Robert Sharp

Pupil Barrister

Category: Diary (Page 154 of 300)

Things that happen to me, or things I do

Politics of Persuasion on Proportional Representation

9 May 2010 / / 1 Comment

Take Back Parliament

Take Back Parliament rally, 8th May 2010. Photo by Lewishamdreamer on Flickr


*This post contains excessive alliteration, which some readers may find offensive.
Politics means different things at different times.  During the election campaign, it was the politics of presentation:  of a leader (and his lovely wife), and of a suitable narrative that you think chimes with the voters.
Now the election is over, we seem to be moving into the politics of game-play and strategy.  The discussion centres around what Nick Clegg can force out of the tories, and how to bounce David Cameron into Proportional Representation.  Associated with this are the recriminations over failed tactics.  For an example, see @hopisen (his debates with @sunny_hundal yesterday were a good example of this kind of politics).
This kind of politics assumes an intransigence on the part of your political opponents, and it is useful to remember that this is not always the case.  At this crucial juncture, we need a politics of persuasion too, especially on the case of electoral reform.

@ellielevenson: RT @ericjoyce A near-painful read, near-pathetic, read. RT @krishgm: Guardian group feeling guilty? http://bit.ly/aQoDWA

The above comments, discussing the Guardian’s Saturday editorial, sits within the second type of politics, the politics of strategy.  But as a piece of persuasion, I think the article is very useful.

But the fact remains that victory, under the electoral system we have, means securing a Commons majority. Constitutionally, no other metric matters. If the Conservatives believe that share of vote and lead over the nearest rival should have some moral weight in deciding a winner, they have already conceded a vital point about the need for electoral reform: the proportion of overall support in the country as a whole matters. …
The Tories by contrast are confused about electoral reform. It cannot have escaped their notice that they have suffered as a result of the system they are determined to keep. It is Labour whose results are most inflated by systemic bias. The Tories insist that first past the post delivers clear results, when it has just failed to do exactly that. Conservatives have always grumbled that coalition politics means shadowy deals between parties cobbled together in dingy corridors. The opposite is now proven.

Now, I am not a Tory, but I think this sort of logic that might persuade them.  These kinds of arguments need to be in the foreground.  My three aspects of politics overlap here:  A persuasive argument, presented right, can give your cause a strategic advantage.  In this case, if the Conservative party become a little less cold to the idea of electoral reform, that’s a good thing.
There has also been some discussion over political power in the past few days.  Here’s Laurie Penny, barging in on that Sunny/Hopi debate I mentioned earlier:

@PennyRed:  @sunny_hundal @hopisen yes and no. I think there’s enough damage that only a real defeat, preforably temporary, can make us regroup.
@sunny_hundal: @hopisen @STEPearce @PennyRed I dint believe in power for it’s own sake. That is where labour is at and that is the path to hell

Its little comfort, but the politics of persuasion persists even when the party is out of power.
All of this is a way of saying, that while the Tories and Liberal Democrata hammer out whatever deal they can; while the Labour front bench has been told to keep quiet; and while Gordon Brown keeps a low profile, it would be a good use of Labour supporters’ time to help promote and grow the Take Back Parliament Campaign.  The coalition has taken only three days to amass over 41,000 supporters, which is very impressive.  However, I think it needs a broader base than the middle-class Lib Dem supporting demographic I saw at the rally on Saturday.  This is a practical task that Labourites can take on right now, while we all twiddle our thumbs waiting for opposition.
Here’s my Flickr photoset from the Take Back Parliament rally (though I think Lewishamdreamer’s photos, one of which is reproduced above, are better).

