And another thing…

THIS POST from Alex Smith of LabourList has caught my attention. It quotes Michael Merrick’s assessment last week about how Labour can connect with the poorest in scoiety, and this section struck a chord with me:

The Labour Party has embraced an ideology that actively undermines the beliefs and culture of ordinary working people. Immigration, whilst the most topical, isn’t the only battleground. One by one, it seems that the social and cultural outlook of many is scorned upon by an elite who, whilst laughably painting themselves as on the side of the ‘oppressed’, choose to studiously ignore this particular subjugation. On issues ranging from school/parental discipline (’child abuse’), to capital punishment (’barbaric’), to patriotism (’Little Englander’), to Euro-scepticism (’xenophobic’), to immigration (’racist’), to morality (’bigoted’) – across all these issues and more, the general beliefs of vast swathes of the electorate are demonised and ridiculed by an elite interested only in securing the dominance of their own particular worldview.

Now, I’m not saying Merrick is entirely right about this – he uses a pretty broad brush and generalisations are rarely helpful – but he clealry has a point. It was one to which I alluded in a post yesterday when talking about the need for the Labour Party as a whole, and at every level, to start talking the same language of the people we represent and to reflect their views.

And although Merrick talks of immigration as just one of the pressure points, it’s clearly near the top of an awful lot of people’s agenda today.

A few weeks ago, after Lord Griffin (to be) appeared on Question Time, I was forced to concede by commenters that Labour had, in the past, been guilty of attempting to shut down debates on immigration by shouting “racist”. Whenever that has been done it has been for well-meaning reasons. Nevertheless, the road to hell is paved with good intentions and it was stupid and wrong.

It’s a Monday, so no doubt I will now be accused of adopting the Daily Mail’s/BNP’s agenda by raising immigration here. Still…

Knocking on doors in my constituency on Saturday morning, I once again had to try to defend the government’s policies on immigration. This is a very regular occurrence these days, particularly in so-called “solid” Labour areas. These people are not racists by any stretch of the imagination, but they are worried. And they’re talking about their concerns now because it’s only now they feel they have “permission” to do so.

There is absolutely no point in simply responding: “Well, immigration has brought the country a lot of prosperity through extra taxes and productivity”, even though that is true. Because more often than not, the people expressing the concerns are the people least likely to have benefited directly from Britain’s economic growth to 2008. And they have as much right to have a say in this area – and to be listened to – as anyone else.

I detect a huge amount of snobbery from some on the liberal left towards such people and their views. They’re usually the same sort of people who criticise me when I uphold and promote government policy on asylum (essentially – if your application is approved, welcome to Britain; if it’s rejected, have a safe journey home).

And we are way, way past the point at which we can sneer “racist” at good people for daring to hold a view with which we’re uncomfortable.

IT’S ALWAYS nice to receive compliments for my blogging. The only problem is that I generally receive them from Tories, rather than from fellow party members.

The latest case in point is the recently-founded Tory Tavern blog, who writes:

So, a fantastic few days blogging from Mr Harris. The landlord has one remaining nagging thought, though. With his common-sense, honest and open approach to politics, his rejection of electoral reform, his commitment to unionism, his criticism of Labour plans to raise taxes on the rich, his dislike of political correctness and his view that Gordon Brown should resign…is he sure he’s in the right party?

So let’s tackle those points head-on.

First off, I don’t think that having a “common-sense, honest and open approach” to politics is or should be the preserve of any one party; there are bloggers from all the main parties who subscribe to those values – and plenty who don’t.

Support for the First-Past-The-Post electoral system is still the mainstream view among MPs and activists in the Labour Party, so supporting it publicly is hardly taking a “maverick” stance.

As far as unionism is concerned, the Labour Party is far more committed to the Union than the modern Conservative Party is. A Tory party committed to making Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs second class members of the Commons would be a greater threat to the United Kingdom than the SNP could ever be.

On taxes, Tony Blair and New Labour won the confidence of the electorate by persuading the country that Labour no longer believed in taxing for its own sake, that if they have to be raised at all, it should be done reluctantly, as a last resort, and to fund a specific spending commitment. That’s what I – and the vast majority of Labour MPs – still believe.

