Category Archives: Politics

The Perversion of Empire {Carl Packman}

Posted on by

We live in an age of bombast. Anyone who has seen Eddie Izzard’s show Circle will know of the skit he does about the word awesome, used so liberally now that even hot-dogs can be described as awesome, and of course if a hot-dog is considered awesome, what words will be available in our bank to describe the first landing on Mars, or our first sighting of Erkel.

Today the word empire and imperialism are used out of place, obscuring those original meanings. People go forth on these words particularly with regards to US and European ventures in the Middle East.

My own view is that it was unnecessary to be too instrumental in the creation of Afghan and Iraqi governments, not for the oversimplified reason that democracy building equals empire (it doesn’t) but because it was unnecessary in the war on terror (by and large a war against terror cells and factions). Regime change follows stripping the influence and power of those cells and ripping down the cash channels between neighbouring terror cells.

I opposed the Iraq war on the grounds that it was an own goal, and I still do, but the Taliban continues to forge power in northern provinces of Afghanistan and wields power by setting up fake checkpoints and unleashing suicide attacks. Reports back in 2009 suggest that families in Kunduz, a northern city in Afghanistan, and capital of the Kunduz Province, have been sending one son to join the Taliban in case militants take back control of that region again.

Fear pervades that region, and the Western troops ought to play a role in training Afghan forces to take power away from the hands of Taliban forces. Whatever ones view, that venture is not one of empire, and good reason too, because empire is over.

But one man who is not amused by the setting of the sun on the empire is Niall Ferguson – the man Michael Gove jumped up and down to clapping like an inebriated guinea fowl – empire apologist courted by the department of education.

Ferguson has been characterised as the Jamie Oliver of History, but this is not true, because as far as I can tell Oliver can at least tell his mange tout from his lady fingers.

In Ferguson’s opinion history is a discipline that won’t be jeopardised by strong opinion. Barely concealing his apologies for the British Empire, and criticising the American Empire for not being enough like the former, is one thing, but basic knowledge can remind you that history is at least the one subject where a relaxation of emotional attachment to a political ideology is vital.

In fact, the first lesson of relaying the objective facts lent to us by history is to leave agendas aside (they can obscure our understanding, and drag historical literature down to the level of chinese whispers).

Well this simply isn’t on the menu for Ferguson, who will now be in charge of deciding what goes in and what stays out of the curriculum of history for children (perhaps this is why the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority – a non department body – has been scrapped by the new coalition government).

Gove’s reason for allowing this is because he believes in traditional history teaching. We can guess what this means (Tudors, Saxons, Smurfs, Pingu etc) but is Ferguson the architect of traditional history, or is he to history what Mao was to the open society.

Gove uses the word tradition like some talk of empire today; perversely.

James Yardley on The Elusive Peace – An examination into the future of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Part 2.

Posted on by

The Elusive Peace – An examination into the future of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Part 2 – What are the internal divisions within Israel and how does this affect the chances of a future peace settlement with the Palestinians.

Israel

At first glance Israel appears a united country but when it comes to the question of the Palestinians, Israel is deeply divided. These divisions are exacerbated by Israel’s electoral system which is one of proportional representation. Israel has a wide range of different political parties. Many are very small special interest parties often campaigning on a single policy. The Israeli parliament, the Knesset is made up of 120 seats. To form a government a party needs to gain 61 seats. However because of the system of proportional representation no party ever forms a majority. In 2009 the largest party Kadima achieved only 22% of the vote gaining 28 seats. Miles short of the 61 needed for a majority.

Israeli governments tend to be a fragile coalition of various parties and as a result tend to be weak. Often the main body of a coalition may struggle to appease more radical elements. Unsurprisingly the average Israeli government has only lasted 25 months as inevitably elements within the coalition fall out with one another. A series of weak governments has made it difficult for an Israeli prime ministers to take decisive action regarding the Palestinian question.

An important point to consider in regard to the Palestinian question is that Israel is surprisingly only about 70% Jewish. There is a substantial and growing Arab minority making up around 20% of the population. There are two Israeli Arab political parties, United Arab List (4 seats) and Balad (3seats). Some commentators have speculated there is potential for internal conflict should this minority continue to grow. The strained situation is heightened by the fact that the Arab minority maintains very close ties with those in the occupied territories. There have already been incidents of rioting and unrest during the first intifada (1987-1993) and the second intifada (2000- ).

