Posts Tagged ‘Politics’
Clegg on VAT
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on June 26th, 2010
I enjoyed Nick Clegg’s efforts on BBC News the other day. He was trying to defend the government’s 20% VAT proposal, increasing it from today’s 17.5%. And, of course, he did very well.
But the truth he couldn’t say, was that the VAT increase would not have been his choice. It cannot be right, in my opinion, to raise sales taxes that affect everyone, when there are income taxes that could be amended to affect only those able to pay. From a personal point of view, a local income tax in place of Council Tax, set at a level that would raise just a little more money from the well-off and taking about the same from those in the worst situations, would have been a fairer way.
But Clegg, if he doesn’t support the VAT increase, cannot say so. He has to compromise on some things much as the Conservatives have compromised.
The government’s doing a good job — I just hope it does as many of the good things that it can, before the next elections when, unless electoral reform is carried out, the old parties will regain power.
The first debate — confirmation
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on April 17th, 2010
I have delayed posting since Thursday’s debate because I did not want to accidentally get caught up in any over-excitement I felt at the clear result.
It was agreed unanimously amongst some friends and myself who all watched it live, that Nick Clegg ‘won’ (I am uncomfortable with that word, but it’s what the media are using), Gordon Brown came second, and David Cameron came last. David Cameron’s placement was a genuine surprise to me as I retain some sympathy for the supposed underlying ideology of liberal Conservativism.
While, obviously, I am delighted that Nick Clegg’s performance has received such widespread publicity, and while I am delighted that this means (at least for now) that we may achieve greater success than ever before, I still have concerns about how this is being covered.
I heard, on Radio 4 and BBC News, several commentators suggest that the debate has caused the public to treat the pollsters as X Factor voting lines and to give Nick Clegg their support because of his polished performance. The reason “confirmation” is in the title of this blog post, is because I believe this change in support for the LibDems is fundamentally about more than personality.
During the last year, I (a political anorak compared to Joe Public) was doing some soul searching. I knew that Cameron was no longer making sense to me and that there was a need to change my allegiance. I also knew that I had changed a little under the surface and that I recognised problems with the pure free market view of the world that I had previously held. You could find, if you were minded to, evidence of this in the archives of this website.
So I researched in detail the options available to me. This process eventually led to me approaching the Liberal Democrats and my subsequent defection.
What the debate on Thursday has done, is share with a much wider audience, the good common sense that liberal ideology and Liberal Democrat policy makes. Where before people considered themselves Labour or Conservative, all people have now had to question whether the party they support because they always have done, now delivers what they want it to.
I have, you will not be surprised to hear, had strong conversations with friends, family and colleagues about Thursday’s events. One of these conversations descended into name calling by the other person in frustration at not being able to justify in his own mind, his support for David Cameron; and one conversation ended in failure to persuade only because the taxation policy, while fair, hurt this particular person more than the vast majority.
The overriding result of my entirely unscientific, personal conversations with people in my life, is that the Liberal Democrats’ policies are right for almost everyone and will definitely improve the lives of absolutely everyone — they will make the lowest paid better off, they will help those trapped in a cycle of crime, they will clean the souls of those who currently do not pay their dues and they will make everyone who currently complains about the fundamental unfairness of X or Y happy by their resolution.
I failed, as it happens, to stop being excited about Thursday’s debate when writing this, but I think you can forgive me that. The bottom line? I was right to switch parties, and my reasons for switching can now be seen by so many more people — those people who now make a graph show 51% Liberal Democrat support on the Guardian website, now understand my decision in November last year!
Vote Liberal Democrat at all levels on 6 May 2010
The Liberal Democrat Party logo
Labservative
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on April 10th, 2010
I find the ‘Labservative’ thing that the Lib Dems are doing a little geeky. The truth is, the Conservatives and Labour are both offering the same with some tinkering around the edges, but the suggestion that they are a single hegemony by merging their names just sounds silly.
The Conservatives are claiming that a vote for my old party would be a vote for change, but the more George Osborn says, the less credible he sounds. His policy on taxing the banks regardless of what other countries do should be evidence enough of this.
It is time for a change in the UK and the only way a change can be brought about is if a party whose ideas are genuinely different, is elected. It may seem like a faint dream, but each one of you can do what you can:
Just vote for the Liberal Democrat candidate!
The Liberal Democrat Party logo
A straight answer on Turing
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on September 11th, 2009
It’s nice to, for once, get a straight answer. Gordon Brown has responded to the Turing apology petition. Here’s a copy of his reply:
Prime Minister: 2009 has been a year of deep reflection – a chance for Britain, as a nation, to commemorate the profound debts we owe to those who came before. A unique combination of anniversaries and events have stirred in us that sense of pride and gratitude which characterise the British experience. Earlier this year I stood with Presidents Sarkozy and Obama to honour the service and the sacrifice of the heroes who stormed the beaches of Normandy 65 years ago. And just last week, we marked the 70 years which have passed since the British government declared its willingness to take up arms against Fascism and declared the outbreak of World War Two. So I am both pleased and proud that, thanks to a coalition of computer scientists, historians and LGBT activists, we have this year a chance to mark and celebrate another contribution to Britain’s fight against the darkness of dictatorship; that of code-breaker Alan Turing.
