Lib Dem Broken Promises

I shouldn't even be writing this post – I have a huge pile of work to get through today and I haven't even had a cup of tea yet.

But I couldn't resist.

I had a brief conversation on twitter with a friend yesterday. He tweeted about the huge rise in tuition fees. I, like many supporters of the Lib Dems, sigh when I hear this because, as I replied to his tweet, 

"I lament at the number of people who say the LDs broke lots of promises and, having named fees, can't name any significant others"

And I really do. I lament for one thing because tuition fees is such a raw wound for a lot of Lib Dems. They'd proposed something neither of the other parties did: zero fees. But it became clear the others would raise fees. They pledged not to cave in to consensus (in fact, to vote against any rise – naïvely in the extreme). Then, votes cast, the only real potential for a coalition was with the party who wanted limitless fees. Nightmare.

Well, as they say, the rest is history. But I'll often hear someone say the Lib Dems have broken thousands of promises, I'll ask which, they'll reply, "Tuition fees..." in that rising voice that suggests a list could follow...

A list never follows.

Here is my friend's response to my list request:

"Trident, electoral reform, benefits reform, drugs, asylum practices (the list could go on)."

Now, this guy is one of the sharpest and most astute political pundits out there, so surely he's found some 'Lib Dem broken promises'? Well, no:

• 1. Trident. We said we didn't want to replace Trident. Everyone else said they did. We haven't replaced Trident. (The blue stronghold of the Dept. of the Defence has throw a bit of money at R&D, with red support). We may be losing the argument, but it's hardly a broken promise.

• 2. Electoral reform. We had a referendum. The reds and blues teamed up in a cabaret of political expediency and won convincingly. LDs then pushed for Lords reform, but the reds wouldn't support it (they almost always choose embarrassing the Lib Dems over supporting policies they, er, 'support'). We managed to give some important powers to local govt., fix parliamentary terms, bring in the right to fire MPs, devolved more power to Wales/Scotland & are pushing for votes for 16 year olds. Broken promises?

• 3. Benefits reform. The main promises in the benefits section of the 2010 manifesto were to fix the pensions system & have no income tax on the first £10,000 people earn. We did both. The latter was criticised by both reds and blues, although it has been a huge success and the blues are now busily telling us all it was their idea. Broken promises? Exactly the opposite.

• 4. Drugs. Nothing at all has happened here, so I'm unsure why it's included. Theresa May is well known for being hardline, whereas Norman Baker, the Lib Dem below her, is a firm reformist. It's a conversation that's ongoing, and eventually we will win, because evidence is on our side. Broken promise, though? Really? Scrapety-scrape.

• 5. Asylum. I'm hugely proud that the first thing Nick Clegg rushed off to do after that rose garden speech was to get child detention (the locking of children seeking safety in Britain in prison) scrapped. Broken promise? The best promise you could ever keep.

• 6. He finishes off with "the list goes on". This is often what people say when they have nothing further to add to a list. But in this case, the list hasn't really started yet, has it?

Oh, but then again, there was tuition fees. Lest we forget that.

__

UPDATE: The gentleman whose tweets prompted this post has written a response, which you can see here if you'd like to read some significantly better writing than my own.

Comrade Owen Speaks

I have just read an enjoyably well-penned but otherwise insane article by comrade Owen Jones, perhaps the most hard-left commentator in Britain at the moment. It deals with the struggle between Ineos and Unite! over the future of Grangemouth, a petrochemicals plant in Scotland. I really do have to pick this one apart – for the good of the revolution!

He starts:

"A Swiss-based private company..." 

...oh dear, foreign. Bad start. He continues:

"...yet more livelihoods sacrificed on the altar of global capitalism."

The alter in this case, presumably, being the one that gave them their livelihoods. As Grangemouth is not a commune. For comrades wishing to join a commune, there are some great ones about.

Then comes the time-worn question – "Who runs Britain?" Well, Jones tells us, it certainly isn't the "the country’s largest democratic movement... the trade unions". 

