Neil Harding asks the question.
However the culture of negativity that we have at the moment is not healthy. If you criticise everything and praise nothing, what you are really doing is arguing for the status quo, and that is reactionary conservatism.
Actually, he has a point – well, half of one. Constant negativity does, indeed breed more negativity. As a professional trainer I appreciate the need for praise even when pointing out flaws in performance. That is human nature; we respond to positive comments more readily than to negative ones. I dispute the reactionary conservatism statement as that is simply political rhetoric. Just as I dismiss this point:
This culture of negativity being pushed by our reactionary press has exactly that purpose – to push us into the hands of the right and the Tories.
Neil offers no evidence to support this assertion. My own observation is that generally, where “safety” is being used as an excuse, the press slavishly repeat the government line and fail to grasp – or pass on – the significance behind the statement. If anything, they are not critical enough. Not by a long chalk. The press, though, has been a factor in government policy. Indeed, in its attempts to woo the press and remain in the headlines, we have seen government policy driven by sound-bites and headlines. John Reid’s recent pronouncements tend to confirm this.
What we have seen in the past decade is a series of acts of parliament that are without precedent. The Civil Contingencies Act gives ministers the power to declare a state of emergency, yet conveniently leaves that definition of emergency somewhat vague. Having declared such, government can rule by cabinet. The calls for “summary justice” designed to appeal to the hard of thinking is nothing more than the lynch mob by any other name. Habeas Corpus is vanishing before our eyes. In the wake of last week’s massive security exercise, excessive over reaction and the effective closing down of airports (conveniently a day after bruiser Reid tells us we must trade our freedom for security), I fully expect parliament to cave in and give the bastards the power to detain suspects for 90 days without charge. To suggest in the wake of these events that liberties are not being eroded is being wilfully blind to the facts.
In the comments Neil responds to this:
longrider: “Having watched them pull apart the rule of law and destroy our liberties”
Oh come on. We are free to do what we like. I felt much more oppressed under Thatcher, look what she did to the miners civil liberties. Look what she did to the poor. Isn’t incresing inequality so that those in low paid jobs cannot earn enough to enjoy a fair share of this country’s wealth an erosion of their civil liberties?
Yeah… see… I have a big problem with rolling Margaret Thatcher out every time this government is criticised. The Miners’ strike was over twenty years ago and isn’t relevant to this discussion. Even if it was, to suggest that my bogeyman is worse than your bogeyman just isn’t helpful. Put Thatcher back where you found her and discuss – as the rest of us are – this administration’s performance.
Quite apart from blatant attempts to seize unprecedented power via the Civil Contingencies Act or the abolition of parliament bill, we have the politicisation of the police. This means that people are issued with fixed penalty notices for selling T shirts emblazoned with “Bollocks to Blair” logos or pointing out in public that police metal detectors are “shit”. How does that equate to being able to do what we like? Should I mention protest outside parliament at this point? In a free, liberal, civilised society we should be able to comment in any way we please about anything we like without fear of penalty by the state. That clearly does not apply.
This, to me is a betrayal of trust by the government. Is it any wonder then, that I and many others are negative? After all, we have seen our prime minister caught out lying. Whatever you may think about the decision to go to war in Iraq, the man lied about it. The ID cards debate was characterised by demonisation of opponents and outright misrepresentation to the point where the English language was no longer able to define the word “voluntary”.
When politicians lie, cheat, and steal, why should we trust them? Why should we look upon them as decent people? They are not. They have demonstrated that they are nothing more than venal, power hungry authoritarians who will do anything to consolidate their grip on power. So to Neil’s point about the air of negativity not being healthy, I would point out that this is because there is something rotten in the state of Westminster.
Neil draws a comparison between the average Joe and the cockroaches in parliament:
1 in 4 of the adult male population has spent some time in jail (usually a sign of being corrupt, violent, dishonest, a crook etc). The figure for politicians is a fraction of this.
Well, yes, that may be so. But, then, we have around 3,000 new offences on the statue book. This may just have a part to play… :dry:
My answer to Neil’s question, therefore is: No, the average politician is not nicer than the average Joe. They have the same human failings but with greater opportunity to abuse and misuse power. That makes them worse; far, far worse. They have betrayed the trust of the people who put them where they are. Betrayal of trust is not a simple matter to overcome. If there is negativity in British politics, look to the root of the problem, don’t blame a disillusioned electorate; blame those directly responsible. Blame the politicians.
A few heads on spikes outside Traitor’s Gate mightn’t be a bad idea… :devil:
I agree with what you’ve said Mark about rolling out Maggie Thatcher each and every time the Blair government is criticised. It’s known as the Tu Qouque argument (you too do it).
Indeed. Not least because at no time have I claimed to be a Thatcher supporter. If Neil could just stop playing that silly game, there’s a sensible discussion to be had on the state of British politics.
I also don’t understand Neil’s argument about what Mrs Thatcher did to the miners’ civil liberties. Well what was done to their civil liberties? Removal of a subsidy is nothing to do with civil liberties.
And increasing inequality? Quite apart from the argument that inequality has increased under Labour (trumpet that on your blog, Neil!)let’s just lay to bed the risible notion that equality is a civil liberty. It isn’t. This is just another left-winger’s abuse of the English language.
That’s why I find arguing with him somewhat frustrating. He either does not understand or deliberately misunderstands the terms being used. Makes a discussion difficult. The miners’ strike and Thatcherite economic policies had nothing to do with civil liberties.
