Tuition fees are on the rise, as predicted preceding Thursday's vote. There are three key results of this action:
First of all, and they cannot be ignored, are the riots. As controversial as they were dramatic these overshadowed much of the press following the vote. Students showed that they had a protest voice, however the impact of this voice has not been felt yet.
Second it was the first truly divisive issue the coalition faced, losing much of it's majority within the vote. Liberal democrat's (largely those not in office) showed that if the issue was ideologically viable they would stand against the political agreement their party leaders made when they formed the coalition government.
However, the largest impact felt will be that on future students. Currently maintenance loans are barely enough to live on and so parents often have to top this up out of their own pockets. This comes as an unexpected expense to many lower middle class parents who can rarely afford to provide this extra money.
As the upper income level for grants decreases, an inevitable fact when costs are being saved and the price has risen, it is the richer level of the 'poor' that will be unable to afford higher education.
Therefore, although the actual cost of education will not rise until after graduation, the ability of a far higher number to gain a higher education at all will be impeded. It is that which is a tragedy.
Snowed under
This is, in a way, a rather trivial post but then again it's not. When snow falls in the UK we seem to inevitably come to a standstill. That's fine; but when the snow starts to stick, as it is right now, people start to complain. That's fine too; it causes enormous disruptions and we never seem really very prepared.
However, there has been much speculation this week on whether we could be more prepared. There are key issues with this. Even though the snow right now feels (and has been described as) rather Scandinavian, unlike Scandinavian countries we cannot know when snow will hit, for how long and where. So gritting the roads constantly from November until late March would definitely not be cost effective.
We also have the issue of how much government intervention we actually want in natural emergencies. By this I don't mean that they should leave us to it. I admire Philip Hammond for demanding an enquiry as to why we aren't prepared in the reserve for unusually long freezes. However, do you really want a Westminster agency, along the lines of FEMA in the US, to be in control of recovery in your area? What I mean here is that councils are much more aware of the local situation and can assess needs minute by minute. The gritting on main roads in the east, for example, has been particularly effective this year.
It seems that unless we become truly Scandinavian there isn't much of a choice. As long as the gritters are ready to go, which they have been following last year's disastrously poor showing, then the council can't much help that visibility is poor and schools feel entitled to close. For now let's wrap up and hold tight.
However, there has been much speculation this week on whether we could be more prepared. There are key issues with this. Even though the snow right now feels (and has been described as) rather Scandinavian, unlike Scandinavian countries we cannot know when snow will hit, for how long and where. So gritting the roads constantly from November until late March would definitely not be cost effective.
We also have the issue of how much government intervention we actually want in natural emergencies. By this I don't mean that they should leave us to it. I admire Philip Hammond for demanding an enquiry as to why we aren't prepared in the reserve for unusually long freezes. However, do you really want a Westminster agency, along the lines of FEMA in the US, to be in control of recovery in your area? What I mean here is that councils are much more aware of the local situation and can assess needs minute by minute. The gritting on main roads in the east, for example, has been particularly effective this year.
It seems that unless we become truly Scandinavian there isn't much of a choice. As long as the gritters are ready to go, which they have been following last year's disastrously poor showing, then the council can't much help that visibility is poor and schools feel entitled to close. For now let's wrap up and hold tight.
Benefit or a curse?
Benefits are controversial. They provide the most basic example of the social debate between the left and right, with the left advocating that the government should intervene to help people and the right that social issues are the responsibility of the individual. Clearly as different administrations come and go these things will change. However, when you couple ideology with economic issues you have perfect conditions for controversy.
Under the Labour government welfare in the UK was significantly increased, with benefits being given for almost everything from child tax credit, to EMA, to job seeker's allowance. However, the system was costly; not just for the money that it paid out but for the cost of a complex administrative system to run out.
Iain Duncan Smith is proposing a new benefits system where one payment would encompass all the needs of the individual. Although fringe benefits, such as the EMA, would be cut, essential benefits, such as disability allowances, would not be significantly cut. Clearly this would cut down on administrative costs and thus achieve the primary goal of the coalition at this time, which is economic recovery.
However, is this system really that streamlined? If someone needs a new payment is it any less complex to add this into their total payment? Or, more importantly to remove a payment. And as we've seen from the student demonstrations cutting something inessential such as EMA will meet with fierce resistance anyway.
Benefits by definition will always be economically damaging. However, if the key is reducing administrative costs it may be that there is no easy answer to the question curbing the controversy.
Under the Labour government welfare in the UK was significantly increased, with benefits being given for almost everything from child tax credit, to EMA, to job seeker's allowance. However, the system was costly; not just for the money that it paid out but for the cost of a complex administrative system to run out.
