About the Foreign Aid Increase in the Spending Review.

The spending review this week was hardly surprising, depressing yes but not totally a unexpected result, massive public sector cuts, binning a few quangos, typical stuff a free market fan like Gideon Osbourne would do if he was chancellor. However one surprise was the pledge to increase the foreign aid budget to 0.7 % of the national income (7 to 11.5 bn) by 2014 to meet the target of the UN oversees development assistance, the UK being the first major industrialised nation to do so. This has gone down about as well as a man doing a massive diarrhea splodge in a jacuzzi with some of the Tory grassroots, with the Conservative Home website showing that 70 percent (1145 Tory members surveyed) thought it was the "wrong idea", and was the item on the review most opposed by them. It was always going to be a controversial measure, it is no surprise that the grassroots, and others were not exactly going to start jumping up and down the streets like mad people in sheer unvarnished joy about it. I'd well imagine that some of the thousand surveyed would recommend that the foreign aid budget should be somewhere between zero and nothing. The rhetorical question "why should we increase aid when we are in a bad state in the UK?" has been bandied about, along with the quintessential "charity begins at home" (should it end there?). These statements are more an attitude I think than an objective statement. You really either believe in it or you don't, when that lady in Nottingham asked just this, I doubt Camerons response changed her mind all that much. So why did they decide to increase it then? Why do something that was inevitably going to piss off the more grassroots elements?

In some ways freezing the aid budget, or even cutting it (at the least below inflation) would have been a simplistic way of winning a few votes. The Coalition has shown that it will throw in a gimmick or two to please the punters, Phillip Hammond axing the M4 bus lane anyone? I myself couldn't fathom why they increased it - though I support the decision to do so. Even not taking into account the basic human empathy side of it, it is ridiculous to think that we can just ignore the social consequences of global poverty in our globalised world, it just doesn't work like that. But then I sort of figured out one of the motivations why they have increased it, and it may be to do with the cuts to the military. Some of the more knowledgeable commentators of this kind of thing than me (aka every living human being) on the spending review have indicated that the Coalition is aiming to try a more "carrot" than "stick" approach to places like Afghanistan, using money to win over the populations, rather than costly (both financially and human) military force. Indeed some charities are worried that some of the more traditional recipients of UK aid will end up losing out as they aren't a combat theatre. There are also worries about the Department for International Development (Dfid), who deal with foreign aid, having its administrative costs halved. It could result in less transparency about where the cash ends up, and ironically even may cost the UK, if - say the World Bank bill the amount they had to pay their admin staff back to the UK tax payer.

Time will tell if this was a radical attempt to change tack on military and foreign policy, or just ends up hurting the people it was meant to help even more than before.

Ed Milibands Labour

As Ed Miliband just about squeaked past his brother to become Labour leader and gave his first ever leaders speech he seems to have made the break with New Labour, if we take his words at face value New Labour has gone, and a more traditional social democratic, union friendly one headed by him has taken its place. Instead of laying down a middle ground and staying there, he seems to be re-establishing a more traditional Labour manifesto. There was the admission that Iraq was a mistake, that tuition fees are bad, that a rampantly free market City was also no longer flavour of the month either. He offered the hand of friendship to the unions, but warned against militancy for militancy's sake as not to be tolerated. In short it was a most tacit embrace of social democracy that has been seen by the party since the nineties and the Labour traditionalists seemed to like what they heard. Gone are the days when it seemed like Tony Blair was only half comfortable with his party and almost disliked the older elements of the labour movement and tried to distance himself from them. When it seemed that New Labour was almost ashamed to admit any association with social democracy. Gordon Brown may have been more tribal at heart, but the financial crisis derailed everything, and the plain fact of a government having spent over a decade in power meant that he had really run out of steam in reasserting this sort of thing. But it seems today that this is the way forward for the party.

