On not fixing a broken system

• Don't campaign to clean up politics.
• Don't campaign to tighten the rules on MPs' expenses.
• Don't campaign to increase openness and enhance accountability.
• Don't campaign to reform the electoral system.

It's a mug's game. The system's broke. Don't campaign to fix it.

---

Er... what?

No, really. Do you think the electorate is stupid? Voters know that parties' promises on reforming politics are typically well-intentioned but over-sold. Devious people will always find ways to cheat the system. And politicians are seen as devious people.

But we need to prevent the abuses of MPs' expenses that were discovered this year!

The only reason these abuses were discovered this year was through the leaking of the information. Illegal, of course, but no jury in the land would have convicted. It'll be great if new systems stop these abuses, but it will always be the threat of discovery that will act as the real deterrent to future abuses.

What about recall systems for MPs found guilty of breaking the rules?

Again, great idea, but the details are tricky to get right. In the meantime, an MP who refuses to go hemorrhages support from their party, increasing pressure on them to go. Obviously it's not ideal, but if you're already of the view that "they're all as bad as each other", replacing one crook with another isn't going to help.

But electoral reform... surely it's ridiculous that one party can get control over Parliament even if only a quarter of people vote for them? It's mad that in safe constituencies you could pin a blue or red rosette on a donkey and it'd still win!

Meh.

What kind of a reasoned response is that?!

An honest one. If the voters were to consider the problems with the current system hard enough, a sizeable proportion might well demand just the kind of changes that many politically interested folks support. But they don't consider these problems, because they see them as secondary to their real concerns.

Which are...?

Maybe in another blog post.

But surely the lack of engagement by the electorate in these issues stems from a failure of communication? A failure to get across to the electorate the importance of fixing a broken political system.

Meh.

Is that your catch-all answer then?

OK. You tried to communicate. And maybe you failed. Or maybe these issues really are of secondary importance to most people.

So you're saying do nothing to repair politics?

No, by all means put forward sensible proposals. In fact you need to have some proposals to counter the argument that you don't care about the abuses and that you're just the same as all the other parties. Just don't expect the voters to care too much about your actual proposals or to fall over themselves to put a tick in your box on that basis. Besides which, all the other parties will also have proposals to drone on about.

Meh

Nice try. But "meh" doesn't work as a response in that context.

Meh

OK, well done. So there it does.

Meh

Now you're over-doing it.

Sorry

Vote to save the planet

The British General Election in 2010

Dear Voter

You lucky thing. Not so long ago, you would have had no say in who made the decisions about your country. In 2010, your vote could decide the future of the entire world.



OK. Perhaps that's putting it a little dramatically. But look at the facts. The best scientific evidence we have suggests that without massive and sustained global action on carbon emissions starting now, our world will change quickly and irreversibly for the worse.

Maybe you think there's some uncertainty about the science. Maybe you think it'd be better to wait until the evidence is clearer. Maybe you think little old Britain shouldn't act while America and China are dragging their feet. Maybe you think it's all fine and dandy being concerned for the environment when times are good, but what about jobs? Maybe you think new technologies will solve the problem. Maybe you think climate change might at worst bring Mediterranean weather to our cold damp country.

If you believe any of these things, search Google. You'll find plenty of people who will agree with you. But also take a little time to hunt down the counter arguments (e.g. the Met Office, the Royal Society, New Scientist, and the IPCC), and decide for yourself. If afterwards you still believe these things, I doubt there's anything I could say to change your mind, so goodbye, bonne chance. I hope in the end it'll turn out you were right after all.

If you're still reading, then the question is: Who should you vote for to do what's needed to fight climate change?

At election time it's easy to be fooled into thinking that you should be voting for the politicians with the best sound-bites, the best put-downs, the best haircuts. Despite all the fine words, though, neither Labour nor the Conservatives are prepared to do what's necessary to fight climate change, if that means compromising on the economy.

Why? Because they know that the economy is the most immediate issue that most voters care about. They know that saying they're against new roads and runways would be unpopular. They know that taxing carbon emissions would be unpopular with motorists, holiday-makers and consumers of gas and electricity. They know that tightening regulations on energy efficiency would increase the costs of building new homes, hospitals and schools.

Labour and Conservative politicians are going to tell you grimly and sincerely that tough measures are needed in order to sort out public debt and so build a strong economy. And they're right. But they are placing economic prosperity above the fight against climate change, because they think that's what you want.

Is that what you want? Is it?

Broadsheet: A coalition is right for the next general election

Labour needs to go. The Conservative Party is the natural party of government. However a Conservative-LibDem coalition is the best outcome for the next election.


It is clear we are reaching the end of the Labour Party's time in office. Its failures have included: the mishandling of bank regulation; costly, unnecessary wars; an over-complicated tax regime; wasteful spending on public services; and rules on MP's expenses that have brought Parliament into disrepute.

The rank-and-file of the Conservative Party knows what needs to be done: the reintroduction of calm, sensible administration rather than frantic law-making, overweening bureaucracy and throwing other people's money at problems.

Yet David Cameron seems to be continuing the spinning and posturing of the Blair years. He delights in wrong-footing Gordon Brown, but does not seem to be able to lead. One of Cameron's closest advisors, his PR chief, left the News of the World after some very sleazy practices. Cameron's prospective Chancellor is a gaffe-prone lightweight. Cameron's highly-paid policy guru obsesses about "style" and "the brand" rather than actual policy. This spin works wonders: Cameron somehow came out well from the MP's expenses scandal, despite the unacceptable expense claims of his most senior parliamentary advisor and Cameron's own questionable expense claims.