Iain Duncan Smith is proposing a new benefits system where one payment would encompass all the needs of the individual. Although fringe benefits, such as the EMA, would be cut, essential benefits, such as disability allowances, would not be significantly cut. Clearly this would cut down on administrative costs and thus achieve the primary goal of the coalition at this time, which is economic recovery.
However, is this system really that streamlined? If someone needs a new payment is it any less complex to add this into their total payment? Or, more importantly to remove a payment. And as we've seen from the student demonstrations cutting something inessential such as EMA will meet with fierce resistance anyway.
Benefits by definition will always be economically damaging. However, if the key is reducing administrative costs it may be that there is no easy answer to the question curbing the controversy.
3 steps back
Cuts, cuts and cuts are required, nay mandatory, when you're running a deficit of massive proportions. There are only two areas which are exempt from this and that is core education and healthcare.
Now note that i said core education. By this I am not referring to higher. This is because higher education is not a right it is a privilege that should be affordable for everyone but not necessarily free or cheap. Let's take the US for example; there are multiple options for the type of university you go to from cheap community colleges, to more expensive state universities, to the most expensive private universities.
With this the federal government and the colleges each give each student a tailor made amount of aid to help fund their studies, from grants, to loans, to campus work. The poorest, and the middle classes, can afford to go to university. It is clear then that increasing tuition fees can work if they are coupled with a balancing aid program.
Students in the UK are rather misled on what rising tuition fees mean. But that is not necessarily their fault; it is the role of government after all to justify their means. However, when protest turns violent you achieve nothing. Last week students made themselves appear immature and without a clear message and counter argument to distract from the violence this supposed 'minority' became the focus.
Three steps back, everytime.
Now note that i said core education. By this I am not referring to higher. This is because higher education is not a right it is a privilege that should be affordable for everyone but not necessarily free or cheap. Let's take the US for example; there are multiple options for the type of university you go to from cheap community colleges, to more expensive state universities, to the most expensive private universities.
With this the federal government and the colleges each give each student a tailor made amount of aid to help fund their studies, from grants, to loans, to campus work. The poorest, and the middle classes, can afford to go to university. It is clear then that increasing tuition fees can work if they are coupled with a balancing aid program.
Students in the UK are rather misled on what rising tuition fees mean. But that is not necessarily their fault; it is the role of government after all to justify their means. However, when protest turns violent you achieve nothing. Last week students made themselves appear immature and without a clear message and counter argument to distract from the violence this supposed 'minority' became the focus.
Three steps back, everytime.
Women in politics: Christine O'Donnell
I'm going to start off this series on women in politics with one of the most controversial, and unpopular, Christine O'Donnell.
It is not simply her view points that make Christine O'Donnell unpopular. After all Marco Rubio has the same ones and has now won the Florida Senate seat. Extremism is never an issue if it is conveyed in a knowing and comprehensive way. However, Christine O'Donnell irritates many women through her own ignorance and naivety; from the constitution to former comments she has made.
Let's look at some examples. Ms O'Donnell was widely unknown prior to running for the 2010 elections in Delaware. As a result there has been a lot of scrutiny of her past revealing several surprising factors. The first of these were extremist statements made by her some years ago. These include references to dabbling in witchcraft and masturbation being a sin. In the case of the former Ms O'Donnell's response was to release a rather awkward advert declaring herself, rather than as a witch, as the individual watching. This ad was not well received to say the least.
Secondly investigations into her educational claims on her LinkedIn profile have revealed several discrepancies including an additional degree being claimed and a period of study at Oxford University also being cited.
Finally, Ms O'Donnell has made simply ignorant claims about the Constitution of the United States, in particular the separation of Church and State. However, it is important to not that this may not be Ms O'Donnell's own fault. There are a number of misled histories widespread within the Tea Party that may have affected her understanding.
The issue is that as a woman in politics Ms O'Donnell is being made a mockery of and thus is misrepresenting the powerful affect that women can have, as well as the major role we need, as well as want, to have. And it is apparent that other male figures within the Tea Party are not coming under anywhere near as much scrutiny as the women.
However, there is a silver lining. Christine has lost the Senate seat for Delaware to a Democratic candidate so maybe people can still perceive ignorance in these fractured times.
It is not simply her view points that make Christine O'Donnell unpopular. After all Marco Rubio has the same ones and has now won the Florida Senate seat. Extremism is never an issue if it is conveyed in a knowing and comprehensive way. However, Christine O'Donnell irritates many women through her own ignorance and naivety; from the constitution to former comments she has made.
Let's look at some examples. Ms O'Donnell was widely unknown prior to running for the 2010 elections in Delaware. As a result there has been a lot of scrutiny of her past revealing several surprising factors. The first of these were extremist statements made by her some years ago. These include references to dabbling in witchcraft and masturbation being a sin. In the case of the former Ms O'Donnell's response was to release a rather awkward advert declaring herself, rather than as a witch, as the individual watching. This ad was not well received to say the least.
