Friday, 3 June 2011

Political blogging - by Richard... Friday, June 03, 2011


Rather amusingly, the self-important Business Insider has published a post telling, giving us novices the lowdown on "The 10 People You Have To Follow To Understand British Politics". Thereafter follow details of ten political bloggers, starting with Guido Fawkes and Iain Dale, followed by Ellie Gellard and Will Straw, son of former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

The last of the ten is the BBC's Nick Robinson and, I suppose, if you live inside the bubble, the choice offered is reasonable, albeit that Dale and a couple of the other bloggers named no longer actually blog. 

However, if you had really wanted to know something about political blogging, straight from the horses arse, you could have signed up for the Total Politics seminar in March where, for a mere £306 (inc VAT and lunch) you could have heard from such luminaries as Iain Dale, Harry Cole, who now runs Guido Fawkes, Laurence Durnan, who blogs at Political Scrapbook, and the claque'sfavourite, Phil Hendren, who blogs as Dizzy Thinks (who last posted on 30 May).

If you live outside the bubble, though, you could hardly do better than look at Orphans for Liberty a newly-formed group blog which brings together over forty independents, in an attempt to make sense of the notoriously unruly and often cliquish blogosphere.

As for our own attempt, the Independent Political Bloggers blog, I had never intended it to be competition for the likes of Orphans. Rather, I had it in mind that it could be a blog about bloggers and blogging. With the clogs and the claque busy promoting each other and sucking up to Guidoand Hannan, I thought it would be a good idea to put the not inconsiderable weight of EURef behind promoting the independents who are often frozen out of the love-fest.

However, the site is genuinely open to all-comers – any independent blogger can join. We have nine members so far, and more in the offing. All have equal rights and I'm not going to tell them what to do – not that I could. Let the site develop in its own way, and acquire its own character. 

Meanwhile, Max has his five-a-day up and Old Rightly has a piece about the EU government.

I've added a blogroll, which has the first 100 sites on it. I hate that type of finicky work, but it's done, showing the ten most recent posts. And, as much as I can, I'm continuing to trawl the web looking for more, and am grateful to readers for pointing to others. Today's collection runs to six, including a blog dealing with one local authority – but that is also politics – and the Justice of the Peace blog.
Here, I have to give a health warning – listing does not imply support or approval. We are getting into murky territory with some of the blogs I've been looking it. And now, I have a genuine dilemma, and need guidance. Should this listing be selective? Should we include all independents and, if not, what should be the selection criteria? Should we include left-wing sites?

The one thing I cannot do, though, is offer a ranking. I'm not going to go down the Dale or Wikio route. You can't herd cats. How can you rank them?

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Silly season comes early - by Richard...

It may be me, but I find myself struggling to find anything sensible in the MSM that is worth blogging on this site. More and more, one draws on one's own resources, using agency material and referring to original sources. Anything one does see has to be checked carefully as errors – even when identified - are unlikely to be acknowledged.


Into that category storms this item (above) which refers to a promise to save "£10 billion" from "stationery". We are told by the Failygraph that the savings in 2013/14 and the following year will reach £3 billion, so "total savings in the current four-year spending round would be around £10 billion".


However, while the rompers play in the Failygraph editorial office, the grown-ups in The Financial Time (above) are telling us that central government will save more than £3bn ($5bn) a year, or a quarter of its £13bn spending on "common goods and services such as stationery, office services, consultancy and travel costs, by 2015".

What is interesting here is to see that "consultancy" is included in the list, which is a serious item of expenditure. Last year, government spending on this category was recorded at £1.8 billion. The Department of Health spent most (£480,402,000) followed by the Department for International Development (£288,100,000) and the Home Office (£194,116,000). The total bill, not rounded, came to £1,809,676,000.

And also included in these projected savings are travel costs, with  the public sector paying out £2.45 billion in 2008-9, and central government departments spending £662 million. The total bill includes air travel and chauffeur-driven limousines, so there is scope for considerable savings here.

As for government stationery, actual annual costs for all public sector organisations run to about £850 million – a large enough figure but nowhere approaching the billions suggested by theFailygraph.