Somewhat surprisingly, the Liberal Democrats offer an attractive alternative to Labour. They have been proposing for some time the measures that are now accepted as necessary to clean up British politics. None of their MP's have been "flipping" state-funded second home mortgages. They have, in Vince Cable, the most widely respected candidate for Chancellor. They are instinctively opposed to ill-thought-out foreign escapades and big government. They are also the party most likely to be able to get Europe doing something useful for a change: saving the country from the damaging effects of climate change by obtaining global agreements on carbon emissions.

Of course the Liberal Democrats won't win the General Election. But that doesn't matter: a Conservative-LibDem coalition would combine the strengths of the conservative majority file with the sensible liberal approach that the country needs right now, while mitigating the worst excesses of Cameron's spin machine.

What you don't want to hear

Conservative leader David Cameron has said the "scale of the economic mess" he would inherit if he became prime minister was "incredibly daunting". Mr Cameron told the BBC he was "looking the British people in the eye" and saying public spending had to be cut. (BBC News)

A common criticism of politicians is that they simply tell voters what they want to hear. To some extent this is a reasonable thing for politicians to be doing: they need voters to find their statements agreeable. And to some extent it is reasonable to criticise them for this: voters need politicians who articulate sound policies rather than populist policies.

But politicians have learned that if they are all being tarred with the accusation that they just say what voters want to hear, a way of standing out and appearing competent is to be up-front about unpleasant realities.

Tony Blair and New Labour did this with their so-called "hard choices". John Major did this with his "If it isn’t hurting, it isn’t working".

Yet recent polling suggests that the people don't know whether they want higher taxes, cuts in spending or no change. There is no best sound-bite at the moment.

But this might change. As the views of economists, pundits and politicians begin to converge on higher taxes and cuts in spending, the war of words will be about who can sound the sternest about what needs to be done and how Labour is best-placed to do it because they've got the experience, how the Conservatives are best-placed to do it because Labour got us into this mess, and how the LibDems are best-placed to do it because fresh thinking is needed.

And so we come full circle: politicians will once again be telling us what we want to hear, but this time it will be about "austerity is necessary" rather than "stability is enough".

And so Battlestar Galactica is over

And so Battlestar Galactica is over.

I'm left feeling meditative. About the events of the last few episodes. About how all the details of the plot hang together. About the characters, their bittersweet lives and awakenings. And most of all about the many desperate journeys: the mythic flight from Kobol to Caprica, Earth and the other colonies; the doomed story of the Pegasus; the tragic peace-keeping mission of Earth's Final Five; the fraught escape of the ramshackle fleet from the 12 colonies to Kobol, to New Caprica, to Earth, and to New Earth; the inexorable journey of Cylons from mechanoid to Centurion to god-fearing sentient; and the long journey of “humans” from Hera to us.

A most unusual sci-fi experience. Not the huge emphasis on technology, strange new worlds, aliens and space battles that one normally expects. These elements are there, for sure, just enough to pique curiosity, but not enough to detract from the subtle meditations on themes such as identity, mortality, politics, religion and destiny. It is a truly amazing achievement to have succeeded in incorporating these themes in an entertaining, action-packed TV show for a mainstream audience.

It's entirely possible that some subtleties are entirely in the mind of the viewer rather than in the intentions of the creators of BSG. But that's irrelevant. BSG was made in such a way that it renders such meditations quite normal.

I'm left with many questions. And that's also as it should be. Perhaps some will be answered by my thinking harder, or by internet forums. Perhaps others might be answered by any new series, although there is a sense of completeness to BSG that leaves me wanting to avoid more complications. But the show's aesthetic fits with there being mysteries that might never be resolved.

And these questions keep me there, in that universe, where Adama holds it all together seemingly by sheer will-power; where both Cavil and Starbuck battle inner demons to self-destruction; where Baltar cannot help himself; where machines console themselves by projecting imaginative realms; where virtual beings tweak history; and where everyone is on a journey they don't understand.

Exeter update

Congratulations to my MP Ben Bradshaw, who has been promoted to the Cabinet as Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. He's a likeable, eloquent chap, often seen cycling between appointments in Exeter.

It's just a shame Ben belongs to a government that was responsible for the illegal invasion of Iraq, that often fails to resist authoritarian measures, and that is stumbling over the climate change.

Meanwhile, the Devon County Council elections have produced little change in Exeter. Four Labour holds, three LibDem holds, one Conservative hold, and one gain by the Conservatives from the LibDems (Duryard and Pennsylvania - look who failed to mobilise the student vote).

What should have been the overriding issue of the campaign - fighting Devon County Council's plan to abolish Exeter City Council - was scarcely discussed.

British Government abolishing ministry for universities

So it appears that universities are now subsumed entirely into the business agenda. From being part of the education ministry until quite recently, higher education is now overseen by the “Department for Business, Innovation and Skills”, whose remit is “to build Britain’s capabilities to compete in the global economy” (BBC News)

Surely state support for science should be more than just about business, at a time of threats from climate change, infectious disease and discoveries of earth-like planets.
Surely state support for higher education should be more than just about business, at a time when we are seeing afresh the importance for our society of the development of ethical integrity, personal growth, creativity and critical engagement in democracy.
Surely state support for research in the humanities and social sciences should be more than just about business at a time when work purely dedicated to furthering the knowledge and capacities of humankind is being devalued by a narrow commodity agenda.