi Germany to our contemporary democracy – namely the Holocaust – but it does provide a useful analytical framework for understanding modern bureaucracy. Structuralist historians such as Martin Broszat and Hans Mommsen view Nazi Germany as a polycratic shambles of rival bureaucracies in perpetual power struggles. This doesn’t seem far removed from what Boles is suggesting – albeit the polycratic structures will encompass voluntary and private sector bodies too. Either way, it leads to convoluted and divided government.

Structuralists argue that Nazi bureaucracy was sophisticated and complex but, rather than emanating from detailed central authority, Hitler governed through suggestion rather than directive. Ian Kershaw developed the theory of “working toward the Führer”. This theory maintains that subordinates were charged with anticipating and interpreting Hitler’s wishes rather than formulating policy from detailed protocols. The role of the bureaucracy was to interpret perceived wishes, or to create policy from Hitler’s often loose and indistinctly phrased wishes.

A key parallel here is Cameron’s ‘big society’ which defined his General Election campaign and continues to underwrite government policy. Yet most Tories – not to mention the public – seem confused as to what the ‘big society’ actually means. Cameron has created an indistinct phrase which he now expects ministers to formulate into coherent policy.

In the case of Nazi Germany, the result of constant competition between different power structures saw the radicalisation of the regime. This is seen most obviously in the evolution of anti-Semitism. Now, it would be dangerous to equate modern democratic structures with those of Nazi Germany, but there are similarities with the interaction of power. David Cameron has created a vague but powerful idea that the whole of government needs to save money and reduce the size of the state. As a result, departments compete to find bigger savings and reduce more services.

Structuralist historians hold that the competition between departments fostered egotism. This is also echoed in the current situation and has been amplified by the presence of the Lib Dems within government. Over recent months, Lib Dem ministers have been given far more airtime than their government numbers warrant. Usually the government minister defending cuts or tuition fees has been a Lib Dem – either Danny Alexander or Vince Cable – and high profile Tories – such as Cameron and Osborne – have been relatively quiet. The reason Lib Dems have such a high profile is multi-layered. Firstly, they are competing for profile. They have to justify undermining party policy by being perceived to be driving government policy. Secondly, as the focal point for announcements they become the focal point for dissent. Responsibility is displaced from the Tories to the Lib Dems. Indeed, the whole ‘big society’ can be seen as an attempt to devolve responsibility from the state to the individual. Cameron still sets the tone of debate and change, but he won’t be blamed if anything goes wrong.

2+2=5

You know when you get that feeling that things are just not adding up? I’ve been feeling that about a few things recently, and today’s announcement on unemployment was the final straw...

1) Higher university fees, higher unemployment

The Government has passed a bill for universities to start charging fees of up to £9,000 per year. The fact some Lib Dems voted for this increase after getting students' votes on exactly the opposite pledge doesn’t add up in itself, but I want to focus on the argument that people won’t start paying back the debt until they earn above £21,000. With today’s announcement that UK unemployment rose by 35,000 to 2.5 million in the three months to October, the task of finding a job, let alone one that will allow you to start paying off your student debt, seems all the more difficult. And let’s make no mistake – the reason for the rise in unemployment is down to the Government’s cuts, because 33,000 of those affected are from the public sector, which has suffered and will continue to suffer spending cuts. So the Government has truly shafted young people by increasing tuition fees, and reducing employment prospects when they graduate.

2) Julian Assange

There are a number of problems with Julian Assange. He’s wanted in Sweden for sex offences, has been granted a £200,000 bail, but remains behind bars after Swedish authorities appealed against the bail. We will have to let the courts decide whether he’s guilty of the alleged crimes, but many people around the world think this is a cover for the fact that Assange is the founder of Wikileaks. The website and Assange have been the focus of widespread criticism (and support) for leaking classified US documents and an ABC News poll claims 6 in 10 people believe Assange should face criminal charges. To top it all off, today, TIME magazine named Facebook founder and CEO Zuckerberg its person of the year, despite Assange winning the reader’s choice (Zuckerberg came 10th in this poll). Today’s announcement is widely conceived as another snub against Assange, and joins the list of other businesses boycotting Wikileaks.

3) New Labour government, Thatcherite opinions

It may come as no surprise to those who felt New Labour largely continued many Conservative policies when they came into power in 1997, but yesterday’s opinion poll by the British Social Attitudes shows we are more Thatcherite than we were in the 1980s! After 13 years of New Labour in power, how is it possible that as a nation we have less sympathy for benefit claimants, less support of redistributing wealth and harsher attitudes towards the poor? There was some good news, with larger support for education and health, but there’s no denying that Labour must take responsibility for the fact that they didn’t try hard enough with redistributive taxation. Must try harder next time...

Latin America 2010 – Beating the blockade of Cuba

I recently wrote a seminar report on the illegal US blockade of Cuba at the Latin America 2010 conference. The article has been reproduced below or you can read it here on the Cuba Solidarity Campaign website.