Many in Israel are also very much aware of this threat. This is illustrated by Yisrael Beiteinu, a secular nationalist party which uses the slogan, ‘no loyalty, no citizenship’ towards Israeli Arabs and is described by the Israeli media as ‘far right’. The party wants to create a new Palestinian state and then transfer areas of high Arab population in Israel to this new state in exchange for Jewish areas in the West Bank. Despite being a very new party founded in 1999, which initially only achieved 4 seats, it has now grown to be the third largest party in the Knesset gaining 15 seats in the 2009 general election. Israeli Arabs remain vehemently opposed to the idea. Israel has a much greater standard of living compared the occupied territories.

Likud (27 seats) the party of the current prime minister Netanyahu continue to oppose the creation of a Palestinian state and supports the building of more settlements within the West Bank. Shas (11seats) a religious party also tends to support this policy.

It has always been Likud’s policy to seek the whole land of Israel including in particular the areas of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). They believe Israel has a right to own this land. This is why Israeli settlement building continues.

In the past their have been big internal divisions within the party and the country regarding the policy. This was most famously highlighted when Ariel Sharron (then prime minister and leader of Likud and previously known as the champion of the settlers) abandoned the policy and his party in 2005 forming a new centrist party (Kadima) in order to carry out a disengagement plan. Removing Israeli settlements from Palestinian areas in Gazza and some areas of the West Bank.

The withdrawal has been heavily criticised within Israel for many reasons and many view it as a failure given the Hamas rocket attacks from Gazza in 2008. Since the withdrawal Israeli public opinion has seen a large shift in support back towards the right. In the most recent elections Likud more than doubled its number of seats.

A combination of deep internal divisions and successive weak governments continue to contribute to the lack of progress regarding a settlement with the Palestinians. Although these are by no means the only or most important factors. In the next article we will examine the impact of internal Palestinian divisions on a future peace settlement.

by James Yardley

Michael Green interview. On Philanthrocapitalism, Thatcher and why globalisation is a good thing.

Posted on by

I was honored to interview Michael Green recently. Here is the interview. Buy his books, Philanthrocapitalism
and Road To Ruin

Tell me about philanthrocapitalism.

What I can tell you about the genesis of the book, Matthew and I are old friends from school and then we both studied economics at university, and then went off in very different directions. He went off to the Economist writing about business, I ended up in Government working on international aid, we stayed friends and we talked about things in the world. About 5 or 6 years ago we came together again because Matthew was going out and talking to all of these Silicon Valley top entrepreneurs who were all getting into philanthropy.

I think because they saw themselves as natural problem solvers so they very quickly got into philanthropy. So Matthew was going along to talk about business and they would start having a conversation with him about philanthropy. So he was coming to me because I was working in aid. Saying: ‘what do you think about what these people are doing?’ Do you think it’s any good?’ My initial response was what they were doing was interesting, but they are business and aid is all about government.

My mind started to be changed when you saw people like Bill Gates [ doing his foundation]. So Matthew and I decided that we were starting to see a new trend from different perspectives. His from the business side and mine from the government aid side. So we decided to get together and chart what was going on. So the real time was about 2006 with Warren Buffet, giving his money to Bill Gates for his foundation. So here were the two richest men in the world who up until then had not really been big philanthropists. 
What we decided to do was go through all these different philanthropists, started from a position of some scepticism. The good ones in business actually had a lot of value to add, but what I saw was that the government can do some things well but the government is never going to be very good at taking risks.

Government is never going to be innovative. Whether that be politicians or civil servants or anyone. We don’t have government to do those risky things. So actually these people playing the role of being the rich capitalist in our system may be good ideas, to then be implemented later by government. So that was how we came up with the book.

So philanthrocapitalism is really about two things: One, the way the super rich donors are applying the skills of business to giving, using the tools in which they made money to giving their money away. The second idea is, if you look back in history, whenever you have a golden age of capitalism you will always have a golden age of philanthropy. So rather than philanthropy and capitalism being opposites. Philanthropy is the thing that complements the capitalism. Because capitalism creates disruption and turbulence in the world. Because it brings change. So essentially entrepreneurs are implementing that change through our history. 
They have been most sensitive to those changes and they have also been aware of their own responsibility to mitigate the impact of those changes. And deal with the social and environmental consequences of that change. So philanthropy is the thing that complements capitalism. To keep it sustainable in the long term. So philanthrocapitalism is about that. The word itself was Matthew’s bright virgin idea. The point: people who do best out of our economic system have an obligation in their own self interest to give back to all the rest of society.

Can ordinary people do anything to help?

The book first came out on the autumn of 2008. The paperback came out autumn 2009. In the original book we talked a bit about some of these online giving sites like kiva.org and global giving, but actually when we wrote the paperback we wrote a whole new chapter because we were being a witness to change. We called it mass philanthrocapitalism.