But is it risky? In one sense no. The party probably lost most of its floating support through the credit crunch and apathy after 13 years in office. But equally the Labour core vote was frittered away quite liberally with what they saw as an abandonment of them for the more middle class, swing voters. It may have been a necessary shift in values 13 years ago, but it put a lot of people out. I'm sure there was more than one red rose wearing MP candidate trudging dejectedly through a former northern mill town, at the less than enthusiastic response from once core voter bases this last election. I'm sure this is some ways an attempt at rapprochement with the disenfranchised arms of the party and voters, to shore up the core vote again. But what of getting votes further afield? In some ways Labour leaders were sort of keen to distance themselves from the kind of policies above because they thought that they lost votes. there was a strong feeling that in '87 and '92 that the Thatcher loving parts of the press had pilloried them for their policies, and the public had got swept up with this. But it is a little different now. The unfettered free market is seen as a major villain in causing the credit crisis in the publics eyes. The Coalition is hardly all that popular, and talk of the "big society" are a telling euphemism of this. Is Ed Miliband planning on greater public sentiment for social democracy in the face of ConDem spending cuts, and the cold winds that they potentially may bring with them? That they can poach worried public sector workers and disgruntled Lib Dems sidelined by the coalition compromises that as the junior partner; they bear the brunt of?

It is an interesting dichotomy building up. On the one hand the coalition wants spending cuts to bridge the deficit. It is of course - partly ideological. The Tory front benchers are stuffed with instinctive small government believers, steeped in hard Thatcherism. Considerable swathes of the public sector are seen in their eyes as an obstacle to hard core monetarist prosperity, and a socialist affront to got rid of. Ostensibly purging them in the name of spending cuts is a plum opportunity to do so, and I think a lot of the electorate have twigged onto this. By positioning themselves as a counterweight to a government looking downwards to cut their way to economic strength, as a government willing to shore from the bottom up, against the worst excesses of the free market, stabilising the economy from the ground up, and hopefully catch some Lib Dems who may want to fall off the spending cuts boat. Positioning Labour as an ideological counterweight to who has the most apt economic recovery plan.

Interesting times ahead whatever happens, and perhaps a move away from the centre ground seeking.

Don't like immigrants? Become an immigrant then. Christ! How consistant.

Now if you are an assiduous reader of the surprisingly good, and endearingly folksy local newspaper the Bolton News, and you stumble across to the often unintentionally hilarious letters page, you may be aware of the wisdom that is David from Malaga. Although he hasn't written in for a while, (so I can't quote him) he's your typical ultra anti - European Union ranter, you know the spiel, trying to destroy the country by banning bandy bananas and the Union Jack, that sort of thing. Now anti - EU sentiment is nothing new, but I'm sure it's never crossed Davids mind when he sits there typing this stuff, beside his pool in his tacky looking villa, that he looks a bit of a hypocrite claiming to hate the EU, and love his country so much that he took advantage of the horrid EU to piss off for good, from the country he claims to love so much. So I wasn't really surprised to discover that another scream it from the rooftops, tinpot patriot, former Australian fish fryer, turned MP Pauline Hanson has decided that she loves her country so much, she's going to emigrate to another one, The UK. She cites:

"Sadly, the land of opportunity is no more applicable. It's pretty much goodbye for ever. I've really had enough."

Which loosely translates to "My political career is screwed. Better luck next time." (she did 3 years for fraud, claiming she had more party members than she actually did, to be eligible for electoral funding)

Yes Hanson who formed the "One Nation" party, a right wing protectionist, populist organisation, running a severe anti-immigration platform. Hanson, like many of the leaders of these kinds of parties, played the tired old populist "real people" card, by constantly draping herself in the Aussie flag (might bring out the patriot in you, but it is just gesturing), and claiming she was fighting against the out of touch elite who know nothing of what "real people" want:

"My view on issues is based on common sense, and my experience as a mother of four children, as a sole parent and as a businesswoman running a fish and chip shop …"

"I may be only a fish and chip shop lady, but some of these economists need to get their heads out of the textbooks and get a job in the real world. I would not even let one of them handle my grocery shopping."

Now as I've said in this post, this is what these people do, I don't think; on this stand alone issue, that this makes them bad people, they honestly think, like many unintelligent people who enter politics, that cookie cutter rhetoric and simple "common sense" can "solve" very complex and staggeringly mulitlayered social issues.

No what I dislike about her, and what makes this "move" doubly hypocritical, and makes her unlike "David from Malaga" is that Hanson is well known in Australia for her strident views on immigration. Which is why she's come out with nuggets like these.

