Memoirs are vacuous, bitter, petty and irrelevant

politics n. pl. (also treated as sing.). science and art of government; political affairs or life (politics is a dirty business); political principles (what are his politics?) – Oxford English Dictionary.

The ’science’ and ‘art’ of government. What is that? According to the increasingly hysterical press and Cherie Blair, Lord Levy and John Prescott’s self-indulgent drivel, it is nothing at all.

Vacuous, bitter, petty and irrelevant. ‘Political principles’ mean nothing to these people.

For Blair it is about supporting her husband. She wants Labour to win the election, but not enough to stop her further demolishing Gordon Brown’s reputation.

For Levy it is about vanity. Making himself look important (but not too important, remember the Metropolitan Police are watching) because he’s the PM’s mate, almost like the school bully’s weedy sidekick in the playground.

And what purpose do Prescott’s memoirs serve? A politician (using the term loosely remember) of no real influence, his memoirs seem only to have removed his final shred of dignity.

And yet the papers lap it. As Iain Dale points out they have been devoured by publishers and columnists.

In an incestous orgie the westminster village has convinced itself that its petty squabbles are important, while forgetting what politics actually mean to real people.

Is there any advice as to how to solve inequality from these collumnists? Is there suggestion as to how to control the economy?

Nope, and there isn’t likely to be. Politics as ‘principles’ means nothing, politics as ‘business’ is everything.

Capability Brown?

John Kampfener, former editor of New Statesmen, is just the latest critic of Gordon Brown’s ‘lack of leadership.’ And in his recent Sunday Telegraph article says it is an indelible characteristic of ‘incapability Brown.’

It seems that through the prism of plummeting polls any political development is a blow for Brown.

‘Dithering’ attaches itself to any of his actions. Even if he takes the firm step of refusing to attend the Olympic opening ceremony, he dithers. 

Turn back six months and we have a different story, however. Tony Blair was criticised throughout his tenure for taking decisions ‘on the hoof,’ while everyone feared the chancellor would bring the iron fist to government (and of course Simon Heffer called him Stalinist – though in fairness he does this to any politician who is to the left of Norman Tebbit.)

When Brown meets PLP members to discuss the abolition of the 10p tax rate it is weakness. When Blair goes to war in Afghanistan with minimal consulation of cabinet, and condones the release of the infamous Iraq dossier without informing Jack Straw it is dictatorship – incidentally these two instances (and others) are highlighted by a certain John Kampfner in his book, Blair’s Wars.

So has Brown gone too far the other way in adding consultation and consideration to the political process? For the media, intent on highlighting his every action as a disaster, and even some Labour members, it obviously has.

But what do we want from our leaders? Is there a happy middle ground? Or is Brown in the unhappy position of the leader of a party which has simply been in power too long?

Certainly, he would do well to look at the example of Michael Foot. Consistently derided as an electoral libaility the former Labour leader became the benchmark for how not to run a political party - a sort of anti-inspiration for the centrist leadership of Blair.

But Foot’s leadership was deeper, more intellectually-honest. He recognised the need – set out in Labour’s constitution – to acknowledge the pluralities of the Labour movement: Union, Executive, PLP, activist.

To commentators Foot seemed weak, but he actually represented the purest ‘Labour leader’ since Keir Hardie.

Could Brown be trying to follow his lead? He announced his attention to create a government ‘of all the talents.’ He isn’t afraid to consult the PLP on controversial issues?

In this light we can ask: is this really weakness? Or is it a brave, refreshing, considered and intelligent approach to running the country?  

 

Why is no-one barracking Obama?

Last year a respected historian taught me the limitations of rhetoric. In doing so he mocked the optimism of Presidents John F Kennedy and Lyndon B Johnson. JFK had vowed in 1961 to explore a “New Frontier,” while his successor, Johnson, promised a “Great Society,” but their consesual, brave, optimistic and ultimately empty speeches would seem ludicrous for today’s sceptics.

 According to historians such grand promises raised expectations beyond the achievable causing bitterness and the near collapse of American society by the end of the decade.

No-one since has since been foolish enough, they claim, to promise liberal reform with words as their only weapon. If someone did they would be laughed from the soap box.

Yet, Barack Obama is proving these historians wrong. The inspirational optimism and grand promises of Kennedy and Johnson were supposed to die with them. They were supposed to depend on a young, affluent capitalist society, brimming with confidence after victory in World War Two and the middle-class consumer boom. Crucially they came before Watergate and defeat in Vietnam.