My frustration with political correctness is actually illustrated by Tory Tavern’s citing of it as evidence that I’m in the wrong party: why on earth must the Labour Party allow itself to fall into the trap of defending it? I haven’t met a single person – of any party or none – who can defend the more witless examples of political correctness. The young boy sent home with a note to his parents revealing that he had uttered anti-German sentiments while his class was being taught about the Second World War? The student who was arrested and forced to spend the night in the cells for calling a police horse gay? And don’t even start me on “Winterfest” or “NeutralFest” or “Let’sMakeSureNo-oneCanPossiblyBeOffendedByReferencesToChristianityFest” or whatever. No-one defends that kind of nonsense, and if Labour Party members do, I’ve never met them.

To the above list of indictments, I should ask for my views on benefit dependency and single parents and my robust approach to asylum to be considered as more “offences” to be taken into account. These have been portrayed by the media as being “anti-Labour” or at least “anti-Left wing”. In fact, on the single parents issue, while I did receive some messages of support from Conservative colleagues in the Commons, I was overwhelmed by the support I received from Labour colleagues who told me it was “about time” someone said what I said.

I don’t specifically adopt these views in order to drive up traffic on this blog or to earn praise from right wingers. I believe that the views I hold are shared not only by the vast majority of what most people understand to be Labour’s “core vote”, but by the vast majority of the wider electorate. And I espouse those views because (a) I believe they are right, and (b) I believe Labour would be more popular if more of its representatives at every level were to voice them.

And that’s the whole point: I want Labour to win the general election and to stay in government, because that, in my opinion, would be in the best interests of my country and my constituents.

So, yes, Tory Tavern, I am in the right party. And if I had my way, your party would have a longer term in opposition ahead of you than behind you.

LET’S explode some myths on this one, shall we?

MYTH #1: Computer hacking is not a serious crime.

Yes it is, and it causes millions of pounds of damage every year. People who hack into other people’s computers should be charged and tried. If convicted, the sentences should be severe.

MYTH #2: McKinnon was pursuing a harmless obsession about UFOs.

In that case, why did he leave this message on one of the US Defense Department computers?

US foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days? It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand-down on September 11 last year…I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels

Doesn’t this suggest that his motives were not only political but malicious? Doesn’t sound much like a “moral crusade” to me.

MYTH #3: Asperger’s sufferers shouldn’t be extradited.

Why not? Would this argument be made in favour of an Asperger’s Syndrome sufferer who had committed a less “acceptable” crime, like murder or child abuse?

MYTH #4: The extradition treaty with the US is one-sided.

There is some truth in this, but because of the role of the US constitution, not the UK legislation itself. But are we saying that because of this, no British citizen should ever be extradited to America? If Gary Glitter’s extradition was demanded by the US authorities, would there be the same level of oposition on the grounds of a lack of reciprocity?

MYTH #5: McKinnon cannot expect a fair trial in America.

Nonsense. The US legal system is one of the fairest in the world and McKinnon will have his chance to plead his case in open court in exactly the same way as any US citizen. And the highest courts on this side of the Atlantic – including the Court of Appeal and the European Court of Human Rights – have already given McKinnon a fair hearing and have found against his request to remain in the UK.

MYTH #6: McKinnon will receive an unduly harsh sentence.

Unlikely. This is from Corante Blog:

(Federal) sentencing guidelines are referred to in Lord Brown’s ruling, but they are rarely referred to in UK coverage. McKinnon was offered a plea agreement if he pleaded guilty to two of the seven charges.

From the ruling: “On this basis it was likely that a sentence of 3-4 years (more precisely 37-46 months), probably at the shorter end of that bracket, would be passed and that after serving 6-12 months in the US, the appellant would be repatriated to complete his sentence in the UK.”

If you are seriously interested in the facts of this case, and not the unthinking Daily Mail spin, I would recomment Gary McKinnon: The truth is out there, just not in the British press and Socialist Unity, which has taken a brave and principled stand on this issue, unlike many on the Left.