Turing was a quite brilliant mathematician, most famous for his work on breaking the German Enigma codes. It is no exaggeration to say that, without his outstanding contribution, the history of World War Two could well have been very different. He truly was one of those individuals we can point to whose unique contribution helped to turn the tide of war. The debt of gratitude he is owed makes it all the more horrifying, therefore, that he was treated so inhumanely. In 1952, he was convicted of ‘gross indecency’ – in effect, tried for being gay. His sentence – and he was faced with the miserable choice of this or prison – was chemical castration by a series of injections of female hormones. He took his own life just two years later.
Thousands of people have come together to demand justice for Alan Turing and recognition of the appalling way he was treated. While Turing was dealt with under the law of the time and we can’t put the clock back, his treatment was of course utterly unfair and I am pleased to have the chance to say how deeply sorry I and we all are for what happened to him. Alan and the many thousands of other gay men who were convicted as he was convicted under homophobic laws were treated terribly. Over the years millions more lived in fear of conviction.
I am proud that those days are gone and that in the last 12 years this government has done so much to make life fairer and more equal for our LGBT community. This recognition of Alan’s status as one of Britain’s most
famous victims of homophobia is another step towards equality and long overdue.
But even more than that, Alan deserves recognition for his contribution to humankind. For those of us born after 1945, into a Europe which is united, democratic and at peace, it is hard to imagine that our continent was once the theatre of mankind’s darkest hour. It is difficult to believe that in living memory, people could become so consumed by hate – by anti-Semitism, by homophobia, by xenophobia and other murderous prejudices – that the gas chambers and crematoria became a piece of the European landscape as surely as the galleries and universities and concert halls which had marked out the European civilisation for hundreds of years. It is thanks to men and women who were totally committed to fighting fascism, people like Alan Turing, that the horrors of the Holocaust and of total war are part of Europe’s history and not Europe’s present.
So on behalf of the British government, and all those who live freely thanks to Alan’s work I am very proud to say: we’re sorry, you deserved so much better.
Gordon Brown
If only all the responses to the surveys were so precise and to the point. Maybe cynicism in politics and with politicians would be lower.
The trouble with politicians
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on June 2nd, 2009
It’s liberating. Or so I was told today. And the teller was right. It is.
But the line that triggered it is typically considered politician-poison. And why? Because we have a system which relies upon people who are not intelligent enough to listen to an argument before deciding whether the argument is cogent or not. That system, in case it’s not clear, is democracy using First Past The Post and political parties. Ya boo sucks and I’ll do what I like while wearing this red/blue/yellow rosette and see if you can do anything about it.
The sentence that caused the ‘It’s liberating’ comment?
“I don’t know anything.”
I could claim to know that I believe it is wrong to treat particular sections of society differently to others on the basis of some arbitrary feature or idiosyncrasy. But would I follow my argument to any logical conclusions or would I reach, at some philosophical point, a point where I would have to add a proviso?
If I was interviewed about my political beliefs I could not defend any pre-written ideology to the end. I could not claim to be more able to follow philosophical, moral, cultural or political arguments past the first few bends in the road than the next person. And, actually, very few people have ever been able to. It is why, actually, Greek philosophers and philosophers from a long time ago are still read, enjoyed and debated — there are no right answers.
Politicians in interviews inevitably end up not answering questions. It’s not because they’re stupid, more stupid than the interviewer or, even, because they’re wrong. It’s because it’s bloody hard to make a point that cannot be argued against. And the media that tries to trip politicians up isn’t helping push on the argument.
When a politician says “I believe gay marriage is fair” he’s saying that he does not believe in discriminating arbitrarily against homosexuals. He is not saying that he understands the cultural imperative of marriage (because I’m not sure I do), he’s not saying that it is wrong for a couple (heterosexual or homosexual) to cohabit, he’s not saying that he thinks that the bible is wrong or right, he’s not saying that everyone should like his opinion and he’s not saying “this is what my party thinks”…
He’s saying that he believes gay couples can be as in love as straight couples and they should be allowed to publicly express this in the same manner.
Okay, I know I went off on a tangent about homosexuality but I know it’s a particular divide between the so-called right and the so-called left.
Can we please stop employing interviewers who are after soundbites. Can we please stop quoting soundbites in the ‘news’. And can we please use the BBC (a public service broadcaster afterall) to remind people that at all elections except those to the EU ‘parliament’ we are voting for individuals not parties.
I am a Conservative Councillor but that doesn’t mean I agree with any more than a certain proportion of what David Cameron, John Redwood, Ken Clarke and William Hague believe. It doesn’t mean I agree with any more than a certain proportion of what Adur District Council’s leaders believe and it doesn’t mean that I can be pigeon-holed. In fact I am sure there are Liberal Democrat, UKIP and Green politicians who I share more beliefs with than I do with some Conservatives.