That would be the unions that keep getting implicated in trying to rig elections. But then, they do make up for that by democratically grinding parts of the economy to a halt after first not-exactly-consulting the general public, so they're not all bad.

We are then told that Ineos is operating out of tax havens. Well, it's a good thing that new government under Comrade Cameron is doing what the last didn't, namely, getting more and more of these loopholes closed. Just saying. Onwards.

The next paragraph examines Ineos' balance sheet. $2bn profits last year. 50% growth in sales. 20% gross profit growth. We don't like the sound of that, do we? Strong private growth. Much more than we earn. Grrr.

Jones proceeds to point out that workers' pay could not reasonably be seen as a reason for closure. He's right – it has far more to do with the way US fracking has changed the gas market, making the type of activity undertaken at Grangemouth far less profitable. A £300bn refit was proposed by the owner, but this will obviously make a big dent in the company's balance sheet. Of course, the idea of importing foreign gas might have Comrade Jones worried too, so perhaps it would be better for Ineos to simply operate at a loss. A great socialist innovation, that idea.

There follows a long and skilfully developed article, the exegesis of which would take too long (also, it's far better read untarnished by my commentary). The gist, though, is that Ineos is more interested in lashing out at Unite than anything. Their aim, sayeth Jones, is to squeeze the workforce down and keep more of the profits. This is perhaps not true specifically in the Grangemouth case, but it could well be true in general. Here's why.

The relationship between unions and big bosses in the UK is unhealthy. It has been forever – an almost hereditary elite and a generally socialist union movement aren't natural friends, and it is the public who have long suffered from their clashes. In the latter half of the last century, Britain's vast car industry collapsed thanks to their squabbling. In the pre-Thatcher years, government was heavily influenced by the unions and the result of this was terrible policymaking, culminating in the IMF being called in in 1976.

Flip the coin and you have the bosses. They have been managing to syringe a steadily greater share of their companies' profits out for themselves and their shareholders in recent years. This is a cause for worry, but also serious economic examination. 

Then to the workforce. This is going to shrink – Marx saw that coming a century ago. Better machines require less manpower. That is fairly undeniable, whether or not we like the ramifications. Society has to adapt. The Industrial Revolution required huge social change – perhaps Comrade Jones would have objected to that, as well?

Well, the truth is that cottage industry wouldn't have been much fun.

There is a real and damaging antipathy between unions and top management. Both need to change if we are to have a healthy economy built upon a healthy society. But fiery commentators on the hard right and left – enjoyable as their punditry may be to read – contribute to widening this divide rather than trying to bridge and ultimately close it.

Privatise the BBC?

I had meant to put up a post today disparaging the feebleness, opportunism and all-out apathy of Britain's main political opposition (thus the rather odd Facebook picture). Where's the cohesive argument and alternative vision? Hurtin'-But-Not-Workin'? Nasty-Party's-Back? One-Nation? Even Labour can do better than that.

But my forthcoming rant will have to wait, thanks to Conservative party Chairman Grant Shapps, who has announced that the Tories might soon turn their guns on the BBC. The rationale (excuse)? A string of very unpleasant BBC scandals. His threat is to reduce – or split with other media outlets – the licence fee proceeds (approx. £3.6bn).

No, no, no.

This sort of rough talk might excite a few crusty Tory core voters who balk at anything with the word 'state' behind (or anywhere near) it. But a lazy attempt to use public disgust at those appalling paedophilia cases as subterfuge for an attack on the BBC is downright ugly.

And the suggestion that big severance payouts are the problem is patent nonsense. The private sector (darling of the Conservatives, and rightly so) is rife with these big payoffs. That's life. In case he has forgotten, the government is busily fighting a court battle to protect the rights of London's banking sector to keep awarding massive bonuses. So a pubic institution acting like a private one is precisely what Shapps should want to see.

Shapps, I think I speak on behalf of the majority of the nation when I say that we have been horrified to see this sort of child abuse infect the BBC. We feel genuinely let down because the BBC, like so few institutions in present times, commands our trust and genuine affection.

