Visitors to the Houses of Parliament each get a sticker to wear once they have passed through security. Down at the exit (by Westminster Hall) is some piece of signage, onto which the visitors plaster their redundant stickers. It is The People’s Cairn, tolling the number of people who have come to see our representatives at work.
Tag: Politics (Page 50 of 57)
Conservative MP Robert Niell at PMQs:
Would he like to come and see the work that we are doing in Bromley? I could take him and show him one of our bottle banks.
Whether you believe, as Matthew Parris doesn’t, that Gordon Brown lost his “bottle” last week, it was interesting to see just how quickly the meme spread. It is a convenient piece of derogatory slang, so much better than the more conventional “coward” or “scared”. As soon as the Tories began using the phrase, Brown was cornered.
Gordon Brown mentioned the Iraqi employees of the British Forces in his speech yesterday.
Existing staff who have been employed by us for more than twelve months and have completed their work will be able to apply for a package of financial payments to aid resettlement in Iraq or elsewhere in the region, or – in agreed circumstances – for admission to the UK.
(via P/P).
Dan explains that the “12 months” criteria is unfair and arbitrary. People who have served for less time are still being threatened with death.
The argument from the government is presumably that these measures are harsh but necessary, to avoid “opening the floodgates” to asylum claims from Iraqis who have a tenuous, temporary link to the British Forces. I guess this is an argument that has some traction in the media… but it is a dangerous cliche. It first assumes the worst motives of those who would seek work with our troops. It assumes that they are merely mercenaries, with no sense of home or belonging in Iraq. But this is a mistake. Most of the Iraqis who have worked with the British have done so in order to help rebuild their own country. Ties to their home are strong and patriotic. Given the risks involved in taking on this kind of work, it is hardly going to be a fast-track or short-cut to a life in the West. Nor will it be percieved as such in Iraq.
Second, asylum claims should be considered on the basis of need, not length of service. Asylum is not the same as granting citizenship. It is not like a knighthood or a gold watch, to be presented as some kind of long-service award. The militias who roam Basra do not ask for a P60 form before deciding whether or not to beat you up. “Oh, well, you’ve only been working for the British for eleven months, so we’ll be back at the beginning of next month to terrorise your family.” A cleaner who is threatened on the way to his first day of work has as much right to asylum as someone who has been translating for our squaddies since March 2003.
Nick Cohen complains that campaigners fail to mention that it is Islamist militias who are causing the violence. Indeed they are – but this is a moot point. Asylum should be blind to the cause of the danger – and necessarily so. If it was limited to cases where the British has somehow caused, or simply exacerbated the violence, then the process would be even more ugly and opaque than it is now. Of course, others might say that Britain has caused the violence, by invading Iraq in the first place. This is a hydra of a debate at the best of times… but in this case, thankfully, a moot point too.
Update
Tim Ireland links the issue to Brown’s leadership:
Brown’s senior advisers should know their history, not just what they can remember from media studies; if they’ve fought more than one local election campaign, they should be aware that the echoes of the miner’s strike pale into insignificance next to the memories of the 1991 uprisings in Iraq, and this decisive moment will have an impact far beyond local activism. These people need to be looked after immediately.
A letter in The Independent, from one Sam Butler who hails from my home town of Fleet:
Sir: Pundits have been analysing the factors that the Prime Minister might take into account when deciding whether to go for an early general election. Predictably they focus on his party’s electability: poll findings, the opinions of MPs in marginal constituencies, public perceptions of his financial record and so on. It is a pity that the question of when it would be in the public interest to hold an election seems to figure so far down the list.
Well, yes, but I hardly think we can blame the politicians for this. If someone has pretensions to run the country, then it is not unusual for them to hold the belief that they are the best person to do so. Speaking in realpolitik terms, one might say that it is a prerequisite for the job. Certainly, if a Leader or Leader-in-waiting claimed otherwise, they would come in for some severe criticism from both sides of the political divide. This is why the Tories say they are happy to fight an election whenever Gordon is ready.
So, when making the decision of whether or not to go to the polls, Sam Butler’s question is a moot point. The Prime Minister (whoever he or she may be) already assumes that “in the public interest” is synonymous with “in the interests of my career”. This is certainly true of the current and previous incumbents of the post, and I assume for Margaret Thatcher too. I don’t know whether John Major always thought that he was the best person to run the country. Sometimes it seemed that this wasn’t the case. After all, he waited for as long as was constitutionally possible before calling an election in 1997. Perhaps his apparent lack of self-belief was one reason why he lost support of the public that year.
Having confidence that you are the Best Thing To Happen to the Country might be a little irritating, and not a little alienating to the rest of us. But it is not necessarily a bad trait that we should wish away. Nor is it the same thing as faking confidence that you will get any votes, which is the saddest kind of spin.
As to the question itself: The current administration has spent much of its short life responding to crises, and with Parliament in recess. It feels a little like an interregnum, or a phoney-war, before the real business of governing begins. A new, strong, full term mandate for Gordon Brown will bring a degree of stability to the country, which is surely good for the economy, and for the efficent implementation of policy. Alternatively, a Labour government with a smaller majority, or a coalition government led by either Labour or the Conservatives, would farm uncertainty. And the current speculation-without-confirmation is surely a distraction for everyone. So, even those who reject the Labour ideology might agree that, in the practical sense, the country’s interests are indeed linked to that of the Prime Minister.
I meant to post this image yesterday. A few people commented on the (in)appropriateness of the Prime Minister giving his speech set against a lush Tory blue.
The choice of blue is unwise not only because of the political symbolism, but because of the technological implications too. The even blue is the perfect colour for CGI work. Anyone with the most basic CGI software can take an excellent ‘key’ from that blue, and will be able to add Gordon to any number of amusing or satirical locations – the most obvious being the Tory party conference. In this, the age of the ‘mash up’, I do not doubt several such projects are already underway, in upstairs bedrooms in cul-de-sacs up and down the land.
The Zidane footage from the World Cup last year had similar benefits. The assault was filmed against the green grass of a football pitch, and easy to replace with whatever the comedians wished.
The satirical mash-up, perfectly given a platform due to the wonders of YouTube and its ilk, will only become more common as time passes, and more and more people become more and more savvy with software that is less expensive.
Update
Compare the pictyure above, with this one from later in the week.