These sites on the internet are giving individual givers so much power these days. The way the internet has transformed business, it is now transforming giving. Online giving tools allow people to be selective in their giving. I give money to a charity, I have no idea how my money is used. They send me back a load of photos, saying haven’t we done well. These new online giving tools tell me exactly where my money is going. It helps me feel really connected. The way these transform business and giving. It allows ‘ordinary people’ to really do amazing things.

Tell me about your background

I grew up in the most boring part of south – west London. Glaswegian by birth. Left when I was 2 and a half. Was a Geordie for two and half years. Moved to the most boring part of south west London and grew up there until I went to university. In 1992 there was a chance to go and teach economics in Poland, which actually was funded by George Soros so I leapt at the chance. I spent four years in Warsaw. Fascinating time until 1996 when that country was changing and how they managed that transformation. When I arrived there of course Poland was really in the doldrums and just after the first year it really started picking up and recovering. So I learnt a huge amount then about the role of business and all these things about development and how that change really pushed Poland ahead. Came back to Britain, didn’t have a job, and I got taken in by government, working as an economist, doing aid. Thought I would do it for a year. Then found out I really enjoyed it. So stayed for 12 years and left 18 months ago.

Will poverty ever be eradicated?

Pockets of poverty. Say people living on less than 60% of median wage. I don’t think you will ever eradicate that. There will always be really big inequality. I think in terms of absolute poverty. People living on a dollar a day, people not being able to go to school, very high levels of disease that can be eradicated. I think we do have the resources to do it.

We do have the tools but what we are missing is the political will. With the right political will there are so many problems in the world that can be solved. And when I talk about Political will I am talking about the government of developing countries. That is the real missing piece of the jigsaw. And that has really got to be changed.

Has the recession hurt?

It has definitely hurt overall giving. The figures for UK giving have fallen by about a billion, I think, because of the recession. In terms of big philanthropy we haven’t. I think the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation for example is giving more. If you look at the latest Forbes list, wealth is recovering, so definitely, the richest are still spending money and the will of the rich to give is still there. It may even be stronger after the recession. A lot of people said this was a passing thing. A lot of our critics said this was a passing fad, that philanthrocapitalism was part of the bubble. But we have seen over the past few years is that giving is resilient. There has been some setback but I think it is going to come back even stronger over the next few years.

What can be done to promote long term social change?

Some of the things that will have an effect on social change are technology. If you look at global changes, the big challenge over the next fifty years is going to be the change of agriculture particularly. I think we have a huge challenge over the next fifty years. So you have got to see social changes in the context of ecological changes. So that is a negative change.

You also have huge opportunities, like the internet. Lots of the problems in the developing world can be solved by mobile phones. I think this could be the most transformative technology. One is it’s a way of getting information to those people. It is now a way you can transfer money to those people. It is a way for them to communicate to the rest of the world. Even more importantly what the mobile phone is doing in developing countries is allowing people to have their voice heard. So one of the impacts of the mobile phone on the developing countries that you see is that it is much harder for dictators to rig elections. Because if you have people with mobile phones outside polling stations you could say. ‘I have not been allowed to vote. They are stuffing the ballot box.’ They can phone in and share that to the rest of the world.

It is a huge tool for democratization. It allows people voices to be heard. In so many ways traditional government programmes are still those sort of 20th century, we decide what the targets are and then we tell people what they are getting. What the internet and the mobile phone allow us to do is create this dialogue of communication with people, but actually it means we can customize information, focus on what people really need, that is huge potential transformation. It brings the poor into the discussion about the kind of transformation they need rather than giving them what they think they need.

How do we balance the line between helping and a dependency culture?

I think the real challenge here is how do we actually help the poor to help themselves, whether in this country, or in another country. To take control and escape from poverty. Instead of being trapped in this dependency culture. There are a couple of things, in the developing world; you have got to give them property rights. There is a brilliant economist, Hernando De Soto, who shows that is the lack of property rights in the developing world that holds them down. You need to have a state that enforces those rights. You also have to provide those people with assets. Not just inanimate assets, but also skills and education 
The way to help the poor is that you give them assets that they can use. We all aspire to a better life but how do you give people the tools to do that? People know that it has to be education. That is 
how you create a level playing field. If you give people education I think they will find their way out. That is the secret.

What do you think of the growing divide between the rich and the poor?

If you look at the average incomes in the past 20 years. At the start of the 20th century there was a peak in super wealth. And then there is a huge reduction in inequality, what they call in America, the great compression, in the middle of the 20th century. Then in the last 30 years, basically since the Reagan era there was this massive spike in inequality. The rich have had the greatest share out of economic growth. The super rich have not even peaked yet. There has been a massive spread in inequality. I am less worried about inequality per se. I don’t think all inequality is bad. It does not bother me about the super rich. The real question is ‘are people trapped in dependency?’ Are people trapped in poverty. That is different. That to me is the real question rather than just the inequality.