Secondly investigations into her educational claims on her LinkedIn profile have revealed several discrepancies including an additional degree being claimed and a period of study at Oxford University also being cited.
Finally, Ms O'Donnell has made simply ignorant claims about the Constitution of the United States, in particular the separation of Church and State. However, it is important to not that this may not be Ms O'Donnell's own fault. There are a number of misled histories widespread within the Tea Party that may have affected her understanding.
The issue is that as a woman in politics Ms O'Donnell is being made a mockery of and thus is misrepresenting the powerful affect that women can have, as well as the major role we need, as well as want, to have. And it is apparent that other male figures within the Tea Party are not coming under anywhere near as much scrutiny as the women.
However, there is a silver lining. Christine has lost the Senate seat for Delaware to a Democratic candidate so maybe people can still perceive ignorance in these fractured times.
Pieces
Things to check out pre-midterms:
The BBC is doing a great little series on the 'real American TV voters' i.e. voters who resemble TV characters and how they are feeling in the run up to the mid-terms. This is not only entertaining but also presents some very different members of society.
The Huffington Post is great simply for constant updates on going's on. Particularly they have highlighted almost every one of Christine O'Donnell's numerous faux pas, including this most recent case.
Time Magazine wrote the best article I've read summarising the Tea Party. And they only mention the word 'tea' twice!
Finally if you haven't seen it yet you must see Obama's appearance on The Daily Show. It will turn out to be the marker for whether he could really regain some of his popular support.
The BBC is doing a great little series on the 'real American TV voters' i.e. voters who resemble TV characters and how they are feeling in the run up to the mid-terms. This is not only entertaining but also presents some very different members of society.
The Huffington Post is great simply for constant updates on going's on. Particularly they have highlighted almost every one of Christine O'Donnell's numerous faux pas, including this most recent case.
Time Magazine wrote the best article I've read summarising the Tea Party. And they only mention the word 'tea' twice!
Finally if you haven't seen it yet you must see Obama's appearance on The Daily Show. It will turn out to be the marker for whether he could really regain some of his popular support.
Silence is golden?
The coalition was and is a big deal. Not only is it a relatively shiny and new concept, people have been genuinely intrigued as to how it will actually function as a government.
Well thus far there have been two main themes; first the reversal of all things Labour from economic policies to social policies. The second has been the relative invisibility of the Liberal Democrats; in everything from policy to actual physical appearances.
In fact the only times that the Liberal Democrats have fronted the government were to announce some of the early more painful measures of the government. So far so bad.
However, this silence could go two ways entirely in an electoral situation. First, the silence could be viewed as weakness; the Liberal Democrats inability to make their mark on the political stage. Second, the silence could be viewed as stoic survival in an uncomfortable situation. They could use all of these 'painful' measures to only further differentiate themselves as pragmatists but not radicals.
And whilst this is all going we will stay glued waiting for this government's true rise or fall.
Well thus far there have been two main themes; first the reversal of all things Labour from economic policies to social policies. The second has been the relative invisibility of the Liberal Democrats; in everything from policy to actual physical appearances.
In fact the only times that the Liberal Democrats have fronted the government were to announce some of the early more painful measures of the government. So far so bad.
However, this silence could go two ways entirely in an electoral situation. First, the silence could be viewed as weakness; the Liberal Democrats inability to make their mark on the political stage. Second, the silence could be viewed as stoic survival in an uncomfortable situation. They could use all of these 'painful' measures to only further differentiate themselves as pragmatists but not radicals.
And whilst this is all going we will stay glued waiting for this government's true rise or fall.
Remember, remember
Just a quick note; if a candidate wants to appear feasible surely trying to amend the Constitution (or at least not knowing it very well) is not the best way to go about it?
Really one of the key issues that the Tea Party has had is that it's candidates have simply not been serious candidates, and it is them who have primarily led to the 'extremist' depiction of the movement. Whether it be the questionable qualifications of Christine O'Donnell, an almost invisible candidate in Nevada or the endorsement of the infamous Sarah Palin it is the characters that front the movement that make them appear less the disillusioned and more the ignorant.
So here's a suggestion; next time use a range of faces to represent yourselves (i.e. disillusioned centre-lefts as well as those on the right) or simply don't have people as your representatives at all. The only way to truly revolutionise politics is to make it about policies and, less significantly, values rather than people and personalities.
And this phenomenon is not simply a conservative thing. It is clear that the personality cult that followed Obama has been one of his primary problems; with expectations outstripping ability.