Cuba: Beating the blockade – advancing the Revolution

In a lively discussion on the US blockade of Cuba, Steve Ludlam, lecturer at the University of Sheffield, denounced the embargo as the “relentless strangulation of Cuba”. As Ludlam contended, the blockade of Cuba constitutes just one facet of a dirty war against the island which includes US-sponsored terrorist groups attacking the Cuban government and the persecution and imprisonment of those defending Cuba’s right to self-determination, such as the Miami 5.

Bob Oram, Unison NEC, affirmed that the US blockade has been tightened and intensified since 1962 to “asphyxiate the economy and wear down the Cuban people”. The blockade and associated legislation has been expanded extraterritorially to adversely affect other countries trading with Cuba. As Oram postulated, US-initiated restrictions on banks, companies and shipping mean that it is practically impossible for most businesses to trade with Cuba, whilst those that do often face penalties from the US.

US pretext for the blockade asserts that Cuba fails to promote human rights but, as both the United Nations and Amnesty International have testified, the blockade disproportionately affects the most vulnerable people in Cuba. Luis Marron, Political Counsellor at the Cuban Embassy, described how a two year-old girl was denied medical treatment because the required medication was only available in the US. As Marron concluded, “the little girl wasn’t a communist and didn’t know who Castro was, she just happened to be born in Cuba”. Marron and Oram both rejected the US declaration that Cuba requires the blockade to justify internal economic conditions and referenced the Cuban Foreign Minister’s challenge to lift the embargo and normalise relations.

Both Ludlam and Luis Marron cited three obstacles to the removal of the blockade. Firstly, there is a lack of political will within the US to end the blockade as the political establishment seeks to demonstrate to Latin America and the developing world that “resistance is futile”. Secondly, the authority to remove the embargo is no longer held by the President and instead has to be passed by Congress. This further entrenches reactionary legislation and makes it harder to revoke. And finally, the influence of Cuban nationals in Miami prevents any repeal of the blockade. Florida is a key state in presidential elections and Barack Obama is the first President since 1959 to not have the electoral support of the ex-patriate Cuban lobby within Miami.

As a result, any policy change will not come from within the US political system. It requires solidarity across Latin America and real pressure from Europe. Ludlam heralded the work of the Cuba Solidarity Campaign working with the trade union movement within the UK to champion the Cuban cause whilst Luis Marron acclaimed the amazing support which Cuba has received – both politically and materially – and declared all solidarity as victory over a blockade which seeks to isolate Cuba. As Marron affirmed, “Cuba has survived 50 years without the US and will continue to exist and advance with or without the US”. Despite constant harassment and persecution, Cuba has met Millennium Development Goals in education and health - just think what would be possible without the blockade.

Progressive Nick?

Nick Clegg’s article in the Guardian last week surrounding the issue of equality and his favourite catchphrase ‘fairness’ has finally laid bare his ideals for the more progressive and fair society he campaigned with such vigour about earlier this year. For many who chose to vote for him in May this may well leave as bitter a taste as his and the Lib Dems decision to raise tuition fees.

.
Clegg states that “Social mobility is what characterises a fair society, rather than a particular level of income equality.” As many progressives know social mobility is essential in creating a more equal society but as Clegg fails to ascertain it is only truly beneficial, never mind plausible, in a society with high levels of income equality.

The UK currently finds itself with its largest ever gap between the richest and poorest in society and thus a very low level of income equality. With Clegg’s refusal to support greater income equality by deeming supporters of maintaining the 50 pence high tax rate as ‘old progressives’ he fails to understand that without it social mobility is nigh on impossible.

The closer the income gaps in society the easier it is not only to climb up the salary scale but to come down. The higher the income gaps the harder it is to step up, no matter what tools are in place, and more importantly the harder it is for the highest to come down. Also Clegg’s inability to talk about how, if at all, the UK’s tax system needs reforming highlights how he is in favour, systematically at least, of the status quo.

But of course does the ConDem government really want greater equality after all??? For as George Eaton stated in relation to Clegg’s article in the New Stateman “greater inequalities of outcome make it easier for rich parents to pass on their advantages to their children.”

As coincidently many of the government happen to be millionaires who are privately educated we can rest assured that the ‘new progressives’ may well be new but are in no way progressive.

EDUCATION! OCCUPATION! ORGANISATION!

Before the election, the buzz word was apathy, and we’d all heard the phrase “no one’s interested in politics anymore”. Since the hung-parliament that delivered this coalition government, who would have thought the fight-back would be spearheaded by students, young people and school children, angry about education cuts and tuition fee increases.

The student protests, and most recently university occupations, have been the most successful form of anti-cuts protest to date, and it’s a shame Aaron Porter (NUS President) did not support the occupations earlier. This is politics in action, and no one can deny their message is getting across in the media and even the Lib Dems are starting to think perhaps they shouldn’t vote for fee increases, knowing support for their party is at rock bottom.

But where the message needs to really hit home is to the rest of us, disgruntled by the cuts. The students have taken the lead, and it’s in everyone’s interest now to get out and show solidarity, show our politicians that it’s not only students who are angry that they will have to bear the brunt of free market capitalist cuts.