I stood for the Conservatives at the last election to my Ward in Adur and I am still pleased I did that. I shall make an announcement at some stage about my plans for next May (2010) when my seat will next be contested. But if I do contest that seat base your decision on me, not on my party affiliation and not on what the Council as a whole does or does not do (which is a whole other post).
Christians and Conservativism
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on May 11th, 2009
I was discussing the seven deadly sins with some friends the other day. For those of you who don’t remember them, here they are in no particular order:
- Greed
- Envy
- Lust
- Gluttony
- Pride
- Wrath
- Sloth
Now having listed those, let me sling something into your consciousness: most right-wing parties in Europe and the Americas tend to be Christian parties.
Surely if right-wing parties are more often the home of Christians in politics, the policies of right-wing parties must suit those people’s morals? But doesn’t the ‘Loads-a-money’ caricature of 80s Conservativism stinks rather of gluttony, pride and envy?
In fact post-Thatcher Britain has been struck by all of these ‘sins’. Aside from those with eating disorders, I would have thought that everyone has sinned with greed (and those with eating disorders, religion tells us with no hint of sympathy, have sinned with pride). Anyone who enters the lottery and does not intend on giving away all but what they ‘need’ has sinned with envy and would sin with gluttony. Everyone who has watched a football match and willed their own team on is verging on wrath.
I know of no man who has not noticed in an inappropriate way (for the sin of lust) an attractive woman (or man — although homosexuality and religion really don’t like being in the same sentence). And those of us with a mirror in their bathroom have at least a little pride.
In fact, of the ‘sins’ on that list, wrath is best avoided (but is a character trait for some) and envy is truly unpleasant. Aside from those two, I would proudly admit to having committed them all!
Maybe Conservatives and Christians are similar in not thinking about some aspects of life in any detail: How many of us can name, for instance, a deeply religious (Christian) person who has not read the bible? How many of us can name a strongly Conservative person who would secretly admit to believing homosexuality is unnatural? I would suggest that both these positions are illogical and so fit well together in the same person.
New Testament Christians, if they agreed with Jesus tipping the tables in the synagogue, if they agreed that gluttony, greed and pride are sins, if they believe there’s something metaphysically bigger, really should be socialists or libertarians.
Why the EU is like China
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on March 13th, 2009
It has been suggested to me privately, that my last post was not accurate because “The comparison is ridiculous. I don’t think EU imposes any birth control policies on UK teenagers for example.”
So here is my response:
The comparison is specific: The EU does not allow the votes of the electorate, the results of plebiscites or the will of the populace to decide what it does. Worse, when an electorate opposes something, the EU claims that it was a protest about an unrelated issue.
The EU is currently instituting all the major objectionable features of the Lisbon Treaty (formerly known as the Constitutional Treaty) despite “No” votes in three member countries and so the failure to ratify the treaty in national parliaments. If the EU cared what the people thought it would make the following changes tomorrow:
1. It would offer a referendum on the EU Constitutional Treaty;
2. It would cease all implementation activity on Constitutional Treaty proposals that are being carried out elsewhere;
3. It would allow elections for the Commission which performs a role much like the cabinet / President of most countries in the world and so should be elected.
When the public care
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on March 3rd, 2009
I’ve said before (I didn’t check to add a link but feel free to have a look using the search box) that the public do not seem to care about anything District/Borough Councils do unless they live in a Council house except, that is, for planning.
Last night’s planning (‘Development Control’) meeting was typically busy (in the gallery) and today I received five letters from members of the public on another planning application. Normally I will receive an average of one per week on any other topic, but today I received five week’s worth of normal post on one planning application. The application can be found here Adur Council planning reference: ADC/0023/09.
The separate documents, if you struggle with the above site, are here (These links will likely go out of date so do use the above link if you want the current information):
When I was first elected to the Council I was told that I should not discuss a planning application before a meeting. And at the time I thought that was a little draconian. But as time has passed, I have seen why. Despite thorough research, reading the application, viewing the drawings and visiting the site there is always something said at a meeting in the committee that affects your opinion. I never cease to be amazed that my opinion on an application can be so swiftly affected by what people say at these meetings.
If a debate is held outside of the meeting then a decision may be made for perfectly good reasons but the lack of public conversation of the matter would be anti-democratic and frustrating for the general public. It is for this reason, and not because of the law, that I will not discuss this application or give any hint to my (initial) opinion on it.
But wouldn’t it be great if the public were motivated to care about more that the Council does? I think there are a few reasons why they are not:
- Central government in England (the UK Parliament) tells us mostly what we can and cannot do and so there is little to get animated about — whatever we do is because it is the only thing allowed within the London framework we are given.
- People don’t like some of what we do but because of (1) see no point in telling us.
- They don’t understand the democratic process and doubt that we will change our minds.
This last one is the most poisonous. Cllr. Searle and I attended a public meeting about a proposed development last year and it resulted in the land that was proposed to be developed being given village green status (Adur Press Release) — the arguments were cogent. But if you were at the meeting you would think we had already made a decision — the public were angry, aggressive (in a few cases) and dismissive.
Cynicism has destroyed civic spirit and I don’t know how to resolve that.