Where do you think aid is needed?

There are a couple of things. Say a country like Pakistan. Here is a country whose poverty has gotten no better in 30 years. Over that same period, here is country who has managed to develop nuclear weapons. So, actually there are the resources in that society to meet the needs of the population. So the people who run the country choose not to allocate the resources. 
This is true of so many developing countries. The country in Africa with the most amount of poor people is Nigeria, which also has spectacular wealthy rich people. Are the population receiving a decent amount of the wealth of the country? 
Political leaders do not see that as something they have to do. I think one of the good things the philanthropist have done is challenge some of those systems. There is a guy called Mo Ibrahim who set up the CelTel company, who brought the mobile phones to Africa. He sold to MTC Kuwait, but what he has done is use lots of his money to run a foundation which is giving an annual prize to the best political leader in Africa. 
Basically, he has these people at Harvard that rank all the political leaders in Africa. Then he gives a prize to the person who has done the best job. What he says is that he is trying to start a debate about it. About political leadership. So the ordinary person will say, hold on, why has my guy not won? Actually there are real objective reasons, because my guy is not really doing anything. We have to see that change in the developing world. Where the leaders actually start serving ordinary people.

Do you think there will be a future revolution?

Slightly worried that there is the potential for a tremendous backlash against capitalism. Not in terms of an economic system, but in massive regulation. That would strain the whole financial sector. I don’t think people realise just how angry the public are about the financial crisis. It is not something that is going to go away.

We have this new book that has just come out in the States called ‘The Road form ruin’ which takes a look at the financial crisis. We have taken a look at the crises in the past and which shows how long the public stays angry. What we look at is banker bashing with regulations. This is where the captains of industry have to say, ‘we do have a responsibility to society.’ They have to start talking to society about how what they do is socially useful. If they don’t, the backlash could still come.

What influence do you think the coalition government is going to have? Will it make it better or worse?

I think this government … The natural assumption is that the Conservative manifesto talks tough about the banks butmost people are going to assume that behind the scenes they won’t do anything about it. On the other hand the lib-dems have this very easy populism. This was essentially the populism of a party that would never come into power. I think we could actually have a dream team here – you have a recognition that change has to happen because there is public anger, but also recognition that our future prosperity is at stake if we over-regulate. 
We have to build a better financial sector. What they are saying in the coalition document on financial reform is nothing particularly exciting. But I am encouraged about the idea of having a commission that will look at future financial regulation, to think seriously about how you rebuild the financial sector. The coalition could go either way; into heady populism, the other way into doing nothing. But there is also a chance that there will be some real change.

I do not know what ‘Big society’ actually means. All I have seen come out of the coalition so far has not told us much more what it is about. What my big concern about this is that I don’t know how much the big society actually owes to Phillip Blond and the ‘Red Tory.’ I think reading ‘Red Tory’ what really strikes me is that he has this huge resentment off capitalism and the financial market. My fear would be that, therefore, the big society vision sees itself as something that is about specific sectors, like the social enterprise sector on its own. Rather than being connected. 
Which I think would be enormously disenchanting.

I think it has to be reworked to check out the link between the city, and the big society. We have to bring the skills from the city to support the big society vision. I think there is something potentially really transformative. If you ring-fence the big society and keep it away from capitalism, I think it is just going to be a small experiment that is not going to go very far…the government has to think how it will work interacting with the big society. Should you be actually ring fencing parts of government departmental budgets?

I wonder what Phillip thinks about capitalism… I have been reading ‘Red Tory’ and one of the examples he gives for his vision is micro-finance… By the way of investing in micro-finance as a commercial product. Which I think is a great story as micro-finance started out as charity but has becomes a full, proper business. You actually have micro-finance banks raising money on the global capital market, which of course, is all this capital sloshing around which can then be financing the poor. It’s easy to bash capitalism but actually it has enormous potential to do good.

When you talk to leading CEO’s they really do get it. They are serious about giving back to society. A lot of people like to dismiss this as ‘capitalism is just evil.’ I don’t think that is true. If you meet these people they are passionate and committed. They see that you cannot separate the fortune of their company from the fortunes of the rest of society. The two are linked. Companies have to do well by doing good. That is what good capitalism is about. That is what people who hate capitalism do not want to see.

Why do you think people are so wary of capitalism?

