ID cards have been in the news frequently in Britain in recent months - the Government was for them, then said only migrants needed them, then said people in Manchester could get them if they wanted. Another example of dither and delay that has been a hallmark of this government since the 'election that never was'. However, I was listening to an old podcast of 'Today in Parliament' (one has to do something on the tube), where Alan Johnson (Home Secretary) was talking about how little ID cards would actually be used - only for travel within the EU.
This got me thinking about the equivalent in the United States of America - the Social Security Card, and how the things you needed it for had increased since it's introduction. Originally the Social Security card was just that - it was the card one used to access social security. However in the years since the number of things one needs to present either a social security card or a social security number has sky-rocketed. It is now a de fact ID card in the United States.
Let me give you an example. I lived in Washington DC for six months. During that time I never actually got a social security card (although I got a number). But I had to present this number in order to get paid, in order to pay tax, and to be able to get a membership at Blockbuster videos.
So don't be contented when a politicians tells you that an ID card won't be used for much - as time progresses they can always find new and interested things to require you to present an ID card for...
Thursday, 29 October 2009
Thursday, 22 October 2009
Is Baroness Warsi the best spokeswoman for the Conservatives against the BNP?
I think Baroness Warsi is a very good Shadow Minister. Despite this, I am not sure she is the best candidate for the Conservatives to put on Question Time with Nick Griffin. Why? Well, before I get to that, let me accept there are some very good reasons to put her on.
1) She is a Muslim woman, and as such can more personally speak against Griffin's prejudices.
2) She is a non-white Conservative, and so on a purely political level will make Cameron look like he is really presiding over a multi-racial party, and can also counterpoint the white faces of the politicians on the rest of the Question Time panel (although one of the panellists is Bonnie Greer, a black American writer) .
3) She is the Shadow Minister of Community Cohesion and Social Action, so more likely than not much of what comes up on the show will be within her Shadow Ministerial remit.
However, there are also some very good reasons why she is not the right person for the job:
1) She is (as Nick Griffin would argue) a perfect example of the ethnic minority affirmative action that the BNP bangs on about. She is the youngest member of the House of Lords, having been elevated when she was 36. She had never been an MP, and when she ran for Parliament in 2005, she actually gained a lower share of the vote than the Conservative candidate in 2001 or 1997 (although more absolute votes). None of this means that she is unfit for the job, but it is merely a very easy point for Nick Griffin to make hay on.
2) She doesn't speak to the constituency that the BNP is contesting. The constituency in play here is the white working class, some of whom truly believe immigrants and non-white people are coming to this country and stealing their jobs. I am not certain that Baroness Warsi will be able to sooth these concerns the way someone like David Davis or William Hague could have done (David Davis especially).
3) Again unlike Davis or Hague, I have no idea how she will perform against Griffin. Warsi's previous experiences on Question Time have generally elicited a less than enthusiastic response from political watchers (especially Conservative ones). While I have never seen her on it myself and so cannot judge, the number of negative reviews I hear from others makes me concerned about whether she will be able to go toe to toe with Griffin.
Anyway in a few short hours we will know the result. Will today see the BNP exposed for what it is? Or will Griffin hold his own and make the party look like a real alternative to Labour in some of Labour's inner-city bastions? And more importantly, will the anti-BNP protesters be able to shut the hell up and let a real debate take place. If they heckle and barrack Griffin (especially if Griffin looks reasonable when he tries to deal with them, as has happened on occasion) they will give him the best outcome of all - make him the centre of attention and do not force him to explain his policy.
1) She is a Muslim woman, and as such can more personally speak against Griffin's prejudices.
2) She is a non-white Conservative, and so on a purely political level will make Cameron look like he is really presiding over a multi-racial party, and can also counterpoint the white faces of the politicians on the rest of the Question Time panel (although one of the panellists is Bonnie Greer, a black American writer) .
3) She is the Shadow Minister of Community Cohesion and Social Action, so more likely than not much of what comes up on the show will be within her Shadow Ministerial remit.