"I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians. Between 1984 and 1995, 40 per cent of all migrants coming into this country were of Asian origin. They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate. Of course, I will be called racist but, if I can invite whom I want into my home, then I should have the right to have a say in who comes into my country."

"Arthur Calwell said: Japan, India, Burma, Ceylon and every new African nation are fiercely anti-white and anti one another. Do we want or need any of these people here? I am one red-blooded Australian who says no and who speaks for 90% of Australians. I have no hesitation in echoing the words of Arthur Calwell."

Yes this is depressing stuff, and these crude generalisations, and collective assigning of cultural traits to non-whites, has all those half-said undercurrents of "civilisation" being overrun by the dusky peoples. A lot of this appeals to the basest and murkiest sentiments on immigration. Her attitudes towards the aboriginals are particularly unpleasant.

"I have done research on benefits available only to Aboriginals and challenge anyone to tell me how Aboriginals are disadvantaged when they can obtain 3% and 5% housing loans denied to non-Aboriginals … "

"I am fed up with being told, 'This is our land.' Well, where the hell do I go? I was born here, and so were my parents and children …"

"Australians" were subject to "a type of reverse racism ... by those who promote political correctness and those who control the various taxpayer funded 'industries' that flourish in our society servicing Aboriginals,"

Now I know that anti immigrant sentiment is hardly an unheard of concept in some circles. But it seems the height of twattery, even amongst the standards we usually expect in this kind of talk, to actually begrudge a group of people who genuinely were swamped out, when the continent was settled by Europeans. Now no living Australian (of European origin) is guilty of their ancestors crimes against the indigenous Australians. But there is something perverse about denying those who have been there a hell of a lot longer, some redress for the land they lost.

That's the problem you see, when you hold these extreme and unsustainable views, you can't live up to them. You can't claim to be against immigration and then become an immigrant. Or is it OK if you are white? She say's she isn't racially prejudiced, but singles out Aboriginals of all people as receiving special treatment, without acknowledging the historic wrongs against the indigenous Australians.

As it happens I think she will probably fade into obscurity back in the UK. But I do wonder if a convicted fraudster who has questionable views, and has been touted by an organisation with links to individuals who would commit acts of terror and violence against British people, will raise as many eyebrows as others who may fit this profile. What do you think.

(I know she holds dual citizenship with the UK, because her family used to live here, so technically she isn't an immigrant. But since when have these people bothered with technicality. And if they don't care. I don't care either.)

David Cameron, Gordon Brown and That Interview

During the past few days in the news, there has been a number of commentaries on an interview on the ITV1 show Piers Morgans Life Stories (ITV 1 10:15pm 14/2/2010). The subject of the interview is none other than Gordon Brown. This interview is considered somewhat controversial as Morgan questions Brown about the death of his premature baby daughter, aged 11 days in 2002, and Brown understandably gets quite visibly upset talking about this. (though it would be an exaggeration to say that he breaks down and cries in the interview, as some have claimed.)








Now it appears that some have taken exception to him giving this interview as Brown has been reluctant to talk about his children in public. His son Fraser (who has cystic fibrosis) is never seen in photographs, as Brown wishes to protect him from the limelight. It has been argued that this line of questioning should not be directed at a prime minister during the run up to a general election, the main lines of argument being that it a) diverts from genuine political issues and b) is even an attempt to garner sympathy before polling day.



Now I personally don't think Brown should have NOT done this interview. Whether we like it our not we live in a more media orientated society, and sadly personality does influence voting more than it should. It is not too much of an exaggeration to say that some of Browns lack of success as a premier is down to his poor PR abilities, and his perception of being a dour, bad tempered loner. Modern politicians have to engage with their electorates on a more human level these days. Whether that gives us better politicians is unclear, but it is silly to think we don't have to do these things, because being "emotionally open" matters to people. It has also come to light that David Cameron has had an interview where he too has reacted; equally understandably, similarly when questioned about his own son, Ivans death last year.