Furthermore, the cost savings programme is presented as a new initiative by Francis Maude, who is cited as saying that "his team" had found that across Whitehall, around 15,000 different items of stationery are being bought. Under the new centralised system, that will fall to 600,000, he says (That's what the paper says, so it must be true).

"It is bonkers for different parts of Government to be paying vastly different prices for exactly the same goods", Maude tells us. "We are putting a stop to this madness which has been presided over for too long".

However, typos apart, one wonders if this is simply a rehash of old news. There has in fact been a rationalisation programme going on for some time, as this 2007 report from the Office of Government Commerce indicates (right). This looks to be a continuation of the process. Government departments simply do not move that quickly, and could not yield savings of the scale claimed by Maude unless the initiative already had a head of steam.

Thus, it seems, with a little more research, this could have been an interesting story, rather than the line adopted by the media, which seems to be to rehash of a government press release. Once again, it seems, newspapers are a time-consuming way of being ill-informed, some more than others.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

More thievery - by Richard...


Immunity of the green brigade from "cuts" continues apace, with Conwy Council in Wales buying in a recycling officer, while cutting back elsewhere.


As core services are trimmed, this epidemic of greenery is becoming a national scandal, where local government is becoming a repository for useless mouths.


Thus do we see Enfield Council looking for a strategic individual as "Head of Sustainability", to "ensure we meet our commitments for a sustainable environment". We want to reduce our own impact on the environment and also to facilitate, encourage and bring investment into the borough, to support communities and businesses to develop sustainable futures.

Yet, on the other hand, we see frontline services such as education are to be hit. As the local newspaper reports (above), Finance cabinet member Andrew Stafford has announced the need for £6.8m of budget cuts  to be made. Funds for measures to tackle unemployment, education support, children’s services, vulnerable adults and community safety, are all to be affected. But, clearly, "saving the planet" is ring-fenced. If the planet is in danger, saving it has never been safer.  


And then, of course, there are the libraries - that favourite standby for cuts, guaranteed to get the local press interested and the protesters out in force. Just don't mention the "green jobs".

Here, one is pleased here to see the idea of the "Big Society" tested to destruction, with Conservative-controlled Oxfordshire county council replacing professional librarians with volunteers in the Boy's Witney constituency, and in the neighbouring Wantage constituency, where culture minister Ed Vaizey holds court. One wonders why this principle could not be extended to "sustainability officers", as the toilers in that particular vineyard do seem to need rather a lot of sustaining.

COMMENT: SPEECHLESS THREAD

Print ready

Revolutionary times - by Richard... Thursday, June 02, 2011


Scholars tend to agree that the primary cause for revolution is widespread frustration with socio-political situation, and there is general accord as to the meaning of the term.

And, if the survey by the German institute Friedrich Ebert is any guide, we are getting close to revolutionary conditions. From a sample of more than 5,000 adults from Germany, Britain, Spain, France and Poland, researchers found that trust in their governments has considerably declined.

Only six percent of those surveyed had a great deal of confidence in their governments, while 46 percent of the participants said they did not trust their statesmen very much and some three percent had no trust in their governments at all. From there, however, there is a long way to go before the revolutionary process actually starts, but it seems closest in Greece, or perhaps Spain, where street protests are continuing apace.

According to author Crane Brinton, the revolution goes through a series of stages , beginning with a "financial breakdown of society". From there, there must be an "organisation of the discontented" to remedy this breakdown, who then make "revolutionary demands" which if granted would mean the virtual abdication of those governing.

The next stages, according to the Brinton doctrine, involve the use of force by governments, its failure, and the attainment of power by the revolutionists. The revolutionary group then fragments and power passes in increasingly violent stages from right to left, to the "terror stage", where the revolution devours its children.

Such seems to be the fate of many European countries, and despite the opportunities for relief revolutions afford, these is not to be welcomed. Classically, they are messy, violent affairs, which rarely if ever achieve the objectives of those who start them off. In fact, most often, they are the first to die.