However, there are also some very good reasons why she is not the right person for the job:
1) She is (as Nick Griffin would argue) a perfect example of the ethnic minority affirmative action that the BNP bangs on about. She is the youngest member of the House of Lords, having been elevated when she was 36. She had never been an MP, and when she ran for Parliament in 2005, she actually gained a lower share of the vote than the Conservative candidate in 2001 or 1997 (although more absolute votes). None of this means that she is unfit for the job, but it is merely a very easy point for Nick Griffin to make hay on.
2) She doesn't speak to the constituency that the BNP is contesting. The constituency in play here is the white working class, some of whom truly believe immigrants and non-white people are coming to this country and stealing their jobs. I am not certain that Baroness Warsi will be able to sooth these concerns the way someone like David Davis or William Hague could have done (David Davis especially).
3) Again unlike Davis or Hague, I have no idea how she will perform against Griffin. Warsi's previous experiences on Question Time have generally elicited a less than enthusiastic response from political watchers (especially Conservative ones). While I have never seen her on it myself and so cannot judge, the number of negative reviews I hear from others makes me concerned about whether she will be able to go toe to toe with Griffin.
Anyway in a few short hours we will know the result. Will today see the BNP exposed for what it is? Or will Griffin hold his own and make the party look like a real alternative to Labour in some of Labour's inner-city bastions? And more importantly, will the anti-BNP protesters be able to shut the hell up and let a real debate take place. If they heckle and barrack Griffin (especially if Griffin looks reasonable when he tries to deal with them, as has happened on occasion) they will give him the best outcome of all - make him the centre of attention and do not force him to explain his policy.
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
All-women shortlists stupid idea
It is decisions like these that make me wonder about David Cameron. Wonder especially at whether he truly believes what he says, or whether he is merely saying it in order to try to make himself appear more electable.
Conservative Home have an excellent editorial on this, but I must stick my own two cents (or pence) in. This is another example of CHQ trying to further centralise candidate selection. And this does not work well. Labour has discovered with all-female shortlists that spurned men will pop up as independent candidates (and in some cases have won!), and if local members feel that a candidate has been forced upon them they will be less likely to go out and campaign for them. And Labour has a far more centralised candidate selection than the Conservative Party!
The Conservatives discovered in the Bedford Mayoralty election (where a candidate was forced on the local association) the negative effects of not having local associations onside (the mayoralty was won by the Liberal Democrats with 54% of the vote). One local activist in Bedford claimed "I have never known such anger and disillusionment in the party in all my years. Local members have been kicked in the teeth."
This is only a taste of the disillusionment that some Conservative candidates could find if they are imposed on local associations and then discover no-one particularly wants to go out and campaign for them.
Leaving aside the implications for local associations, all-women shortlists are simply a bad idea. The way to make Parliament better is not to force more less able women into seats they couldn't win themselves. The way to make Parliament better is to have more people of any sex, race or creed who are up to the job. More often than not the best people to decide this are local associations, rather than a central office that will be looking to fill quotas for the number of women or minority candidates. Margaret Thatcher did not need an all-women shortlist to become an MP (let alone leader). Barack Obama did not need an all-black shortlist to become Senator of Illinois (or President of the United States). While Conservatives need to guard against racism and sexism in local associations that would prevent a minority or woman candidate who is the best candidate from winning, the solution is not a shortlist that imposes a candidate on those associations.
Finally, there is no reason to think that imposing a woman candidate on a constituency will help the Conservatives with women voters. For that they must concentrate on policy issues, rather than throwing lesser candidates at the electorate as a sop to political correctness.
Conservative Home have an excellent editorial on this, but I must stick my own two cents (or pence) in. This is another example of CHQ trying to further centralise candidate selection. And this does not work well. Labour has discovered with all-female shortlists that spurned men will pop up as independent candidates (and in some cases have won!), and if local members feel that a candidate has been forced upon them they will be less likely to go out and campaign for them. And Labour has a far more centralised candidate selection than the Conservative Party!