Now let me make it clear, I have no objection to people debating where these kinds of topics in a politicians life have a place. I personally don't think either man did anything wrong at all. It is common knowledge what they have both sadly endured in their personal lives. I also can't get too worked up about public displays of emotion like what we see at Wootan Bassett, as some do. This is a more openly emotive nation (probably more in line with everywhere else to be honest) than in the past, and I don't see that changing any time soon. What I do object too however is some of the vindictiveness of the responses to these stories, and especially the stinks coming from that Pravda for Pricks the Daily Mail. (like that's nothing new.) Remember this is a response to a man describing how his 11 day old child died in his arms.

Here's odious gonk Richard Littlejohns take

I've often wondered why anyone bothers interviewing Gordon, since he refuses to
answer inconvenient or difficult questions, endlessly repeats the line he has
decided to take, and bulldozes on until they run out of time.


Which
makes the fact that he broke down and wept openly over the death of his baby
daughter Jennifer during the taping of an interview with TV's Piers Morgan all
the more despicable.

The heartless bastard, I mean crying over losing a child.

No one is underestimating or belittling the sincerity of his grief, but Gordon
has always been protective of his family's privacy and has consistently vowed
that he would not exploit his children for political gain

He's hardly violating his kids privacy, when it is common knowledge what happened to Jennifer. What is he implying?

But he must have known it was coming. It appears to have been stage-managed,
right down to a tearful Sarah Brown sitting in the audience.
And it smacks
of a cynical attempt to play the victim card, exploiting his family tragedy to
win votes.
The fact that he is now parading his grief on a chat show, in an
attempt to convince the electorate that he is human after all, is a measure of
his desperation and a graphic illustration of his complete absence of principle.

My god he thinks a women crying over her husband recalling the death of their baby is a plot to win votes. God Littlejohn is a prick. As for winning sympathy votes, it doesn't seem to be working, with comments like this.

I'm sorry. I care as much for these morons and their problems as they care
about mine. Zero. Human compassion knows limits and publicly emoting to show
what a nice person you are undoubtedly means the opposite. I only wish I had
taken my chance to emigrate 23 years ago. This country is stuffed and deserves
to be if we elect the sort of offensive parasites we have in recent years.
-
William Orr, Yorkshire,

Fuck off then William, you wanker. The country is better off without the likes of you.

Who cares? Please just get on a run the Country, we are all sinking in debt
and greed from the MP's.
- toto kubwa, Cyprus

Pass the sick bucket.
- Steven Farrow, Kings lynn Nofolk, 14/2/2010 7:44Read more:

Written by tossers for tossers.

Littlejohn's article is nasty, I mean what's new with that? But I think nothing surpasses this disgusting article by Liz Jones.

I want a leader who hurls things at his staff, not a blubbing 'poor
me'

This evening, you'll be able to watch
Gordon Brown squeezing 'poor me-dom' out of every oleaginous pore.
Of the
baby he lost aged only 11 days, he tells Piers Morgan: 'She was baptised and we
were with her and I held her as she... as she died.'
He talks of his son
Fraser, who has cystic fibrosis. 'We sometimes say, "Why, why, why us?"' His
eyes well up during the interview, and he denies accusations in a new biography
that he is a bad-tempered bully.

Now I'm sure being married toNirpal Dhaliwal would screw anyones head. But there is no excuse for an article like this. He's/They are not just blubbing poor me. They lost a child FOR FUCKS SAKE!! I mean you may not like them, or their policies, but my god this is something else entirely. You have to be a major league dick to be so full of hate to a politician, that you don't even feel for them suffering the worst fate imaginable for a parent. Which incidentally is the worst kind of personality based politics you can indulged, which contradicts the bloody thing they are supposed to be condemning! Well what did we expect? Consistency in the Mail?

I don't think there is really more I can add to this. The articles/comments speak for themselves. But I'd like to quote a "Malcolm Armsteen" a commentator from Mailwatch,sums up this kind of journalism very nicely.

This is a new low. This could be titled 'Man Cries at Death of Daughter -
Unusual? - you choose'.The article should never have been written, it is
intrusive, callous and cynical. The comments show that at least some members of
our society - who would no doubt congratulate themselves as being 'Decent
English' - in fact are heartless, cynical and prepared to be vicious in their
senseless tribalism.This is the sort of 'work' that is destroying our society,
not 'feral yoof', immigration or 'socialism'.Malcolm Armsteen, Bolton

I second that.