The trick, therefore, it seems to me, is to achieve change in such a manner that it heads off the violent revolution, yet deals with the issues which, if allowed to continue, would inevitably give rise to such a revolution. The challenge, therefore, is to achieve revolution by non-violent means – at which the British are supposedly quite adept – although we have had our moments.

Conventional wisdom – or so I am told – is that to achieve anything of significance, unity is paramount. To that effect, political parties and other campaigning groups set great store by unity, often valuing it above all else.

However, it seems that organisational unity, as such, rather than assisting in the attainment of an objective, is more likely to interfere with it. As different groups strive to promote their own agendas, compromises have to be made. Unity becomes the ultimate objective, requiring the sacrifice of any specific group objectives.

To cite a fairly recent example, "eurosceptic" Conservative workers might accept the rejection of a long-stated wish to repatriate the Common Fisheries Policy, in order to maintain a unified front, in order to win an election. Theory has it that the unity is then prone to fracture after the election – but that it another story.

Thus, it would appear, attempts at unifying disparate organisations – or even individuals – in order to achieve campaign objectives, are not a sensible way forward. Rather than having an organisation and a revolutionary leader in the manner of Lenin, a more effective way of achieving an effect would be for different groups to maintain a unity of purpose, while keeping their separate identities and autonomy of action.

The effect of unity in such a context is similar to that of a magnifying glass concentrating the sun's rays in order to produce a flame. Without the lens, the sun will not have the desired effect. Without unity of purpose, it is difficult to prevail against the forces of government.

And therein lies the ultimate protection for government. It is not so much that it is highly efficient in protecting itself. Simply, its benefits from unity of purpose, derives from the need to perpetuate itself, and enrich its members, whereas the opposition is fragmented and uncoordinated.

But, if the focus derived from unity of purpose is essential for the success of a campaign, it is not enough. The other essential is persistence. One notes that the Chartist demand of universal suffrage did not see fruition until 1918, seventy years had elapsed from the date of publication of the charter, and then not until 1928 for womenaged 21. 

It will be recalled that opponents to the women's vote argued that they should not get the vote "because they were too emotional and could not think as logically as men".

Arguably, we cannot wait as long as the Suffragettes, but it has to be recognised that major change is rarely achieved quickly. On the other hand, persistent failure is timeless. The eurosceptic movement has spent 35 years failing. Success in ten years would be short by comparison.

What the Chartists and the Suffragettes both had in their favour was also the simplicity of their idea, and the broad appeal. The idea of one man (and woman) one vote, was simple to convey and could attract support from across the political spectrum.

Similarly, Referism has that simplicity, and potentially, the same broad appeal. The left, such as it is, and the right, can unite on the need for an annual referendum, as a means of budgetary control over government, albeit from different perspectives and with different objectives.

Thus, we are able to identify four elements necessary for a successful pre-revolutionary campaign, those necessary to head off a violent revolution. Firstly, we need a simple objective, and one with broad appeal. Then we need of campaigners unity of purpose, and persistence.

Of all these, possibly the hardest to achieve is unity of purpose. As I pointed out in the original poston Referism, there will be all sorts of resistance to the idea. 

However, those who have different agendas should ask themselves whether they fulfil the requirements of simplicity and broad appeal, whether they can forge a unity of purpose amongst different groups to achieve their aim and whether the idea is sufficient to inspire persistent campaigning over the years. Campaigners then have to ask themselves what their own objectives are – whether they are campaigning just for the sake of it, or whether they actually want to succeed. 


That question came up when I had the privilege of standing as the candidate for the Referendum Party in Derbyshire South, in the 1997 General. During that time, the founder, James Goldsmith came down to Swadlincote for an epic public meeting - amid dark complaints that he had only set up the Party for his own self-aggrandisement. What none of us knew then was that he was terminally ill with cancer, and had nothing personally to gain.

And that, on the scale of things, applies to most of us. For myself, on and off, I have spent some 35 years fighting the EU. I am not going to see another 35 years, and - like James Goldsmith - I would like to see the glimmerings of success before I die. 

COMMENT THREAD

Posted by Britannia Radio at 13:08