The Conservatives discovered in the Bedford Mayoralty election (where a candidate was forced on the local association) the negative effects of not having local associations onside (the mayoralty was won by the Liberal Democrats with 54% of the vote). One local activist in Bedford claimed "I have never known such anger and disillusionment in the party in all my years. Local members have been kicked in the teeth."
This is only a taste of the disillusionment that some Conservative candidates could find if they are imposed on local associations and then discover no-one particularly wants to go out and campaign for them.
Leaving aside the implications for local associations, all-women shortlists are simply a bad idea. The way to make Parliament better is not to force more less able women into seats they couldn't win themselves. The way to make Parliament better is to have more people of any sex, race or creed who are up to the job. More often than not the best people to decide this are local associations, rather than a central office that will be looking to fill quotas for the number of women or minority candidates. Margaret Thatcher did not need an all-women shortlist to become an MP (let alone leader). Barack Obama did not need an all-black shortlist to become Senator of Illinois (or President of the United States). While Conservatives need to guard against racism and sexism in local associations that would prevent a minority or woman candidate who is the best candidate from winning, the solution is not a shortlist that imposes a candidate on those associations.
Finally, there is no reason to think that imposing a woman candidate on a constituency will help the Conservatives with women voters. For that they must concentrate on policy issues, rather than throwing lesser candidates at the electorate as a sop to political correctness.
Tuesday, 20 October 2009
Obama's decision on blasphemy very disappointing
President Obama - presumably in order to help rehabilitate the image of the United States in the Muslim world - has signed up the United States to a resolution on free speech at the UN Human Rights Council that specifically excludes 'any negative racial or religious stereotyping'.
This is most definitely NOT a good thing. The fear by many free speech advocates is that Islamic countries will use the exception given in the resolution to enact and maintain strict blasphemy laws, as well as prevent the West from using 'free speech' as a reason whenever we get into an argument with the Islamic world over some depiction or discussion of Islam. Obviously there are times when discussions about Islam can become racist or bigoted - or even violent. But these cases should not outweigh the basic and fundamental right to freedom of speech - a right so fundamental that the government should have very limited rights to regulate at all.
So, now we have an exception to freedom of speech for any racial or religious stereotyping (a phrase so unbelievably broad that anyone could be caught in it), and an effort by the UK government to repeal the 'freedom of speech' defence from hate speech laws (a law that is illiberal to start with - if someone is inciting to violence they can be charged and convicted under existing incitement legislation!). And now America, the land of the free, has backed off it's support for freedom of speech. How depressing...
This is most definitely NOT a good thing. The fear by many free speech advocates is that Islamic countries will use the exception given in the resolution to enact and maintain strict blasphemy laws, as well as prevent the West from using 'free speech' as a reason whenever we get into an argument with the Islamic world over some depiction or discussion of Islam. Obviously there are times when discussions about Islam can become racist or bigoted - or even violent. But these cases should not outweigh the basic and fundamental right to freedom of speech - a right so fundamental that the government should have very limited rights to regulate at all.
So, now we have an exception to freedom of speech for any racial or religious stereotyping (a phrase so unbelievably broad that anyone could be caught in it), and an effort by the UK government to repeal the 'freedom of speech' defence from hate speech laws (a law that is illiberal to start with - if someone is inciting to violence they can be charged and convicted under existing incitement legislation!). And now America, the land of the free, has backed off it's support for freedom of speech. How depressing...
Friday, 16 October 2009
Do some MP's have a fair point on expenses?
There have been a lot of anger from MP's regarding the Sir Thomas Legg investigation into expenses. The reason behind this is that Sir Thomas has gone back five years and retrospectively changed the interpretation of the rules. Claims that were looked at by the Fees Office at the time and signed off as being 'within the rules' has been re-examined and, in some cases, reversed. This has caused a number of MP's (including the Prime Minister) who believed they were in the clear, being asked to pay back a lot of money (in Mr Brown's case, he has been asked to pay £12,000).
The newspapers and much of the public are, to say the least, unsympathetic. They claim that MP's made the rules and they should have made rules that were stricter.