Really one of the key issues that the Tea Party has had is that it's candidates have simply not been serious candidates, and it is them who have primarily led to the 'extremist' depiction of the movement. Whether it be the questionable qualifications of Christine O'Donnell, an almost invisible candidate in Nevada or the endorsement of the infamous Sarah Palin it is the characters that front the movement that make them appear less the disillusioned and more the ignorant.
So here's a suggestion; next time use a range of faces to represent yourselves (i.e. disillusioned centre-lefts as well as those on the right) or simply don't have people as your representatives at all. The only way to truly revolutionise politics is to make it about policies and, less significantly, values rather than people and personalities.
And this phenomenon is not simply a conservative thing. It is clear that the personality cult that followed Obama has been one of his primary problems; with expectations outstripping ability.
Middle of the Road
Mid-terms are about the middle in more than the obvious way.
Although they are about the middle of a Presidency they are also about the middle of the political spectrum. It's the 'middle', the 'floating voters', the 'independents' that will prove vital to the beginning of a new congressional term. This is because, as the party die-hards only become more partisan, the middle are becoming increasingly disillusioned by the politics of either of the parties that dominate in the US.
Although, as the BBC points out, the tea-partiers are trying to claim that they are indeed the middle, what this disillusionment really results in are voters who simply don't turn out to vote. And this is the real issue with mid-term elections; not only do the elections suffer the low US turnout due to the regularity of political events but they also suffer from the hangover of an often high-profile Presidential term. As a result it is the bitter squabbling, rather than the policies, of the candidates that dominates the headlines. Meanwhile the middle often simply try to reinforce their message from two years prior, in this case, on which Obama came to power:
'Work together to fix our country.' What could be more simple than that?
Although they are about the middle of a Presidency they are also about the middle of the political spectrum. It's the 'middle', the 'floating voters', the 'independents' that will prove vital to the beginning of a new congressional term. This is because, as the party die-hards only become more partisan, the middle are becoming increasingly disillusioned by the politics of either of the parties that dominate in the US.
Although, as the BBC points out, the tea-partiers are trying to claim that they are indeed the middle, what this disillusionment really results in are voters who simply don't turn out to vote. And this is the real issue with mid-term elections; not only do the elections suffer the low US turnout due to the regularity of political events but they also suffer from the hangover of an often high-profile Presidential term. As a result it is the bitter squabbling, rather than the policies, of the candidates that dominates the headlines. Meanwhile the middle often simply try to reinforce their message from two years prior, in this case, on which Obama came to power:
'Work together to fix our country.' What could be more simple than that?
So the world didn't rock
Hung Parliaments happen.
copyright : Associated Press
It's very annoying, particularly economically, but it happens. There are, however, a number of points I have found amusing/important:
copyright : Associated Press- Students really thought they were changing the world by voting Liberal Democrat. Except the reason that the Liberal Democrat vote is so fragmented? Because a large majority of that vote every election without fail is made up of students, many of whom think they are changing the world. Not quite kids not quite because do you spot the repetition?
- Principles have really been put under a spotlight. Clearly if they form a coalition with the Tories then the Lib Dems will inevitably have to give up much of their manifesto as although they can swing things, they do not wield as much world dominating power as many have suggested. Labour have literally freed up every principle they've ever had to get down on their knees and beg for power. And last but certainly not least the Tories themselves if they were to make a electoral-reform-referendum deal would inevitably campaign against the deal and as such stab the Lib Dems in the back.
- Resignation was the only option for GB. So many of the nations problems have been credited to him alone and the process is irreversible. As he highlighted in his speech "The reason we have a hung parliament is no single party or leader was able to win the full support of the country. As leader of my party, I must accept that is a judgment on me." (I thought that was rather noble myself what did you guys think?)
FIRST RESULT
SUNDERLAND south got their votes in first (it was gonna be them or sunderland central like every year) and unsurprisingly it was a labour seat. BUT votes have swung toward the Tories and the BNP.
This is going to be quite a night.
This is going to be quite a night.
Quelle Suprise!
Obama, although very subtle about it, is most definitely a Christian. And although again he hasn't been explicit about his views on gay rights it is pretty clear that he, personally, does not support same-sex marriages.
At the moment gay rights are in somewhat of a crisis. This is immediately apparent when you consider the figures:
Last week a landmark on the road to gay rights emerged, however. One of the keystones of the debate for same-sex marriage is that homosexual couples did not have the same rights as their heterosexual contemporaries. Obama has changed this by announcing plans to create laws that would enable partners of homosexual hospital patients to have the same visiting rights as heterosexual couples. Obviously this is not only a political milestone but a practical one too. Hospitals can be some of the most distressing and high octane places and it would help if this helped calm the problem by removing a kinda unnecessary element of practitioner's days!