But Obama has equally grand promises. His policies are, well, non-existent. But he is not mocked. In fact he is storming to the Democratic nomination. There is no baby-boom in sight and America can hardly be called a confident nation but the sceptics are relatively quiet.

 His opponent has only recently begun to question his wild promises, having initially tried to steal his slogan of “change.” (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/richard_adams/2008/02/lost_in_wisconsin.html)

Moreover, he seems to have won the consensual admiration of the British press. Even Richard Littlejohn asked: “Why can’t WE have inspiring politics like this?” (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_page_id=1772&in_article_id=512755&in_author_id=322)

The Brits are obsessed with Obama. In the battle of the minorities, it seems they have sided with the black man over the woman.

Of particular interest is the way young people have so embraced his campaign. Ironically, the Telegraph ran a piece on this theme at weekend, and came closest to explaining the Obama phenomenon. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/02/16/bmobama116.xml&page=2)

Obama, says Neil McCormick, is the first true 21st century candidate. The first candidate of the “internet age.”

“He has underdog status,” writes McCormick. ”While his skin colour alone lends him a (possibly spurious) association with a century of American counterculture cool. Crucially, at 46, he is young enough to be comfortable with the medium.”

Regardless of its (now familiar) sycophancy the article perhaps suggests a deeper understanding of Obama’s appeal. Rather than the leader of new movement or the forger of new coalitions, he is the political manifestation of a generation that has been searching for suitable candidate for at least four years.

The internet generation (at least not in America) need not be apathetic, disillusioned and disinterested. The case of Howard Dean showed the desire for a politican to represent their views. Even if he turned out to be a laughingstock.

 

Unlike Dean, however, Obama is not being laughed at. He has reached beyond his core support to raise record funds and overcome the candidate of the party. 

They aren’t laughing at him. At least not until he has to deliver on these grand promises.

Sharia Law

Who’d have thought the Archbishop of Canterbury was an anarchist? He certainly doesn’t look it. In fact, he closer resembles God, a more appropriate look for the head of the Church of England. Yet anarchy is effectively what he has proposed with his well publicised comments about Sharia Law last week (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm).

The reaction of the press was loud and judgemental but not always considered. Calls for him to resign were immediate and unequivocal. A Times journalist asked if he’d gone bonkers. (http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2008/02/has-the-archbis.html).

Such reaction is not surprising. His speech gives the Right credence to attack Sharia Law, thus putting further wedges into the cultural divides widened by terror attacks, the Iraq war and endless scaremongering about immigration. The Daily Mail produced an interesting and pretty well balanced backgrounder on Sharia but couldn’t resist linking it to the London bombings (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=512973&in_page_id=1770). It also allows them to highlight and attack a so-called liberal elite who are supposed to run the country. (They must have taken a day off during the Butler and Hutton whitewashes or when parliament allowed 28 days detention without charge.)

For Liberals it was an opportunity for some anglican bashing – the first resignation call I heard was from Krishnan Guru Murphy on Channel 4 news. In a week when the church was set to be racked by homophobia claims, Williams provided them with another stone.

And yet Williams hasn’t lost his mind. In fact his speech could prove the most interesting and challenging of the year. At a time when the church is pilloried for being out of touch, shouldn’t he be praised for trying to deal with modern issues in a way few others have dared?

The law has always been a creation of the white, middle class. From its conception, its principal role has been to maintain the status-quo and protect elites. The persecution of popular culture follows a twisted road from witch-hunts to binge drinking.

For anyone who believes in the rule of law their can be only one Law. And yet English law is incongrous with the religious beliefs of some Muslims, of some Jews and some Hindus – as seen in December’s protests in Hertforshire (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7160055.stm). It is permenently in conflict with working class and popular cultures.

If the rule of law and capitalist democracy are to function at all they must be universal, not some patchwork from which communities and cultures can pick based on creed, colour or class. However, Williams questions if this is possible in the century of ‘multiculturalism,’ globalisation and immigration. To follow his argument logically is to arrive at the door of Enoch Powell.

Perhaps most interestingly of all is the question of how apathy has reached such a level in the UK that its most radical resident is a white, middle-class, Oxbridge-educated Christian.

Certainly, he has not respect for the rules.