In my opinion this is a little unfair. If claims were signed off as being within the rules at the time, it is a little rough to retrospectively examine the claims with a new set of criteria. Imagine the Government changing a law today (such as raising the retirement age), then writing to every pensioner and telling them they should have know the age was going to go up, and they need to pay back any pension the got for those years. There would be a justifiable outcry. There is little difference to what is now happening to MP's, in some cases to the tune of tens, or even hundreds of thousands of pounds. For all that we can laugh at how much MP's are paid, they are not actually that well off (unless they are well-heeled Tories). Asking them to stump up with that sort of cash is completely unreasonable.
By all accounts punish those who broke the rules - even have the Police investigate sorts like Jacqui Smith who appear to have acted corruptly by mis-claiming or those caught 'flipping' houses - but to retrospectively change the rules and demand repayment seems a little rough.
The newspapers and much of the public are, to say the least, unsympathetic. They claim that MP's made the rules and they should have made rules that were stricter.
In my opinion this is a little unfair. If claims were signed off as being within the rules at the time, it is a little rough to retrospectively examine the claims with a new set of criteria. Imagine the Government changing a law today (such as raising the retirement age), then writing to every pensioner and telling them they should have know the age was going to go up, and they need to pay back any pension the got for those years. There would be a justifiable outcry. There is little difference to what is now happening to MP's, in some cases to the tune of tens, or even hundreds of thousands of pounds. For all that we can laugh at how much MP's are paid, they are not actually that well off (unless they are well-heeled Tories). Asking them to stump up with that sort of cash is completely unreasonable.
By all accounts punish those who broke the rules - even have the Police investigate sorts like Jacqui Smith who appear to have acted corruptly by mis-claiming or those caught 'flipping' houses - but to retrospectively change the rules and demand repayment seems a little rough.
Thursday, 8 October 2009
Could the young only knowing 'good times' derail the Conservatives?
An interesting (and potentially worrying) story in today's Metro is that a quarter of young urbanites have not yet made up their mind about who they are voting for. There are two ways of reading this, one of which could lead to Labour holding a lot more seats on election night than current polling indicates.
The first option is that this is no big deal - young people are usually the least partisan (or at least the least pro-Conservative), and they also vote much less reliably than older voters. Therefore, a large chunk of that quarter may just not be planning to vote. Think of the USA - where every election the young will drive the Democrats to victory, and every time the young fail to come out in proportion to older voters (even Obama failed to increase young voters as a percentage of voting population, although the absolute number of young voters did increase). So according to this there is no problem - if they haven't made up their mind, they probably won't vote, so the current numbers should remain steady.
The second option is possibly a very big deal - That young urbanites have never felt a real economic downturn before - let alone had to deal with falling government spending. And because they have never experienced it, they are less likely to understand what would happen to the country without major cuts in spending. Therefore, this 'don't know' could indicate that a large chunk of young people in urban centres (seats the Tories must win if they are to form a government) are unwilling to sign up to the necessary but unpleasant cuts the Conservatives are advocating - and could cast their vote for Labour as the 'nice' alternative.
I have no idea which of these two options is the cause of the number of 'don't knows' amongst young urbanites (although I lean towards the first option). Of course, there is always another option - that despite his efforts to appeal to the young, David Cameron is yet to seal the deal. Hopefully his conference speech today can convince some of these voters, and lay out exactly why people should vote FOR the Conservatives, rather than simply vote against Labour.
The first option is that this is no big deal - young people are usually the least partisan (or at least the least pro-Conservative), and they also vote much less reliably than older voters. Therefore, a large chunk of that quarter may just not be planning to vote. Think of the USA - where every election the young will drive the Democrats to victory, and every time the young fail to come out in proportion to older voters (even Obama failed to increase young voters as a percentage of voting population, although the absolute number of young voters did increase). So according to this there is no problem - if they haven't made up their mind, they probably won't vote, so the current numbers should remain steady.