We take what capitalism gives us for granted. What changed my mind about capitalism was living in Poland. One of the blinding conversions I had in Poland, was actually that I learned to love McDonalds. When I arrived in Warsaw there was no McDonalds, but there was a local version called Hamburger Max. Their largest burger was a ‘Big Max’. Just a rip off of McDonalds. The food was terrible, it was expensive and the toilets were disgusting. McDonalds came in, I am not saying it is the greatest food, but it was clean and it was inexpensive. You knew what you were getting. It changed the way people invested in Poland. They were providing a very valuable service. I am not saying feed your children McDonalds three times a day. I am not advocating that. But these businesses that are often seen as the bad face of capitalism. They add value and change the economy.

What do you think about Globalisation?

I am very pro. In a country like Poland, it was globalization that helped them make their economic reforms such as success. The thing about globalisation and trade is that it is win-win. The one thing that most economists agree on is free trade. Economists are usually miserable people. They say you can only have one thing if you don’t have something else. Trade is the one thing in economics that is definitely win-win. The power of that to transform is so powerful. A lot of the anti- globalisation lobby is, I think sometimes it’s a rage against change and sometimes its anti corporate mentality and they do not see the opportunity. 
I sometimes want to cry when I see what Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, says about trade. He is hugely influential. He has these articles written, presumably by Christian Aid that is all sort of anti trade. It is really bad.

Do you think people ever change their mind?

You have to remember that people are tribal, However, we have access to so much information now that people will have the knowledge to change their mind. I would really worry if I was running a large charity these days. I would worry about the hold on my membership. People have so much access to information.

Do you think George Osborne will be a good chancellor?

I think the six billion cut was a mistake. Interest rates are still basically at zero. What that means it that the economy is on life support. We are hopeful that it is actually starting to recover. The first quarter growth figures are at 0.3%. 
There are signs of recovery, but we won’t know that. By the end of this financial year, debt to national income will be 70%; the USA will be 80%.Greece is way over 100% Therefore UK debt it manageable. I don’t think we have to make cuts to re-assure the market. There is no way to know for certain, but I would err on the side of caution. I can see why Osborne did it. It is probably necessary, because if you are campaigning on the back of it, when you come into power you have to say; ‘Look, we found six billion pounds’. It was political necessary but economically unnecessary. Low marks so far but for understandable reasons.

Will the economy get worse?

If you are on a tracker mortgage, during the course of the recession you will have been better off. When we start to see more of those job cuts coming through, particularly in the public sector, unemployment it not going to come down very quickly. What has happened in this recession is that firms have not been so quick to get rid of staff so quickly, but that also means they are unlikely to start hiring quickly. 
Unemployment will not come down for a few years. What we will get is a loss of social welfare for ordinary people. I think we are not out of the woods yet. Do I think there is another meltdown coming? There is always a risk but I can’t see something particularly looming. Even without another meltdown it is going to feel really bad.

I came across a quote recently by Margaret Thatcher. It said: ‘The problem with socialism is that other people’s money runs out.’ My friend, Nick’s, comment on this was: ‘ The problem of capitalism is that the money to bail the banker’s runs out.’ Who is right?

It is all about other people’s money. I think we have forgotten about this. That the money the bankers are playing with is actually our money. Our money invested in pension funds, invested in savings. That money is actually being kept by mutual funds, and pension funds and they are the people who were most asleep at the wheel. 
Who are the most short-term investors in the markets? The pension and mutual funds. Were they challenging the boards of the banks, the finance houses, when our money was being spent on exorbitant bonuses? They weren’t. That is one of the things that we do in the new book, ‘The Road From Ruin’. Democracy works because we have a competent citizenry of educated people who are willing to challenge, and want their voice to be heard. 
The democracy of the market needs the same things. We have become better informed consumers, using fair trade, ethical products. Etc, but we are still very dumb investors. Do we ever ask how our pension funds are used? How our savings are invested? No. We don’t do that about government money. Or any other money. 
We have to take responsibility on how our money is being spent. Is it any wonder? We have to take responsibility on how capitalism runs.

You mentioned Thatcher. The thing about the Thatcher period was how economically incompetent it was. It is very strange, overly dogmatic. It was just bad economic management. So many ideas were pushing in the right direction, but where badly implemented. It is a very odd paradox about the Thatcher period in that it was almost, not an economic project. The way they just mismanaged and engineered a recession in the early 80’s was pure incompetence. In the way it was implemented, and then the 1987 bust and the recession that came that was caused by Nigel Lawson.

Thatcherism was such a political project. There was something vicious about it. As it was one half of a nation declaring war on another part of the nation. I personally cannot forgive. There was so much unnecessary damage done to our country. In the name of war on our own society. That did so much damage to so many communities. That it was not governing in the best interests of the country. I think Cameron failing to win a majority is still in that legacy. The fact that they did not win any more seats in Scotland. That is the legacy of the pain that they inflicted.