And we want to see the foul practices of sexual abuse thoroughly discovered, cut out, stamped out, utterly removed.

But any suggestion that retribution is being called for is nonsense. The BBC is the finest broadcaster that I, having travelled a bit and seen a lot of media, have yet come across. It is quite conceivable that the BBC is the best broadcaster the world has. It follows a mission statement of seeking to "inform, educate and entertain" and it fulfils each of these criteria exceptionally.

The phrase 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' comes up a lot these days. It's a doubly true maxim for governments. Well, Grant, seeing as you haven't taken this on board, perhaps we can put it a little more clearly, so you have time to 'get it' before the 2015 elections.

If it's the best broadcaster in the world, if it's one of the pillars of our culture, our modern history and our nation, if it's a living manifestation of the intelligence, culture, balance, creativity and genius that we like to compliment ourselves with as a people – and if it ain't broke – then don't even think about going anywhere near it.

Seriously.

Syria Drags On

To take up a challenge I recently heard posed—of identifying the biggest problem for contemporary international relations—I found myself observing that this question is an entirely subjective one. Candidates for that prize depend entirely on who you ask. Doubtless, North Korean officials will be deeply concerned about the lack of progress in illuminating to the wider world their nation's superiority, military might and sound leadership; Britons, flatly disagreeing, will offer up any number of alternative answers ranging from "securing urgent humanitarian solutions to the conflicts of North Africa" to "getting our Empire back".

Most reasonable standards for measuring the exigency of such a problem involve either humanitarian or national interest considerations. (It might be remarked that the last casualty of the Cold War was the respectability of political dogma as an alternative standard. Good riddance to it.) Of course, today, while humanitarianism ostensibly holds more objective moral weight than straightforward national interest, it tends to be the latter that actually motivates states and politicians to act. 

From Britain's perpective, the 'Syria problem' has not gone away. Dramatically, Parliament put the brakes on recent attempts to intervene (which I argued in a post at the time would only make things worse) but the conflict rages on. This is problem for the legitimacy of Britain and the US, because their very apparent inability (or reluctance) to do anything about that conflict makes them appear weak. It is also a focal point of tensions with Russia, who has come out of recent negotiations looking like the clear winner, as well as the wider Islamic world – who justifiably treat any attempts at involvement from our perspective with immense suspicion.

To overcome this problem, British policymakers urgently need to adjust their rhetoric to what is both achievable and acceptable in the North African & wider Middle Eastern region. Anti-British mistrust is rife and the fact that many policymakers don't 'get that' was evident in the debates held in Parliament and the media before that milestone vote.

Britain also needs to align its interests with its world view more effectively. A majority of the public and many MPs rate humanitarianism as a priority in foreign affairs. Military strikes are a dangerous way to achieve humanitarian ends, and–crucially–a nigh on impossible way to appear to genuinely want to.

Still, in Syria, the stalemate goes on. Arming rebels has become an almost unthinkable option as radical Islamic elements have taken over much of the rebellion. Military strikes have been ruled out by Parliament. Humanitarian aid is the logical next best step – and for the cost of the bombing raids that might have been, Britain should be ramping this up far more than it is. It should also get used to making more of a fuss about this aid to the international press. Nobody else is likely to expend energy pointing it out.

Perhaps the most important thing for Britain to remember is that its diplomacy is still, hard as it might be to believe, up to quite a lot. British diplomats should be quietly present at the centre of negotiations in Syria – not to be seen to be doing something (best, in fact, not to be seen), but because their presence and experience could be a genuinely effective way to help sort out the stalemate. 

And—lest we forget—ending this stalemate is in Britain's direct interests. Its continuation is bad for British interests in the region – as well as for British prestige internationally, because the constant assertions of William Hague that the deadlock is intolerable juxtapose sharply with the evident fact that he is powerless to do anything but go on tolerating it.

Something has got to give – and that something, for Britain, should be its tendency to react to complex, violent situations like Syria using the language of yet more violence.