Hazel Blears: bloggers and cynicism

Hazel Blears (one of the more obscure members of the Cabinet, I suspect her main responsibility is providing the tea and biscuits) has denounced political blogging, accusing it of feeding a climate of cynicism towards the political process in this country.

I can only apologise; this blog is unashamedly cynical. Despite what Ms. Blears might think, that is not because I have been reading other political blogs, in fact quite the opposite. My cynicism stems from politicians who are all too often incompetent beyond measure, who are prepared to lie and cheat when it helps them get legislation passed, and who suffer a collective blindness when it comes to their assault on our civil liberties. Far too many keep their snouts firmly in the trough, in politics not for what they have to contribute but for what they can get out of it . Beyond that, we have a voting system that as often as not denies voters the opportunity to believe that they might actually influence the outcome of an election. Right now we have a Prime Minister who was not chosen by the electorate, who holds no electoral mandate for his policies, and who sits in what would (until recently) have been regarded as one of the safest Parliamentary seats in the country. He is able to choose the date of the next election when he judges it to be most to his advantage. He can only be sacked by an unelected monarch. No grounds for cynicism there then, is there?

I blog partly as an outlet for my frustration at feeling disenfranchised by the form of Parliamentary democracy we enjoy here. Partly because I enjoy exchanging views with others (and not necessarily those who share my political sympathies either). And partly because I know that blogs like this get right up the snout of the Hazel Blears of this world.

The very fact that someone like Ms Blears has a seat round the Cabinet table - that alone is reason enough for cynicism I would have thought.

Hey, hey, LBJ...

It's been a long and exciting night listening to the Presidential election ending of course with a result that is clearly welcome far beyond the US borders . One of the things that struck me most was how the electorate appeared far less polarised than I have ever been conscious of before, which seems to bode well for democracy and not just inside America.

Over here President Johnson is largely remembered for the terrible obscenity that was the Vietnam War. So it's worth remembering the very significant contribution he made to confronting the racial discrimination that was so deeply entrenched in the US in the 1960s; in many ways that period provided the springboard for today's historic event.

Voting intentions

Much is being made of the likelihood that Barack Obama will attract less votes in today's US Presidential election than he would have done otherwise because of his colour. To the extent that happens it's sad since reflects the deep-rooted nature of racism, but should we be unduly concerned?

I rather doubt it. Regardless of colour, the process by which voters in any democracy choose their preferred candidate is (to say the least) complex. Much has been made of John McCain's age by his opponents, and those who reject him on those grounds could reasonably be accused of ageism; it is not as though he is yet of a time of life where he might be expected to shuffle off this mortal coil.

Then there's the gender issue. One of the most bizarre aspects of the election is reports that some feminist voters, erstwhile supporters of Hillary Clinton, are prepared to vote Republican for no other reason than that they've put up a female candidate for VP. That Sarah Palin's neaderthal political views are diametrically opposed to those of Ms. Clinton seems to be of no concern to them; explain that one if you can.

Few of us vote solely on the basis of politics and policies. Voters all carry prejudices into the voting booth, and it is the mark of a democracy that those are tolerated, even where we disapprove.

The buck stops here

Mark Thompson, Director-General of the BBC

Russell Brand, Jonathan Ross and Jack Straw

One certainly doesn't have to be a Daily Mail reader to agree with their view of those answaphone messages. The 'humour' the two served up was of the sort that would appeal only to the sort of morons so lacking in decency that they would find entertainment in watching a YouTube clip of a man urinating on a dying woman.

As it happens, I'm someone who has enjoyed JR's Saturday morning radio show over several years, but hopefully no more. The BBC, equally at fault over all this, have been shamefully slow in confronting their misjudgement; hence thankfully the sheer scale of the public anger. Hopefully when Ross departs (as he surely will) the notion that any entertainer justifies an £18 million contract will go with him.

Over on 'Comment is Free', Jack Straw has been sharing his opinions. Yes, that Jack Straw. The one who resigned so promptly as soon as his "cynical premeditated" statements about WMD in Iraq were shown to be just that. I'm afraid Jonathan Ross is not the only public figure who should "no longer be paid a penny by the rest of us."

The cost of policing in Norfolk

I have long been of the opinion that my local constabulary would struggle to apprehend burglars even if they all wore striped jumpers and black masks whilst carrying large sacks over their shoulders labelled 'SWAG'.

It's gratifying to learn that this is finally being tackled.

What can Cameron do?

Private housing has become a compensation for the increasingly gross maldistribution of income. Inadequate incomes mean that large numbers of people don’t have access to the style of life that has always been the ultimate justification of neoliberalism and to which, reasonably enough, they now believe they have a right. What does give them access to it (in the short term) is credit. But credit has to be secured, and that’s what housing does. However, it works only if house prices keep rising and people have enough income to repay debt. When prices stop going up and people can no longer repay what they owe, the financial system begins to disintegrate. This is what has happened; and it has happened because we have replaced something like social democracy with credit democracy, or universal access to credit, and credit is a thoroughly inadequate substitute because sooner or later it has to be repaid. Which means that people’s incomes have to be sufficient to repay it, and in many cases they aren’t. What we have put in place is a dynamically destructive cycle. The number of houses is rationed in order to force up prices; people buy houses in order to secure credit on the strength of those prices; this encourages a heady belief in perpetual profit and thus both risky lending and risky borrowing; this renders the banking system unstable; and lending both to individuals and among banks then collapses.

Ross McKibbin's excellent LRB article.

City bonuses - big Government clampdown

Maybe.

Elegantly Dressed Wednesday

Post-hippie social worker chic? So where's The Guardian then? It's not clear if this is before or after she dropped her knickers.