[CB: I still hate Margaret Thatcher. I don’t think Scotland will ever forgive her. ]

The Cameron generation is actually a reversion to the norm of conservatism. Thatcherism was a deviation. They still have problems convincing large chunks of the country that that change has really happened. And that has been the big problem they have had. That whole nasty party thing is the legacy of that era.

Do you think the coalition will last?

Yes. I think the coalition will last five years. It has to, but they will be so welded together they will have to be one party.

What’s next? 
The Road to Ruin is coming out in the autumn. We are also working on a new book. I will see what comes along. I love being a writer.

Michael Green is an independent writer and consultant, based in London.
Michael has worked in aid and development for nearly twenty years. He was a senior official in the British Government where he worked on international finance, managed UK aid to Russia and Ukraine, served three Secretaries of State as head of the communications department at the Department for International Development, and oversaw £100 million annual funding to nonprofits. It was through his role in government that he saw the rising influence of the philanthrocapitalists in the fight against poverty.
An economist by training, as a graduate of the University of Oxford, Michael taught economics at Warsaw University in the early 1990s under a Soros-funded programme. During his time in Poland, Michael was also a freelance journalist working for, among others, Polish Radio and the Economist.

Other quotes by Michael.
The joy of capitalism if the joy of destruction.
VAT was such an elegant tax. Economists love it, because it is so easy to collect. It is almost self policing. Clean and simple tax.

Sibling Rivalry {Carl Packman}

Posted on by

On Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman yesterday David Miliband, Labour leadership contender, former foreign secretary and the apple of Hilary Clinton’s eye, slipped a little under the scrutiny, a rare occurrence for him. Paxman wasn’t particularly cutting, simply asked Miliband whether he thought his brother Ed, also running for leader of the former incumbent party, would do a good job of it. “I don’t want to say anything negative here Jeremy,” Miliband the elder uttered, to which Paxman rightly replied “I’m not asking you to”.
Where might this compulsion to state negatives have possibly come from?
Sibling rivalry has always been characterised as a means of grabbing the most parental resources as possible away from the other, to secure your monopoly over the paedocratic (as in paedocracy, regime led by children) kingdom of a Mother’s affection, and it can rear its competitive head in many ways.
One unnamed crackers genetic determinist put it:
Parental resources are finite, and if one brother gets a large proportion of parental time, attention, and money, then this necessarily means that the other brother will be getting less.
Stereotypes abound, the job of competing for the affection of the Miliband boys’ Father, the Marxist intellectual Ralph Miliband, author of books such as The State in Capitalist Society, would surely have been met with disdain, particularly with regards to Father Miliband’s political commitment to egalitarianism and equal distribution – the sibling rivalry of the brother’s surely would’ve been seen as nothing short of capitalist doctrine consuming their innocent souls like cows branded for ownership proof.
Other sibling rivals like Christopher and Peter Hitchens do battle with ideas – the former once being famous for his firebrand left wing politics, now shoved to one side for the pursuit of a militant atheism and insistence on the benefits of the Iraq war, while the latter brother sits himself on the right wing politically, born again in his Christianity and fully opposed to military intervention in the Middle East.
David and Ed play the nice game, but the elder brother’s small, but telling, admission with Paxman puts another thorn in the side of those who feel that sibling rivalry is just a load of ol’ poppy.
For those of us who have any optimism for the Labour party, that it should bin its recent past with dignity, doing away with those things to which parallels can be drawn with Shakespeare’s As You Like It – “All the world’s a stage” when it comes to our neo-imperialist adventures, or “too much of a good thing” with the thirteen years of New Labour flirtation with the neo-liberal vacuum – ought to be careful what we wish for the future; might the brother’s Miliband be playing the parts of rival siblings Orlando and Oliver, where jealously prevails over a divisive inheritance?

by Carl Packman

You can read more of Carl’s thoughts and articles on his blog Raincoat Optimism.

Is it Bromance; Carl on the Coalition {Politics}

Posted on by

Since the first press release by Nick Clegg and David Cameron on Wednesday, it has dawned on the media that any coalition conflict in the near future is unlikely to come from these guys, and their so-called ‘love-in‘.

Tweedledum and Tweedledee; Ant and Dec; these are just some of the names to appear on the blogosphere or from the tweets of the twitterati to refer to our Prime Minister and the deputy. The BBC and ITN have taken to showing constant replays of David Cameron calling on Clegg to ‘come back‘ during one of their jokes in the back garden of number 10, and Henry McLeish, Labour’s former first minister in Scotland, even accidentally uttered the name “David Clegg”.

If you think Clegg will be Cameron’s nagging Aunty you can think again.