Ebenezer and The Case of the Election Night Tweeter

7 May 2010 / / 2 Comments

Its is not often that you see one of the country’s top opinion-formers picking his nose. As I rounded the corner opposite the pub, I was greeted by the sight of Ebenezer, the celebrated blogger, raising his stubby finger towards his nostril. As it entered the nose, he gave his whole hand an expert twist, as if he were operating a corkscrew. He grimaced as something was levered loose, which he pulled out and began rolling between his thumb and his forefinger.
Meanwhile, his other hand was perched over the keyboard of his laptop, his fingers furiously typing.
His eyes were distracted from the screen as I approached, which put an end to his trowelling. He let his non-keyboard hand flop down below his thigh, and I percieved him flick something out onto the pavement by his tiny table. Then he stood up, and offered the hand in greeting.
I may have paused for a spit-second before I shook it, but I don’t think he noticed.
Ebenezer sighed in mock exasperation. “At last!”
I smiled, and protested. “Not my fault, I left the flat an hour ago. They’re working on the Northern line so I had to get a bus.”
He played along. “Well, you should have known. There’s an app for that, yeah?” He waved his nose-picking hand at the metal chair opposite his, and sat down.
There was half a free-sheet newspaper splayed across the seat. Upside down, the new Prime Minister’s gurning face looked back at me. I picked it up and chucked it onto the ground, somewhere near where the bogey had probably landed.
Then I sat down and placed my iPhone carefully on the table. Ebenezer rolled his eyes at me. “What are you drinking?” he said. I could see he had a half-finished pint of some kind of dark ale on the go, leaned up against his laptop.
“I’ll probably just have a coffee for the moment,” I said. I stood up with the idea of ordering, but a waitress had clocked me and was already striding over. She was bursting out of a tight white shirt and had one of those black ties with a huge knot sitting over the centre of her chest.
When I ordered myself a decaf latte, Ebenezer let out an audible snort, and shook his head. The girl bit her lip to suppress a smile, then disappeared inside.
“That knot must have been, like, a quadruple windsor or something” he said when she was out of view.
I decided to change the subject. “What are you working on?”
“Just a blog. But not for the main blog, though. Just my blog. Its about Dave.”
I nodded solemnly. Dave was dead.
Continue reading

Gates and Hashes

2 May 2010 / / 1 Comment

In a rant about the Gillian Duffy thing, Mr E complains about a bit of political shorthand:

I’m sure I can’t be the only one, by the way, who is tired of seeing the suffix “-gate” attached to every minor flap or scandal everywhere in the world every day.

I’ll second that. For a “gate” I think the scandal needs, at the very least, a bit of actual illegality and an attempt at cover-up, neither of which were present during Mr Brown’s unfortunate Wednesday.
The tendency to ‘gate’ things stems from the need to refer to a set of contiguous events in one catch-all term. For this, I prefer just using the hashtag within a normal bit of prose. That way, for example #RIPMichaelJackson refers not only to the death of a popstar, but the crowd reaction and media commentary. Same goes for #IranElection and #LeadersDebates.

Rob's #LeadersDebate Reax, Part III

29 April 2010 / / 2 Comments

Let’s start at the end: I think Cameron won this one. He looked much more confident than in previous debates, and seemed on the front foot in the back-and-forth. His soundbite about the “confusion” between goverment and economy was a new idea since last week’s debate (though variations on this theme have been on Tory posters for a couple of years) and was craftily put, the sort of thing that might persuade undecideds, rather than a preach to the choir. It is not a truism by any means, but Brown failed to muster comparable rhetoric to fight back.
Cameron also had very strong rhetoric when he spoke about “saving £1 in every £100 spent”. He suggested that this could mean saving on a local council’s glossy brochure, a highly dubious claim (do authorities with a £1bn budget really spend £10 million on communications?) but he nevertheless sounded credible.
Clegg looked beleageured in the first 10 minutes, but came into his own on the question about manufacturing. His Sheffield constituency brings him a certain credibility. He began by raising the need for growing the green industries – Clegg has always been the first to mention the environment, and it is a noteworthy difference between him and the other two men. As in the previous debates, he looked strongest when under attack on his illegal-immigration amnesty policy. It is humane and pragmatic and both Tories and Labour look ‘nasty’ when they belittle it.
Oh yeah: I made a prediction earlier, which turned out to be correct:

At no point in #LeadersDebates has anyone sunk to tabloid level. So I predict #Bigotgate will not be mentioned tonight.

Brown excelled when he was speaking like a Chancellor of the Exchequer. If ever there was a walking example of the Peter Principle, Brown is it. With the housing question, Brown gave a lengthy four point answer on building societies, and was clearly enjoying himself.
Overall, I think these debates have harmed the Labour campaign. How could they not? Brown is fighting the election on a 13-year record, and each and every question in these debates is on a problem that has not yet been solved. This stuctural handicap was most stark during Brown’s “no life on the dole, that’s my policy” soundbite. Cameron threw that right back at him, and many Labour party members would have let slip a small nod in agreent with the Conservative leader. A little later, Brown mentioned NEETs, and Cameron again easily pinned failures on the Prime Minister’s collar.
It’s no great insight that the debates have been a boon for Clegg, who has been the most talked about politician this past fortnight. Ultimately, the Lib Dem leader has looked comfortable and credible alongside the other two – but can you imagine the debates with Sir Menzies Campbell in his stead?
The BBC turned in the best production of the three broadcasters. We saw an uncluttered set design and an equally sparse screen. Much less claustrophobic. The only weird element was the slowly changing screen colour, which was a distraction, but forgivable. Dimbleby, a veteran of Question Time (as well as, incidentally, the Bullingdon Club) made one or two interventions which were shrewd and kept the conversation moving.
This is a great development in British politics. The rise of Clegg could, and should, deliver a hung parliament, which in turn should result in electoral reform. More political engagement will be the result.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Robert Sharp

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