UPDATE at 4.45 pm: There’s a fantastic comment by a “paddy garcia” on this subject over at Socialist Unity which I reprint here in full:

Please tell me what is wrong with hacking into US military computers? How can any socialist oppose bringing down the US imperialist war machine by this or any other means? Anyone who tries to this is a hero. Please explain all this alleged Brit nationalism stuff? I have not heard Gary McKinnon say anything that could be interpreted as such. Obviously the gutter press have their own agenda but that doesn’t mean that this man should be extradited.

Doesn’t add much to the debate, I’ll grant, but a real hoot!

I CONFESS, I didn’t even know that Greg Pope MP even had a blog. I discovered it tonight. For the title alone it would deserve to be included on my blogroll, but it’s actually an excellent read as well.

THE FIRST in a series of posts seeking to identify arrogant complacency by Tories and Tory-supporting blogs in the run-up to the general election.

And our first winner (and I suspect this isn’t the last we’ll see of them in this particular category) is none other than the Spectator Coffee House, which today speculates:

One interesting thing to watch after the next election is how many of the (Conservative) 2010 intake are offered ministerial jobs straight away.

Truly remarkable, isn’t it, how quickly this lot return to the old assumption that the general election is “in the bag”, even after three consecutive general election defeats?

For the record, the Tories currently have 200 MPs, up two on their 2005 result. Under Michael Foot, Labour won 210. I’m just saying…

CAN LABOUR win under the current electoral system? Well, given that we have won three times in the past 12 years, I would hazard a guess at “yes”.

If some of Labour’s parliamentary candidates reckon we can’t win unless we promise a referendum on the alternative vote on the same day as the general election, maybe they should be examining their own so-called “democratic credentials”.

The ambition of the 34 candidates is truly soaring: “hundreds” of LibDems throughout the country would switch to Labour if we were to hold a referendum on the same day. Phew! That many, eh? Nearly enough to affect the result in … well, a seat, probably.

They propose a “government Bill” to facilitate such a referendum. The only problem there is that such a Bill is very unlikely to succeed. Apart from those Labour MPs who would oppose it (including Yours Truly), the Libdems would be likely to campaign against it on the basis that it’s not precisely the exact system that would most benefit them be most democratic.

And can we please stop all this nonsense about the 1997 manifesto commitment? That was a promise of a referendum, not on AV but on AV+, a version of AV which would be even more calamitous than straightforward AV, with “assisted places scheme” MPs (like those in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly) being “elected”. We have never made a manifesto commitment to a referendum on AV.

You have to wonder why Labour candidates are so keen to get into Parliament if all they want to do is bargain away power to the LibDems. “Ah,” they will argue, “but the Tories were in government for most of the 20th century and we must make the 21st century the century of progressive politics.”

Yeah, okay, I’ll sign up to that. But you know the best way of electing a Labour government? Not through messy, sordid little deals with the minor parties, but by winning more votes than the Tories. That’s how they stayed in power for most of the last century – by beating us in elections; by offering the electorate policies that were more popular than ours.

By carping on about voting systems, we simply reinforce the notion – and I hope and believe it’s a wrong notion – that we have nothing to offer the voters but electoral calculations.

I’LL GET straight to the point: any attempt at regulating blogs would be doomed to failure from the start. And it’s a bonkers idea anyway.

But the prospect of it happening has been the blogosphere’s darkest nightmare for a very long time, and until now I’ve always considered it as something of a straw man. Unfortunately, it’s none other than Baroness Buscombe, chairperson of the Press Complaints Commission, who has raised this as a serious prospect.

According to Ian Burrell of The Independent:

She wants to examine the possibility that the PCC’s role should be extended to cover the blogosphere, which is becoming an increasing source of breaking news and boasts some of the media’s highest-profile commentators, such as the political bloggers Iain Dale and Guido Fawkes. Do readers of such sites, and people mentioned on them, deserve the same rights of redress that the PCC offers in respect of newspapers and their sites?