However that is not to say there will be no conflict within the coalition. On the same day as the press release Vince Cable was awaiting confirmation of the equal patch he will have with George Osborne as chair of the committee in charge of banks, only to find that those were not the plans at all.

Osborne’s sources were quick to brush the incident off by saying there had been some confusion on the matter, but it is clear for anyone to see why Ozzy Osborne wants his fingers on the banks, and not to share with his new pal Cable.

In spite of the fact that Osborne in the past has waxed lyrical about getting tough on the banks, and that the Libservatives have drawn up and agreed on a pledge to curb earth shattering bank bonuses, giving Cable the back seat is indicative that our new Chancellor finds dubious some of Cable’s tough plans for banks, namely the separation of high street and investment banking, and his no nonsense measures for banks’ lending requirements.

Sean O’ Grady of the Independent suspects that the honeymoon period inside the cabinet will be over by the 25th of June – the date of the emergency budget setting out a frame for public finances – when key differences in the party will come to the fore.

Cable has already agreed to back down on his plans for a mansion tax on properties worth over 2m, which would’ve saved money for those on the lower end of the tax scale, and Osborne compromised on raising inheritance tax exemption to 1m. Of those two compromises it is not difficult to see which measure could be for the purpose of softening the blow for the poorest in times of austerity, and which measure is in-built ideology.

If you want to identify where that coalition split will be, don’t look at Clegg and Cameron, who have to wear different coloured ties so we can tell them apart, it’s the economy, stupid.

by Carl Packman

You can read more of Carl’s thoughts and articles on his blog Raincoat Optimism.

Carole Stone on how she made The Stone Club a success.

Posted on by

People who meet me now find it hard to believe that as a teenager I was very shy. I remember that in my first job at the BBC as a secretary I used to loiter outside the newsroom waiting for someone else to go in so that I could slip in behind them, unnoticed. Today I must seem very confident, not to say loud, and I’m happy to speak in public to different audiences. But it’s taken quite a bit of effort to get there, for if I was shy when I was young, my brother Roger was even shyer – pathologically so. To try to get him to communicate at all with other people I just had to make contact with them myself. I think that’s where my interest in other people began and why today I can’t pass up a chance to put people together who I think might benefit in all sorts of ways from getting to know each other. At the last count I have over 40,000 people on my database and two books to my name on what I call the art of networking.

I first got a chance to bring very different people together in a big way when I became the Producer of BBC Radio 4’s Any Questions?, every week trying to get the right mix of politicians, business people, and leading figures from the arts and sciences and the media to make an interesting programme. And when I left the BBC I started a business along the same lines, putting together people who wanted to meet but might not have done so without a helping hand.

Recently I have been working as managing director of YouGovStone, a joint venture company which I set up with the online opinion polling organisation YouGov. I have a panel of about four thousand people which I consult on behalf of clients who want to know what opinion leaders – what I call the ‘Influentials’ – are thinking on a host of different topics.

And then in May 2009 I did something I have wanted to do for ages, I opened a club – TheStoneClub. We don’t have a permanent home: instead, members meet for different events in one of several venues in central London. My motto for this virtual club is ‘A Meeting of Minds’, and I have two tiers of membership. Silver members come to what I call my ‘In Conversation’ evenings, to listen to and question speakers like Lord (Brian) Griffiths of Goldman Sachs, Jeremy Hunt, MP, the Tory shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and Tom Bower, author of devastating blockbuster biographies about people like Richard Branson, Robert Maxwell, and Harrods owner Mohamed al-Fayed. Future guest speakers I’ve booked for these events include the Doug Richard, formerly of Dragon’s Den and entrepreneur.

Gold members tend to be more business-oriented, and for them, in addition to my ‘In Conversation’ events, I arrange breakfasts with speakers like Vicky Pryce, the Director-General, Economics, at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and Adrian Monck, Managing Director, Communications, at Davos, the World Economic Forum. I’m much looking forward to welcoming Sly Bailey, the Chief Executive of Trinity Mirror, the UK’s largest newspaper publisher, to a breakfast soon.

Running a business that is all about people is really demanding, and of course there are times when I’m cross with myself for not having looked after one of my think tank or club members as well as I think should. But I’ll never give up trying, because to me people are a solace, the real joy of life.

The Stone Club is a fantastic private members club. For more info or to join, follow this link: http://www.yougovstone.com/content/the-stone-club.asp

BBC to project real time results onto 'Big Ben'

Posted on by

I say Big Ben, what I mean is St Stephen’s tower.
The BBC are projecting an unbranded bar chart of the results as they come in and it “will feature a “winning line”, representing the 326 seats that any party will need to win to be sure of an outright victory”
It’ll provide a count of the number of seats won by the main three parties as well as those won by smaller parties and independent candidates.
It’ll be up until around 0530am on the 7th.

