Fat Cats and Rats

Several commentators have come out recently and declared their support for Labour 'while pinching their nose.’ In today’s Guardian, George Monbiot states why he thinks the case against Labour is strong and why he will not be voting for them. He lists many examples of NewLabour failings and he uses an interesting image to enhance his case.

“There's a parasite called Toxoplasma gondii that colonises the brains of rats, altering their behaviour to attract them to the scent of their predators. The rats seek out cats and get eaten, allowing the parasite to keep circulating. This is New Labour. It has colonised a movement that fought for social justice, distribution and decency, rewired its brain and delivered it to the fat cats who were once its enemies.”

This is of course in total contrast to the Tories, who are happily in bed with the fat cats and engaged in acts of mutual masturbation.

Moral Authority

Cameron is making a bid to be the man who sorts the mess out, promising to hit the ground running when elected to rule over us. The strategy seems to be to get elected as a minority government, set out his case and go for another General Election within 6 months.

The proportion each party gets of the actual vote will be fascinating. A 5% difference has an enormous and different effect on the number of seats won. It is possible under our ridiculous electoral system for the party with the lowest number of votes to get the most seats. Anyone claiming ‘moral authority’ to deliver swingeing cuts will be hard-pressed to make their case. The fact that Cameron has not said where over 84% of planned cuts are coming from undermines his credibility. Unfortunately he is not alone. None of them are being honest with us. And all this follows on from the most rotten parliament in living memory when trust in MPs is at its lowest.

Apparently 40% of the electorate are still unsure about how they will vote on Thursday. This is far higher than in recent elections. What prevailing emotion will govern where people put their crosses? Fear? Hope? Greed? Or despair?

Travelling through Knutsford today, we were in the constituency of George Osborne – aka, ‘The Hidden Shadow Chancellor’ who has been put in a large box labelled ‘Do not open until May 7^th.’ Several trees were voting for him and some of the posters carried his picture. A graffiti artist had added a Hitler moustache and hair. Uncanny.

Mahler 8 - Election 0

Had the very good fortune to attend a special event at the Bridgewater Hall in Manchester on Sunday evening. It was a performance of Mahler’s eighth symphony – a huge work with massive choirs, several soloists and an enormous orchestra. Mahler wrote it as a hymn of praise to the universe when he knew that he was dying. The conductor has to organise and marshal all these forces into a coherent whole. Sir Mark Elder more than delivered.

It is known as the ‘Symphony of a Thousand’ as it has about a thousand participants. From the opening chord it is a sonic spectacular that gave the Bridgewater Hall a real workout. Because of the huge forces involved it is performed very rarely.

A 15 minute standing ovation at the end was no more than the performance deserved. Special mention must go to the Halle Children’s choir that has only been in existence for 2 years and comprises children ages 8-13. They were superb.

The 1000 players comprised: Halle Orchestra; BBC Philharmonic Orchestra, 8 soloists, Halle Choir; Girls of the Halle Youth Choir; Halle Children’s Choir; City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra Chorus.

Who said collaboration and coalition produced weakness? What twaddle. However you do need a Mark Elder figure to bring things together and make it not just effective but brilliant.

Any offers?

Amicable coalition anyone?

Anyone concerned about our immediate political future should have been at Marple Methodist church in the Hazel Grove constituency last night. It was a most amiable and courteous occasion with a predominantly elderly audience. All three main parties were present. UKIP were running their own meeting elsewhere, following confusion over invites. Questions were submitted on the night so candidates had to respond spontaneously.

The sitting MP, a very experienced LibDem, is a thoroughly decent chap and is recognised as such by his opponents. He has a nice line in gentle humour and gives credit to his rivals when appropriate. The Labour candidate is very effective and relaxed about his non-chances. He is happy to go ‘off-message’ and detached himself from key Labour decisions. The young Tory is well briefed, articulate and personable but struggles to think on his feet when asked questions outside the usual. He does however parrot vapid nonsense from campaign briefing notes. Having seen many candidates in action over the past few days it is clear the Tory campaign machine brief candidates with bullet-point issue notes. It is striking to hear the same answers in very different locations. The responses to the ‘Hung Parliament’ issue have been identical – and generally not well received. Let us hope the candidates feed the reaction back to their masters.

This was not red-blooded politics. Any cut and thrust was gentle and good-natured. There was consensus on several issues. Candidates acknowledged their rival’s good points and the Tory even applauded (yes, incredible but true) a comment by the LibDem.

P.S.
Since posting the above earlier today, it has emerged that the Tory candidate is a special advisor to Oliver Letwyn, who is in charge of the Tory policy unit. Funnily enough he never mentioned any of that. The noticeable absence of any personal background in his opening remarks in retrospect appears even more telling.

Angels on a pinhead

The Leaders Debates - groundbreaking, or a missed opportunity? A bit of both. The debates have energised the election but the format needs revisiting. The gaps between the debates have been weird in that parties have tried to carry on ‘politics as usual’ when it clearly isn’t. The daily press conference and photo op routine has become almost irrelevant. Women haven’t figured (apart from Mrs Gillian Duffy) and George Osborne (note to reader – could be next Chancellor) has disappeared from view.

Having visited several constituencies one thing is very clear. The majority of candidates who put themselves forward are either inadequate or downright odd. High calibre competent operators are thin on the ground. This brings into focus the selection process. At a time of crisis, it is not good enough to rely on machinations behind closed doors based on who knows what prejudices and score-settling. The American Primary system has much to commend it.