Some of the bloggers are now creating their own ecosystems which are quite sophisticated,” Baroness Buscombe told me. “Is the reader of those blogs assuming that it’s news, and is [the blogosphere] the new newspapers? It’s a very interesting area and quite challenging.”

Look, if anyone in the UK regards a political blog as somewhere to pick up objective news and analysis, then they don’t deserve the protection of an “independent regulator”; they deserve to be force-fed every nutcase conspiracy theory and viscious smear going. If you want news, buy a newspaper, or visit a news organisation’s website. I’m a fan and a friend of Dale’s but even he wouldn’t pretend that he’s a source of objective political news and analysis.

The suggestion could only have been made by someone with absolutely no notion of what blogs are, and how and why they operate. My only consolation is that the suggestion hasn’t come from the government.

The Baroness says that the if the PPC wanted to consider bringing blogs under its remit, such a move “would involve discussion with the press industry, the public and bloggers (who would presumably have to volunteer to come beneath the PCC’s umbrella).”

Oh, dear me. Well, good luck with that, Baroness. I’ll be interested to see what you conclude. But, in common with most other bloggers worth their name, And another thing… will never come under the regulation of the PCC or anyone else.

This is what I had to say in April about the government’s previous attempt to regulate blogs.

UPDATE on Wednesday at 9.20 am: Okay, folks, just relax. Guido has done what I should have done before publishing the above and actually asked the PPC about their intentions blog-wise. Nothing to see here, apparently. No plans to regulate blogs. Well, okay, then….

IT’S ALREADY a well-established fact that there are no Tory bloggers who accept the scientiic consensus on climate change. Having read Tory Bear’s blog today – in praise (predictably) of Dan (”I’m not mad”) Hannan and the Taxpayers’ Alliance (which isn’t at all a Tory front, no way, no how) – another similar question springs to mind: where are all the pro-EU Tory bloggers?

Cameron wants us all to believe that he’s successfully detoxified the Tory brand, that it is now the very model of moderation. Yet on climate change and on Europe, he seems out of step with the vast majority of his own party, who would, it seems, much rather continue spewing out limitless tonnes of CO2 from an isolated Britain.

Tory strategists are no doubt aware, and are concerned by the fact, that no anti-EU party has ever won a UK general election.

Sure, there are plenty of the “I love Europe – I holiday in Provence every year” sort of Tory, just as there are plenty “I’m not anti-American – I love The West Wing” types in the Labour Party. But where are the Ken Clarke-supporting Tory bloggers, those who are actually enthusiastic about the EU and its benefits to the UK?

Was that a tumbleweed I just saw going past…?

THE TIN FOIL hat brigade are out in force again, this time predicting that Labour will win Glasgow North East, but only because of a surge in postal voting.

The Orange Party blog describes the number of people registered to vote by post today as “shocking”, apparently because the number has doubled since the general election.

So, for those unfamiliar with things like politics and by-elections and stuff, here’s a handy cut-out-and-keep guide to this newfangled postal voting thing:

In by-elections, all the parties push postal votes. Therefore, in by-elections, the number of postal votes goes up very significantly.

Got that? Want me to repeat it for you? Okay, here we go:

In by-elections, all the parties push postal votes. Therefore, in by-elections, the number of postal votes goes up very significantly.

I’m glad we got that sorted.

YOU KNOW that feeling of insecurity you get when a close work colleague announces he’s got another job? Or when a neighbour you’re friendly with puts a “For Sale” notice up?

That’s kind of how I feel at the news that Sadie’s Tavern is closing. There aren’t enough good Labour-supporting blogs out there, and as of this weekend, there’s one less.

The biggest problem with Sadie’s Tavern (and she admits as much herself) is that she didn’t post often enough – and that’s intended to be very positive criticism, because I would have loved to read more of her thoughts and opinions. She was easily the funniest political blogger around, as well as the best writer.

I can understand how she feels – it’s only right that she should put her career first. I just hope (and expect) that one of the broadsheets snaps her up for a very large sum of money, because a weekly column by her would certainly be enough to entice me to part with my hard-earned.

(PS. Fans of The Prisoner might detect in my headline a note of optimism that she will be back with us ere long.)