Here’s more info on the BBC site.

The Great Political Debate: Part 3: Conservative – Why You Would be Mad to Vote For Labour and Why I’m a Conservative

Posted on by

By James Yardley

A response to Alain Lewis

Thanks for the article as a Conservative supporter voting for the first time it’s really interesting to know how supporters of other parties think. I guess I feel a bit like you did in 1987 and 1992 at the moment. I wonder how people can still vote for Labour after the last 13 years. However reading your article helped me understand a bit better.

You are right there are some good things Labour has done, giving the bank of England independence, introducing the minimum wage and investing more heavily in health and education but this was all introduced when Labour first came to power. Everything since has been a complete disaster and I can’t believe anyone would vote for them with the record they have.

The Wars – Lies for going to war in Iraq (Al Qaeda justification, WMD), trying to fight two wars on a peace time budget, a lack of proper equipment and vehicles leading to greater casualties than there should have been. No planning for after the war.

NHS computers systems – A waste of £12 billion which makes peoples job harder

Schools – Only teach the test, standards are no better exams have got easier, teachers have no power, schools are run as democracies.

ID cards and a massive national database – A waste of billions with absolutely no purpose other than to centralise power and exert greater control over the individual, quite frankly dangerous and bad for our democracy

Needing a licence to protest and building millions of CCTV cameras, Arresting people for shouting out the names of the dead outside number 10 – Fascist, dangerous and undemocratic

Brown and Mandelson unelected – It’s a disgrace that Gordon Brown thinks he has the right to govern having not been elected by either the British people or his own party. Even worse is that Mandelson, twice embroiled in major corruption scandals, also unelected is somehow the second most powerful man in the country. Are we living in a democracy? Are people really just going to accept this?

Spin The whole 13years have been characterised by image, deception and spin. Every attempt has been made to hide the real truth.

Numerous broken manifesto promises – Completely unforgivable broken promises about tuition fees and a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. There are tens of others as well some though not all of which can be attributed to the financial crisis.

Economy – The Golden rules proved to be more spin and were broken at the first test, borrowing and spending far more than was affordable. In 1997 the deficit was 6 billion, today it is 160 and the national debt has doubled.

Policing – The police waste hours filling out endless paper work. As a result you never see them on the street.

Reforming benefits – Millions of people on incapacity benefits who shouldn’t be

What is worst and most shocking of all is that Labour has completely abandoned the very people it is supposed to represent. The gap between the wealthiest and the poorest has grown considerably. There is less social mobility than ever before. Labour has done nothing to break the cycle. Those who most need help getting into work have not been helped effectively. The 10p tax initiative summed up the whole situation. This is why I respect Richard Wright who wrote the first article because although I disagree with his politics he won’t settle for the Labour party as it is today.

Alain argues that David Cameron is trying to force private schools into the state sector. But that’s not David Cameron that’s a Labour policy. The government academy scheme (which Cameron does support and wants to expand). That says it all. The Labour party is not representative of its supporters but because they won’t vote for anyone else and Labour knows they can get away with it.

How can anyone vote for this party when they so clearly have no morality or integrity whatsoever? It is blatantly obvious that the Labour party cares only about itself. It will always put themselves first before the interests of the country. This is where our politics has gone so wrong. It’s time to start putting the people first again.

I’m a Conservative because I believe in giving power to the individual. Letting people live their own lives but still supporting them when they need help. We need to devolve power to a local level, allowing local communities to make their own decisions instead of some bureaucrat in Whitehall. That’s why I’m supporting David Cameron’s big society.

The Labour party has always sought to expand the power of the state. Every decision is controlled from the centre. They’ve tried to bring in ID cards and national databases. Everyone is treated as a statistic. This is not only inefficient and wasteful but it is also dangerous. An overly powerful state is bad for our democracy. The state has a role but it should be there to support you not to tell you how to live your life.

Budgets have seen huge increases, that’s a good thing, but only a small proportion has made it onto the frontline. In the last 13 years the government has created huge numbers of managers and administrators. It has become overly obsessed with its endless targets. This obsession is profoundly damaging. For example school exam results may be improving but does anyone really believe students are more intelligent or skilled. The real test is in the number of people being employed and youth unemployment is at around an astonishing 20%. That’s the only real statistic which matters in my eyes.

Conservatism is also about enterprise. Encouraging everyone to achieve their goals. Taxing people less. Helping small businesses by making it easier to employ people and cutting the ridiculous amounts of red tape that exist at the moment.

It’s time to get rid of this tired, inefficient and dishonest government. It’s time for people to take power back in to their own hands. That’s why I will be voting Conservative.

James Yardley