And it won’t just do for Labour to criticise the Lib Dems and Conservatives. Labour needs to become THE party for no cuts and court the logical resentment that’s brewing. There’s never been a better time to propose a RADICAL alternative. Shake up the party, Ed Miliband. Get out on the streets with students, strikers and the public to show that Labour is the party of the people it so wants to be.

In recent days, Nick Robinson has described the tuition fees dilemma as the Lib Dem’s Iraq war. The Lib Dems need to make sure they don’t make the mistake Labour did by going against thousands of voices out on the street. Listen to all the angry students, listen to the number of people who are/would be out supporting them if they weren’t working, and make the right decision. We don’t care about your reputation, but we do care about the future of thousands of children, and so do they.

Top 10: Dystopian Novels

10. Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury

Fahrenheit 451 is a bleak vision of a future where literature and free thought are outlawed. In Bradbury’s macabre world fireman don’t fight fires, they start them to burn books. Originally serialised by Playboy, Fahrenheit 451 attacks state censorship and explores the value of literature and the effects of television and mass media on reading.

9. The Road by Cormac McCarthy

The Road charts the journey of an unnamed father and son in a post-apocalyptic world. The anonymity of the characters focuses attention on their struggle for survival whilst the unspecified disaster – climate change, nuclear fall-out or natural disaster – leaves the reader intrigued. The delicate use of language contrasts to some of the shocking events within the book whilst themes focus on courage, love, hatred and despair.

8. A Very British Coup by Chris Mullin

Although A Very British Coup’s dystopian credentials can be questioned, the frightening mobilisation of the conservative establishment against the democratically elected working-class Prime Minister Harry Perkins draws alarming parallels with contemporary politics. Many of the issues raised – a reactionary and ubiquitous civil service coupled with an all-powerful self-interested media – resonate with the politics of today. The novel may lack the violence of other dystopian novels, but it certainly feels the most real – and it makes you wonder whether a progressive or socialist government would ever be allowed to exist.

7. The Day of the Triffids by John Wyndham

The Day of the Triffids expresses many of the political concerns of the early 1950s – the Cold War, the fear of biological warfare, the man-made holocaust – but it is the issues of environmental sustainability and genetic modification which echo today. Wyndham skilfully creates a hugely compelling post-apocalyptic world of anarchy, violence and love. With much of humanity condemned to terminal blindness, what is the biggest threat to survival –the terrifying flesh-eating triffids or the self-destructive nature of mankind?

6. A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess

A Clockwork Orange is the tale of tearaway teenager Alex who spends his time tormenting society with ultra-violence. The book explores the machinations of a totalitarian police state and asks how far the establishment will go to enforce law. Written from Alex’s perspective, Burgess adopts a futuristic slang based on Russian dialect which – although initially confusing – serves to pacify the incessant violence. Burgess’ genius lies in his ability to make Alex sympathetic in contrast to the brutal state.

5. The Trial by Franz Kafka

The Trial is the chilling tale of a senior bank clerk, Josef K, who is arrested and prosecuted by an inaccessible labyrinthine judiciary. The nature of the crime is never revealed to K, but still he must blindly build his defence against the omnipresent bureaucratic monolith. The plot and Kafka’s writing style creates a tense and confused atmosphere reflecting the mental state of the protagonist. The hellish nightmare is festooned with mysterious dead ends and wonderfully surreal characters whilst the conclusion is powerfully harrowing.

4. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

Brave New World is a satirical tour de force with numerous references to classical literature, Soviet communism and American consumerism. It is overflowing with time-honoured dystopian themes – the dangers of an all-powerful state, the incompatibility of truth and happiness, consumerism and alienation. The central theme, however, is the use of technology to control society – particularly reproduction – and the stark chasm between technological advancement and personal fulfilment.

3. We by Yevgeny Zamyatin

George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four owes much to the plot, theme and characters of Zamyatin’s masterpiece. We tells the tale of one man’s struggle against an omniscient and omnipotent dictator. Printed in 1920s Russia, Zamyatin’s all-powerful Benefactor is a chilling foreshadow of Stalin’s totalitarianism. It is the archetypical dystopian novel and is a resounding champion for individual freedom.

2. Animal Farm by George Orwell

Animal Farm is an accessible and enthralling political fable about a workers’ revolution gone wrong. Orwell’s allegory is a razor-sharp satire on Soviet Russia as the oppressed animals of Manor Farm overthrow their human overlord only to succumb to the same laws of prejudice and hierarchy. The story is overflowing with beautifully crafted characters – from the inspirational Stakhanovite workhorse Boxer to the terrifying Stalinist pig Napoleon. Animal Farm is hilarious and poignant in equal measure. All dystopian novels are equal, but some dystopian novels are more equal than others...

1. Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell

Nineteen Eighty-Four is consistently recognised as the definitive dystopian novel. Orwell skilfully explores how a totalitarian government can manipulate the populace by re-writing history, manufacturing news and waging perpetual war. Many of its themes and phrases – Big Brother, Orwellian nightmare, Thought Police, Room 101 doublethink and newspeak – are in common parlance today whilst its themes of media control and perennial war remain hugely relevant. This novel is doubleplusgood.