At the moment gay rights are in somewhat of a crisis. This is immediately apparent when you consider the figures:
- 30 states have created constitutional amendments outlawing same-sex marriage
- 31 states have had movements to legalise same-sex marriage that have been defeated
- Only in 5 states (MA, CN, VT, IA and NH) is same-sex marriage legal
Last week a landmark on the road to gay rights emerged, however. One of the keystones of the debate for same-sex marriage is that homosexual couples did not have the same rights as their heterosexual contemporaries. Obama has changed this by announcing plans to create laws that would enable partners of homosexual hospital patients to have the same visiting rights as heterosexual couples. Obviously this is not only a political milestone but a practical one too. Hospitals can be some of the most distressing and high octane places and it would help if this helped calm the problem by removing a kinda unnecessary element of practitioner's days!
Making History
Here is my round-up of the best reviews of the first Prime Ministerial debate:
Huffington Post - the style of the Huffington Post is incredible
netimperative - offers up another historic element of the debates. An interesting sideline that differs from all the reports on the results!
CBS - Gave the most balanced account of Clegg's 'moment in the sun' and is actually a rather insightful outsider's perspective.
Reuters - In the most bizarre twist of all the real prospect of a hung parliament made the sterling momentarily slip.
You may wonder why I'm not writing my own report on this. Well I was forced to attend a dress up game-themed party instead! I plan to watch the debate in full on my own as soon as I can. Until then - enjoy the above.
Huffington Post - the style of the Huffington Post is incredible
netimperative - offers up another historic element of the debates. An interesting sideline that differs from all the reports on the results!
CBS - Gave the most balanced account of Clegg's 'moment in the sun' and is actually a rather insightful outsider's perspective.
Reuters - In the most bizarre twist of all the real prospect of a hung parliament made the sterling momentarily slip.
You may wonder why I'm not writing my own report on this. Well I was forced to attend a dress up game-themed party instead! I plan to watch the debate in full on my own as soon as I can. Until then - enjoy the above.
World Wide Women
It's no secret that women are disproportionately represented in politics internationally. The issue hasn't had a shortage of attention recently. There was the European minister who quit her post because she felt she was 'window dressing', increasing attention based around the issue of pregnant MPs, and the Sarah Palin saga. Similarly, women in combat are rarely recognised for their work, everything from reaching out to Afghan women in the war there to the World War II pilots who were only recently honoured for their services.
Which is why I'm rather impressed by Ivanka Trump's latest role. O.k. so I never thought I'd truly respect a Trump either but hear me out on this. Ivanka will front a new UN initiative called Girl Up which will try to encourage young girls worldwide to dream big and attempt change in their lifetimes.
Which is why I'm rather impressed by Ivanka Trump's latest role. O.k. so I never thought I'd truly respect a Trump either but hear me out on this. Ivanka will front a new UN initiative called Girl Up which will try to encourage young girls worldwide to dream big and attempt change in their lifetimes.
As an advocate and participant in the Model United Nations (we won commended delegation as Belgium last weekend at BISMUN - woo!) I really believe that the United Nations as a whole is truly inspirational and an effective international force. I sit on the disarmament committee, because warfare and foreign relations are my personal passion, although my nearly entirely female team contained people with so many different interests; from religious and Internet freedom, to the end of torture and issues in the Middle-East. First off there was not a moment of boredom for any of us, even those not normally interested in politics, and I truly think that the perception that politics and international relations are 'boring' should be eliminated before girls will be drawn to politics.
However, neither do I think the advances of the last few years should be ignored. Sarah Palin and Hilary Clinton both represented were both predominant figures in the 2008 American Presidential election. UN goodwill ambassadors include Angelina Jolie, Selena Gomez (who's just 17 years old!) and Shakira (who has been repeatedly honoured for her charity and political work). Finally, Baroness Ashton is the first vice president of the European commission and as a result a pretty powerful role model.
Politics is fashionable, cool and above all involves having a true impact on the world, and as a result is tailor made for girls!
However, neither do I think the advances of the last few years should be ignored. Sarah Palin and Hilary Clinton both represented were both predominant figures in the 2008 American Presidential election. UN goodwill ambassadors include Angelina Jolie, Selena Gomez (who's just 17 years old!) and Shakira (who has been repeatedly honoured for her charity and political work). Finally, Baroness Ashton is the first vice president of the European commission and as a result a pretty powerful role model.
Politics is fashionable, cool and above all involves having a true impact on the world, and as a result is tailor made for girls!
The Tube
It seems like politicians may just have discovered this magical thing called a television.