We cannot rely on parties to sort this out. Vested interests will prevail. Reform is needed more than ever.

Back From The Dead....

To Salford, to visit Imperial War Museum North to see the very impressive and moving Don McCullin photography exhibition. Then on to Oasis Academy, Media City in the constituency of the infamous Hazel Blears. The Academy hosting the event had the theme, ‘Issues affecting young people’ and had invited candidates from the 3 main parties to address questions. Several Independents (mainly from the ‘Hazel must go’ camp) were excluded but given a mention to appease them.

Her chief rival, Norman Owen, is the leader of the LibDem group on the local council. An ex-engineering manager, he came to life when discussing Tory policies during the eighties and problem estates. At other times he was toe-curlingly awful. Unprepared and rambling when discussing education issues posed by youngsters from the school, he did not inspire confidence. Matthew Sephton, the Tory candidate began well as he is a Primary teacher in Stockport so he had an advantage to begin with. This quickly dwindled as he tried to bring in Conservative policies and values.

The audience were slow to warm up despite being prepared by a ‘fantastic’ introduction by a fantastically enthusiastic rep from ‘Charities Parliament’ which as you would imagine, is a fantastic organisation doing fantastic things for society. You get the picture. He managed to cram at least seven ‘fantastic’s’ into his opening remarks. We were also given the opportunity to write questions and to wave White and Black pieces of paper at appropriate times. Black = disagree; White = agree.

Hazel Blears has a problem. Not only is she tainted by her behaviour with expenses, she is also damaged by what she did when she resigned from the Cabinet. She has disappeared off the radar for several months. She has the unfortunate demeanour of someone sucking sherbert lemons through her bottom when the others were speaking. Absorbing to watch but a real barrier to communication. Interestingly, this expression disappeared as the evening wore on.

It was fascinating to watch her in action. She is very, very good. Not a sentence I would have expected to write. She knows her stuff. She cares. She is enthusiastic and has drive and character. She is articulate and has the bottle to take her opponents on and gives far better than she gets. She thinks on her feet. At one point she absolutely kebabbed the Tory and left him looking like he wished he were somewhere else. On the whole she was very positively received.

The event was well organised and the panel managed to get through 13 questions in 80 minutes. The Black Sheets came into their own when a question was asked about a hung or ‘balanced’ parliament. Tory boy tried to tell us this was a very bad idea, only to be met with a forest of black sheets and laughter.

An oddity; one of the Independents had attended and asked a question from the floor, implying that 40 years of sex education was responsible for most of societies ills. I paraphrase but it was the only time all night that a questioner got the Black Sheet treatment.

150 mixed people in a school hall will not determine the outcome in Salford and Eccles. However if the runes from tonight mean anything it is this. Should Blears hold on to her seat then the rehabilitation process will have begun. She is streets ahead of Hatty Harperson and will make her way back onto the ‘A’ list.

You read it here first.

Another Hustings - another church

A good welcoming space and an anticipatory buzz as the start neared. It was High Peak’s seventh event. Other constituencies nearby have not had one. In some cases this may be understandable but is still concerning. There are issues of civil disorder in Oldham where Phil Woolas (Minister for Immigration) is standing in an area where the issue is inflammatory. The BNP are standing too and it is feasible that a public meeting could become an excuse for a major punch up. The fear of angry voters permeates much of the local engagement.

Tonight the minister in charge calmed us down with a prayer for the candidates including a request, “to listen with open minds,” and “to pray for good governance to be pre-eminent in our lives.” He also set out the ‘rules’ which basically meant sit still, clap politely and shut up. 

Then the bombshell that once again the questions submitted had been sent to the candidates before the meeting. Having experienced the deadening effect this had on Saturday’s event I expressed my concerns that passing on the questions took away the spontaneity and the chance to see how the candidates think on their feet. It then emerged that 3/7 of them had only seen the questions as they arrived!

Give the churches credit for at least trying. Where are the community groups, unions or local arts associations? And why, in a relative backwater, is there such a wish to control us and keep us calm and pacified? This fear seems to come from the organisers, not the candidates, although any evidence to the contrary would be welcome. And why do some of the churches seize the moment to promote their faith? Out of an audience of 150 I was told that there were about 20 from the hosting church. There were a number of people with eye-patches too giving a piratical slant to proceedings.

A different UKIP representative is on the platform tonight, who spoke coherently on some issues and another Independent with local form and bottle. The other, tiny, Independent has a vocal tic in that he inserts ‘by the way’ into every response and seems to feel that if he is given two minutes to speak, he must use all of it. Not a good idea. The Green continues to impress with his energy, delivery and commitment. The Tory favourite is better and shows a degree of passion as does the LibDem. The UKIP guy made the interesting point that despite claims to the contrary the Tory party were anti-change and implicitly endorsed voting LIbDem to help reform the electoral system. The Labour candidate is uncomfortable in this arena and struggles at times to articulate her thoughts. She admits as such in her closing remarks with commendable honesty.

Just how much engagement is actually going on in this election? The Greens said that 40% of their doorstop canvassing returns were genuine ‘don’t knows’/’not sure’. With the polls close and the three main parties not saying how they are going to save £40-50 billion, just what are voters going to decide on where to stick their X?