This government came to power with a promise of no sleaze. They have failed dismally to meet that promise. They promised an ethical foreign policy. They have failed dismally to meet that promise. They have eroded our rights to free speech, freedom of assembly and the right not to be imprisoned without evidence being placed before a court and judgement by ones peers. The very foundations of liberty and justice have been undermined. The dismantling of liberty in this country lies in the text of the acts of parliament they have introduced.
Reminding us of Tory past misdemeanours tells us nothing we did not already know and does not advance the discussion on what is wrong with British politics one wit.
I have accused them of betrayal of trust. That accusation remains unanswered.
To blame the press is just too easy, to the point of laziness.
longrider: “Tried selling a T shirt emblazoned with “Bollocks to Blair””
People were arrested for wearing ‘cool as fuck’, or ‘bollocks to the poll tax’ in the 80’s. Don’t try to pretend our laws restricting swearwords are new.
Blair is the most openly criticised PM ever, to say there is any restriction on criticism of him is clearly ridiculous. Thatcher deserved far more abuse but was (not surprisingly) treated with kid gloves by the Tory media. So, it is relevant to bring her and the press coverage, miners, poor etc. up. It may be 20 years ago but this is the last Tory administration, we have to bring it up to have a comparison.
As for police powers, nothing Labour have proposed is as bad as the ‘sus’ law? Labour may be overenthusiastic about bureaucracy in some areas but at least now the police have to explain themselves when they arrest someone. Ironically ‘summary powers’ are a great attempt by this government to sidestep the inefficient bureaucracy of the criminal justice system for trivial offences (abolishing bureaucracy is supposed to something the right champion), and it makes absolute sense.
Your objections are absolutist, in practical terms these changes will make little difference to civil liberties but they will make a massive difference to attacking low level disorder. By the way, crime has fallen under Labour despite the ‘3000 new offences’, (like the ’66 tax rises’ claim I imagine this is not a net figure and excludes those offences removed or replaced). I agree a lot of these new offenses are a response to our vindictive tabloids (led by the rightwing hysteria the Tories are whipping up about everything).
YOU may not define what the Tories did to the poor as a liberties issue, but that is a narrow definition. Surely it is relevant to liberties if govt policy makes social mobility harder? This is far more important in terms of oppression of people’s live than having to carry around a bit of govt ID in your pocket.
As for the claim that inequality has widened over the last 8 years. In a strict sense you can make this claim but it is a lagged effect from the previous Tory administration. The incomes of the poorest have been boosted by Labour, but accumulated wealth under the Thatcher era will take a while to slow down. (It is a bit like changing the direction of a train ,it takes time to slow it down before you can start going the other way.) The signs are that this is happening if you look at the last few years, the growth in inequality has significantly slowed down. Ironically if the Tories are elected next time, this process will continue for several years even if the Tories slash taxes for their rich friends. The Tories will also benefit from inheriting public services that have been restored in terms of status of the professionals and the number of doctors, nurses, teachers that are being trained and recruited and also the higher expenditure on infrastructure etc. (these things can not be measured over 5 years terms).
Neil, note Jonathan’s comment above. You’re doing it again. I’m not interested in Tory misdemeanours other than in the context that they, too, are a part of the overall problem. The discussion – and it is a valid one; and you raised it; and it’s worth debating – is the negativity in British politics and political commentary in the press and elsewhere such as here. That is not a party political issue. If Blair is the most criticised PM, you might want to consider the possibility that he has brought it on himself :dry:
The other points you make are hopelessly irrelevant to the discussion. And a small point; Thatcher’s was not the last Tory administration.
And you still don’t get what civil liberties actually are… I don’t define them, the dictionary does:
Longrider: “The other points you make are hopelessly irrelevant to the discussion.”
You could at least concede the point about the sweary T-shirts.
Anyway, the last Tory administration was 1979-1997, you could argue Major was a different administration to Thatcher but I don’t really see it.
The dictionary definition of civil liberties is ‘fundamental individual rights…protected by law against unwarranted governmental or other interference.” Isn’t reasonable social mobility a fundamental human right? If not why not? We can argue about what is meant by this definition but the truth is, someone’s liberty is far more affected by what occupations they are limited to than by having to carry an ID card.
Finally, you seem to agree that Blair is the most criticised PM ever. So doesn’t this rather undermine your claim that criticism of him is being suppressed?
I did – it’s a Tu Quoque. The legislation I was talking about is the ability of the police to arrest, charge and punish on the basis of their opinion. Twenty years ago it would have been a magistrate making the decision. As I don’t recall any specific cases and their outcomes (and couldn’t find anything when researching your comment), I can’t comment further. And, frankly, it really isn’t relevant to the betrayals by this administration.
As I said, irrelevant. However, my aside was simply pointing out a factual error, nothing more.
No. You are trying to stretch the language beyond its original meaning. The definition I gave was perfectly clear. The Tory policies you mention are economic and nothing to do with civil liberties – you are attempting to conflate the two issues and I won’t be drawn into it. Separate issues; separate discussion. And I go along with Bishop Hill, equality is not a civil liberty.
Sigh… You are conflating two issues here. You complain about Blair being regularly criticised in the press. Yes, he is; quite rightly and not enough in my opinion. The laws regarding protest outside parliament and the summary issue of penalty notices to critics along with briefings and spin to vilify political opponents is a different issue and is happening – there is no contradiction in my position, no matter how hard you try to find one.