Ok so they've been using TV to promote themselves for years. However, this year self promotion through the televisual format has reached new heights. First off the British have decided to just go right ahead and copy the American format for holding live debates in the run up to the elections. It's sort of like Question Time but more formal with pre-prepared answers and two of the most powerful people in politics taking personal swipes at each other face-to-face. It also makes guys like Joe the Plumber famous. This decision led to a whole string of suggestions for TV-based politics with Simon Cowell even suggesting elections be held in an X-Factor style format - uh thanks SC but no thanks - that's pushing popular participation to the ridiculous extremes of desperation.
Secondly Obama took American political TV (which I though couldn't be pushed much further) and totally raised the bar by hosting a live health care summit broadcast worldwide on TV and the Internet! Now if anyone wants to deny that this man has reformed honesty within politics then go right ahead but seriously dude has a case. In seriousness using such a public forum did enable a significantly larger proportion of everyday Americans to understand the health care bill and the arguments both for and against it, alongside how it would be practically implemented. With such a revolutionary piece of legislation I believe making all attempts to inform the public are essential particularly in the run up to Mid-term elections in which a key issue will be health care reform. The elections may well give some indication of the effect of the televised summit and I for one will be sure to pay attention.
So it's back to you. What do you think of seeing your trusted representatives faces plastered across your TV screens? Does it make them seem slimy and further unrelatable? And in all honesty does it help you understand which policies you are actually voting for come election day? I for one am a huge advocate of politicians putting themselves out to both public scrutiny and public understanding.
Ok so they've been using TV to promote themselves for years. However, this year self promotion through the televisual format has reached new heights. First off the British have decided to just go right ahead and copy the American format for holding live debates in the run up to the elections. It's sort of like Question Time but more formal with pre-prepared answers and two of the most powerful people in politics taking personal swipes at each other face-to-face. It also makes guys like Joe the Plumber famous. This decision led to a whole string of suggestions for TV-based politics with Simon Cowell even suggesting elections be held in an X-Factor style format - uh thanks SC but no thanks - that's pushing popular participation to the ridiculous extremes of desperation.
Secondly Obama took American political TV (which I though couldn't be pushed much further) and totally raised the bar by hosting a live health care summit broadcast worldwide on TV and the Internet! Now if anyone wants to deny that this man has reformed honesty within politics then go right ahead but seriously dude has a case. In seriousness using such a public forum did enable a significantly larger proportion of everyday Americans to understand the health care bill and the arguments both for and against it, alongside how it would be practically implemented. With such a revolutionary piece of legislation I believe making all attempts to inform the public are essential particularly in the run up to Mid-term elections in which a key issue will be health care reform. The elections may well give some indication of the effect of the televised summit and I for one will be sure to pay attention.
So it's back to you. What do you think of seeing your trusted representatives faces plastered across your TV screens? Does it make them seem slimy and further unrelatable? And in all honesty does it help you understand which policies you are actually voting for come election day? I for one am a huge advocate of politicians putting themselves out to both public scrutiny and public understanding.
Notes On A Scandal
Lately there have been some great examples of political scandals; and as a result some great examples of reactions to scandal. So in a break from current affairs let’s admire the politician’s way to cope with bitchiness, backstabbing and revelations.
Reaction 1 - Outright denial
Reaction 1 - Outright denial
- John Edwards - In August '08 John Edwards admitted having an extramarital affair with a former aide. However, he vigorously denied the paternity of her child. Another aide claimed paternity of the child however this denial would turn out to be a potentially crippling blow for Edwards career...
- 'Forces of Hell' - This week Chancellor Alistair Darling suggested that the 'forces of hell' had been unleashed on him following his claims about the depth of the recession in 2008. It is notable that he not only implicated the Prime Minister, but also the Conservative Party. Despite this, Cameron has had an absolute field day with this story. This was one part of a very bad week for GB's government....
- Mandelson on bullying - In the other part of the controversial week which many have believed has signalled the death blow for Brown's government the PM was accused of having bullied much of the staff of No 10 resulting in several of them calling anti-bullying helplines. Instead of outright denying the claims Peter Mandelson suggested that Gordon Brown was 'assertive' and 'passionate'. A wolf in sheep's clothing or a true justification of the actions of the PM? We'll see. In an ironic twist Brown has found support in Enterprise Tsar Sir Alan Sugar who suggested that a hot-tempered leader was just the sort that he would like to lead a country. I have to say I'm not sure if a guy whose borrowed catchphrase is 'you're fired' is the best to judge/comment on/advise on bullying claims.
- Lewinsky Affair - One of the most famous quotes from a President ever, and probably the most famous of Bill Clinton's career is 'I did not have sex with that woman'. It was claimed that Clinton had an affair with White House employee Monica Lewinsky and in a speech to the nation he denied it using the above quote among others. However, turned out that Slick Willy actually meant that he didn't have penetrative sex with that woman - oral sex suddenly didn't count. Oh you sly dog, using the grasp of English gained through a PPE degree to worm your way out of a very sticky situation. In the end though, as always, the media ensured that the truth came out.