The second option is possibly a very big deal - That young urbanites have never felt a real economic downturn before - let alone had to deal with falling government spending. And because they have never experienced it, they are less likely to understand what would happen to the country without major cuts in spending. Therefore, this 'don't know' could indicate that a large chunk of young people in urban centres (seats the Tories must win if they are to form a government) are unwilling to sign up to the necessary but unpleasant cuts the Conservatives are advocating - and could cast their vote for Labour as the 'nice' alternative.
I have no idea which of these two options is the cause of the number of 'don't knows' amongst young urbanites (although I lean towards the first option). Of course, there is always another option - that despite his efforts to appeal to the young, David Cameron is yet to seal the deal. Hopefully his conference speech today can convince some of these voters, and lay out exactly why people should vote FOR the Conservatives, rather than simply vote against Labour.
Conference Day 3
I don't know if it was the vast quantities of free alcohol that disappeared down thousands of throats on Tuesday night, but Wednesday appeared much quieter in general, and in the morning in particular. But anyway, highlights of Day 3 include:
I went to an excellent fringe event on the effects of regulation on the banking industry. The speakers debated the level of desired regulation, and two speakers made excellent points for the industry to take over more of a self-regulatory role. It was a very interesting discussion on the effects of bank regulation, and also the rather worrying new role that the G20 has taken on.
Chris Grayling's unfortunate mistake on General Dannatt - Today the Conservatives should be on an even greater high than previous days in the media. General Dannatt, the recently retired British Army Chief, has agreed to be elevated to the House of Lords as a Tory Peer (see how good the appointed Lords is?) and serve as a Defence advisor to a Conservative Government. Unfortunately no-one advised Mr Grayling of this new development, and when he was asked about it by the BBC he (seemingly on the mistaken belief that Labour had offered General Dannatt a job) said that he hoped 'it wasn't a political gimmick'. Cue laughter and eye-rolling of press gallery.
Last night's international office party - I managed to wangle my way into this rather exciting event which is put on for diplomats and observers from foreign centre-right parties. The President of the Maldives was in attendance, as were a number of MP's from other aligned parties (such as the Canadian Conservatives and New Zealand National Party). William Hague (isn't he wonderful?) gave a magnificent speech and the wine and canapés flowed freely late into the night.
This morning is very quiet. The fringe events are over (for the most part), and there are only a few speeches left, of which only two are high profile. William Hague will speak on foreign affairs, and then the big tamale (David Cameron) will speak at about 2pm on the need to end the 'culture of irresponsibility'. And then we all decamp back to London and leave Manchester behind. Next year - Birmingham!
I went to an excellent fringe event on the effects of regulation on the banking industry. The speakers debated the level of desired regulation, and two speakers made excellent points for the industry to take over more of a self-regulatory role. It was a very interesting discussion on the effects of bank regulation, and also the rather worrying new role that the G20 has taken on.
Chris Grayling's unfortunate mistake on General Dannatt - Today the Conservatives should be on an even greater high than previous days in the media. General Dannatt, the recently retired British Army Chief, has agreed to be elevated to the House of Lords as a Tory Peer (see how good the appointed Lords is?) and serve as a Defence advisor to a Conservative Government. Unfortunately no-one advised Mr Grayling of this new development, and when he was asked about it by the BBC he (seemingly on the mistaken belief that Labour had offered General Dannatt a job) said that he hoped 'it wasn't a political gimmick'. Cue laughter and eye-rolling of press gallery.
Last night's international office party - I managed to wangle my way into this rather exciting event which is put on for diplomats and observers from foreign centre-right parties. The President of the Maldives was in attendance, as were a number of MP's from other aligned parties (such as the Canadian Conservatives and New Zealand National Party). William Hague (isn't he wonderful?) gave a magnificent speech and the wine and canapés flowed freely late into the night.
This morning is very quiet. The fringe events are over (for the most part), and there are only a few speeches left, of which only two are high profile. William Hague will speak on foreign affairs, and then the big tamale (David Cameron) will speak at about 2pm on the need to end the 'culture of irresponsibility'. And then we all decamp back to London and leave Manchester behind. Next year - Birmingham!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