- John Edwards (yep for the second time) - In January 2010, in the midst of a court case, Edwards came forward and accepted paternity of his daughter, Quinn. He apologised primarily to Quinn, for denying her, and to his wife Elizabeth. Despite this Elizabeth left Edwards in mid-February probably because by this time Edwards had repeatedly lied to her about the extent of the affair. Ultimately Edwards embarrassed himself and may well have screwed up his career for good. His bad.
- Tiger Woods - OK so he's not a politico but he deserves a highly honourable mention, mainly because many on this list could have learnt from it. Following revelations about his personal life Woods disappeared for two and a half months, before making a very public televised apology, in which he admitted all he had done and apologised to his wife, children, parents, sponsors and fans. Somehow I suspect he caught everyone in that large net! Although he has lost some of his credibility he hasn't self-imploded or destroyed his career, and that's something all of the above could do with.
Go Ahead, Justify
The Iraq Enquiry.
I simply had to touch on this at some point. By now we've had a number of the big guns speak, or justify, whatsoever you believe they're attempting to do.
Their are flaws to this procedure, and many people have been complaining.
There have certainly been some interesting quotes emerge as a result of politicians more offering, as always, their opinions on events as opposed to factual accounts. These include Jack Straw asserting apparently wrongly that weapons inspectors could not access various Iraqi sites in 2002, Blair saying he would "do it all again" and Claire Short going on an angry vent, defending the honour of Gordon Brown as she went, a man she described as "very unhappy and marginalised (by Blair)". Overall, this is rather thrilling stuff, and it will be interesting to discover what the highly charged testimonies of some of our most senior politicians will produce in the form a report, made by some of the most prominent civil servants of the last few decades.
Finally, there's a little point that the press have continually, but quietly, made in relation to the enquiry and all the complaints surrounding it; the Americans have yet to have a public inquiry into any aspect of the Iraq War, whereas in the UK the Kelly Inquiry already took place years before this current enquiry. Although our politicians aren't being called to legal account, opinions are certainly being formed as a result of their own testimonies, and this must surely reflect a degree of both democracy and military accountability within the UK today.
I simply had to touch on this at some point. By now we've had a number of the big guns speak, or justify, whatsoever you believe they're attempting to do.
Their are flaws to this procedure, and many people have been complaining.
- It's not a legal enquiry, just a political one (alth0ugh that's hardly unusual in domestic situations)
- Our politico's are under no oath whatsoever
- The documents being published as a result are being limited
There have certainly been some interesting quotes emerge as a result of politicians more offering, as always, their opinions on events as opposed to factual accounts. These include Jack Straw asserting apparently wrongly that weapons inspectors could not access various Iraqi sites in 2002, Blair saying he would "do it all again" and Claire Short going on an angry vent, defending the honour of Gordon Brown as she went, a man she described as "very unhappy and marginalised (by Blair)". Overall, this is rather thrilling stuff, and it will be interesting to discover what the highly charged testimonies of some of our most senior politicians will produce in the form a report, made by some of the most prominent civil servants of the last few decades.
Finally, there's a little point that the press have continually, but quietly, made in relation to the enquiry and all the complaints surrounding it; the Americans have yet to have a public inquiry into any aspect of the Iraq War, whereas in the UK the Kelly Inquiry already took place years before this current enquiry. Although our politicians aren't being called to legal account, opinions are certainly being formed as a result of their own testimonies, and this must surely reflect a degree of both democracy and military accountability within the UK today.
Hedge Your Funds
In England our campaign process lasts a few short weeks, where our trusted representatives kiss babies, use technical jargon and generally over-populate the centre so as to gain a vote which in the end endorses a party not a person.
In the US it's kinda different. Big corporate bucks are used to try to sway the votes, although up until this week past those could not be used to directly influence the outcome for a specific candidate. That's all changed, though, when the current Supreme Court ruled that the century-old rules limiting US corporate expenditure on campaigns were unconstitutional based on the First Amendment that gives all US citizens freedom of speech.
Ok so you may wonder what the big deal is? Well, big business has traditionally been a machine that definitely leans toward the right. As a result the fear is that the Democrats, already suffering from the loss of Teddy Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts recently, will have a significantly lower degree of campaign finance than the Republicans for the mid-terms coming up this summer. This comes on top of the fact that 12 Democratic Representatives are not fighting for their seats again come this electoral cycle. And although the battle for Obama's old Senate seat isn't that close, the party must still attempt to focus a lot of effort on this embattled state.
The pressure is on for the Democrats in 2010. Obama's support is sliding and their hold on both houses is definitely loosening up. But there is hope for the party yet: this is politics after all and as Scott Brown (and his Cosmo!) proved the battle ain't over 'til it's over. This is going to be one interesting fight.
In the US it's kinda different. Big corporate bucks are used to try to sway the votes, although up until this week past those could not be used to directly influence the outcome for a specific candidate. That's all changed, though, when the current Supreme Court ruled that the century-old rules limiting US corporate expenditure on campaigns were unconstitutional based on the First Amendment that gives all US citizens freedom of speech.
Ok so you may wonder what the big deal is? Well, big business has traditionally been a machine that definitely leans toward the right. As a result the fear is that the Democrats, already suffering from the loss of Teddy Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts recently, will have a significantly lower degree of campaign finance than the Republicans for the mid-terms coming up this summer. This comes on top of the fact that 12 Democratic Representatives are not fighting for their seats again come this electoral cycle. And although the battle for Obama's old Senate seat isn't that close, the party must still attempt to focus a lot of effort on this embattled state.
The pressure is on for the Democrats in 2010. Obama's support is sliding and their hold on both houses is definitely loosening up. But there is hope for the party yet: this is politics after all and as Scott Brown (and his Cosmo!) proved the battle ain't over 'til it's over. This is going to be one interesting fight.
What's The Problem With Massachusetts?
In the last year the presidency of Barack Obama, one of the most anticipated in history, came full bloom with the honeymoon of his election ending and his actions being judged based upon what they were. He certainly scored high when coping with the financial crisis, and he even received a Nobel Peace Prize (what for no-one knows -details, details). However, the ride hasn't exactly been smooth either. He's done the whole troop resurgence thing, not closed Guantanamo as of yet and his healthcare reform has been what many would call highly controversial. So after all that could a small time, middle of the term, state election really have an effect on how his presidency is viewed?
A whole lot.
The election in Massachusetts, to replace Teddy Kennedy in his stoically held Senate seat, was essential because it marked the first big election since the defeats in other states just a few months ago. Since people tend to vote for the party that, when considering all elements associated with it, they most like then if they're voting for the party that a president isn't a member of it kinda implies that he isn't, well, like. So if a President was to lose a seat that had belonged to his party consistently historically then the outlook is kinda gloomy. The loss of the Massachusetts for Obama therefore kinda sucks. All of this just a few days before Obama's 1 year of presidency anniversary - the course of true electorate love never did run smooth.
A whole lot.
The election in Massachusetts, to replace Teddy Kennedy in his stoically held Senate seat, was essential because it marked the first big election since the defeats in other states just a few months ago. Since people tend to vote for the party that, when considering all elements associated with it, they most like then if they're voting for the party that a president isn't a member of it kinda implies that he isn't, well, like. So if a President was to lose a seat that had belonged to his party consistently historically then the outlook is kinda gloomy. The loss of the Massachusetts for Obama therefore kinda sucks. All of this just a few days before Obama's 1 year of presidency anniversary - the course of true electorate love never did run smooth.
Old Sport
My favourite political quote of 2009 came from David Cameron and he only just managed to squeeze it in their! Cam called for a "good clean fight" in the elections that will come up - at some point March, June, who knows? - at some point in the first half of 2010. I think the greatest achievement of this particular soundbite of loveliness is that CamCam has managed to be both hypocritical and ironic. Because let's face it when was politics ever 'clean'? The point of a representative democracy is that our politicians do the dirty work for us! We like it dirty! Plus for many voters the more competitive - read dirty - the fight is the more likely they are going to come out to the polls, something that the British voting levels are starting to need.
And I personally think Cameron needs to focus his words slightly closer to home. From the NHS/American Healthcare/Daniel Hannan drama in August, to the Tories latest 'attack' over Mobiles being smuggled into prisons, the Tories have been doing a whole lot of dirty fighting themselves.
On a serious level though I think that there may be some real truths hidden deep down in Cameron's words. Since politics became less about policies and more about personalities it seems that much of the public have lost their respect for politicians, and their desire to participate. So maybe a well fought battle would be enough to inspire more people to vote. And as long as it stays a battle it would still be just as fun for those who just love to watch!
And I personally think Cameron needs to focus his words slightly closer to home. From the NHS/American Healthcare/Daniel Hannan drama in August, to the Tories latest 'attack' over Mobiles being smuggled into prisons, the Tories have been doing a whole lot of dirty fighting themselves.
On a serious level though I think that there may be some real truths hidden deep down in Cameron's words. Since politics became less about policies and more about personalities it seems that much of the public have lost their respect for politicians, and their desire to participate. So maybe a well fought battle would be enough to inspire more people to vote. And as long as it stays a battle it would still be just as fun for those who just love to watch!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)