leyton.org

The SNP are currently making lots of noise about the leadership debate, even now threatening (sorry, “not ruling out”), legal action to block the broadcast.

It’s bizarre that a party that seeks an independent Scotland should be interested in taking part in a debate between the three possible candidates for the UK prime minister, or feel that blocking broadcast would make any difference. The UK is, after all, a country they seek to dismantle. The iPlayer would certainly render any attempt to block broadcast impossible, and even if they succeeded in that, it would be, in my opinion, political censorship

Let’s face it though the debate itself won’t make much difference, but rather the heavy analysis in the papers comment pages, the selected use of key exchanges on television, are actually what will affect our judgement. That and, hopefully, careful consideration of the political situation in our own constituencies. After all, we’re electing representative candidates, not prime ministers.

If there was even a slight chance the SNP could actually form a UK government, based on polls and candidates standing, it’d of course make some sense. But a line really has to be drawn somewhere, not least the dilution too many candidates would create to an effective debate between large egos keen to score points.

I’ve certainly no objection to there being a specific Scottish leaders debate (we had one for the Scottish parliament, after all) ahead of the Westminster elections next year, but there’s absolutely no sense in the SNP, or other very regional parties, being included in the national leaders debate. After all, the topics being proposed are UK wide matters and therefore largely entirely ‘reserved’ to Westminster. The vague claim they make about such matters affecting Scotland (such as defence policy affecting the future of nuclear submarines on the Clyde), simply holds no water: There’s simply no chance the SNP can drive that policy.

“Come to me with your solutions, not your problems” is a line I like, and try to adhere to. The SNP’s posturing is entirely unconstructive, bordering on petulant. It does nothing at all to convince me this is a party that deserves consideration for a vote, unless they realise what fools they are making of themselves. One heck of an own goal so far in advance of the next election.

Anybody visiting my website over the last few months would be excused for thinking it’s a running website. There was a time when I was motivated to write more about politics, and to write more about technology (the original purpose of this weblog). All that’s fallen by the wayside in the face of my training for the London Marathon, my focus on Glasgow parkrun, and running my own business. But my political mojo has, to some extent, returned of late, helped by the farcical situation with MP expenses and all that’s come from it. I don’t think I have anything particularly radical or novel to write, but I’ll write it anyway.

The way some MP’s have behaved has certainly been deplorable, and the biggest damage isn’t so much the waste of public money and the arrogant way with which it was treated by our representatives, but the damage it’s done to an already weak confidence in the political process.

Sadly the only beneficiaries will be the ‘fringe’ parties of the right, which seem to gradually be gaining more airtime and print space. As I write this, in Somerset, I can see a UKIP poster, and that’s pretty much the only poster I’ve seen close to home. But then this area has always been either a Tory or LibDem area. I just wish there were strong, alternative, centrist voices to compensate: The Lib Dems are mired in the same mess (more by association than headline-grabbing expense idiocy some Labour/Tory MP’s seem guilty of) Green party perhaps springs to mind, but they seem to be drowned out in collective hand-wringing at the BNP and UKIP’s PR campaigns. It almost feels like the fear of their doing well is causing more attention to be paid to them, creating a feedback loop that brings us the very thing we don’t want.

Electoral reform has also been on the agenda of late. And about time too. But I just hope it’s not a knee-jerk reaction. It does need time and a proper, balanced, debate. I’d much prefer a PR system that maintained the constituency strong link, and led to a more representative parliament (in both houses). The Scottish System works very well in my view. Sadly the establishment seems to forget they serve us, and not the other way around. They are only there at our sufferance, and goodness knows the country’s patience has been tried in the last month or two.

A General Election is tempting, but I side with the ’sort your house out THEN go to the people’, rather than booting them out and getting the next lot in. This Autumn would work well in my view. A fixed term parliament is certainly the best proposal I’ve heard from the Tories in a long, long time (even if it’s not in the slightest bit new, good to see them adopt it). Of course, it’s now inevitable we’ll get a Conservative administration. On the whole I’m not too bothered – If anything I’m a big believer in the need for a periodic change (be nice if we could limit administrations to a couple of terms!) – but my biggest fear is not the politics of economics, education, defence, etc, but the ‘conservative’ (small c) moralising we’ll risk getting.

Ironically, perhaps, the best thing is that it has at least energised people into paying more attention to what our representatives are up to. Sadly it’s very negative and alienating right now, but I hope this will eventually lead to considered and effective reform, and a greater demand for freedom of information, and openness in the corridors of power. Political parties have to do a much better job of seizing this moment and delivering what, I think, people are demanding.

I’d suspected the next General Election would be quite interesting even before the MP Expenses and financial crises hit. Gordon Brown can’t expect anything other than a resounding kicking (deserved not least for simply failing to deliver on the hopes so many of us had), but if the Tories – very much mired in the problems themselves – don’t find a way to propose the radical changes now being demanded of our politicians and political system, there’s a real danger of even more radical change being forced on them.

Last night I watched the excellent Daily Show (shown on More4 at 8.30pm), to see one of the most anticipated interviews that host Jon Stewart has done on the show since the presidential candidates were queuing up to appear. Jon Stewart has been in a bit of a public spat with CNBC finance journalist Jim Cramer over his advice, style and past record over the last few years of financial turmoil. It’s not just a case of bad tips (eg. tipping Bear Stearns a week or two before it collapsed), but his whole attitude and approach to financial matters.

There’s plenty of comment on the encounter on other websites (Prospect’s blog is worth a read, and includes links to the piece), and it was certainly fascinating. A slightly contrite display by Jim Cramer, it did feel like Jon Stewart pulled a few punches. He made excellent points, held the man to account, and really did an excellent job in showing up the poor coverage and attitudes in finance, and financial journalism, that surely contributed to the recent problems. It was simply a great combination of excellent satire, humour, and journalism. Well worth watching.

But throughout the show I couldn’t help but wonder where Britain’s equivalent was? We do have excellent satirists, no doubt, but it’s the format and frequency of The Daily Show that I wish we had. We have “Have I got news for you?”. Enjoyable though it is, it’s rarely particularly incisive, and does get rather childish at times. Chris Morris and Brasseye perhaps came close, and for topical, humourous, and activism, Mark Thomas.

Perhaps it’s that the talk show format hasn’t really ever taken off here in the same way it has in the US, or that our comedians can’t be tempted or persuaded to do a daily show. Certainly it’d be something I’d like to see at least tried over here.

The news this week about the Olympic torch relay has left me feeling a bit despondent, on a number of fronts.

I think it’s a shame that the Olympics continues to be dominated by politics. It feels such a throwback to the 1980’s, and the east vs west boycotts. We’ll have steroid fuelled up eastern European ‘athletes’ and dodgy haircuts next. Perhaps I’m being naive, but I honestly thought the spirit of the Olympics was to celebrate human achievement, and leave politics aside. The Sydney and Athens Olympics look like being the high-point. It’s downhill from here…

The majority of Free Tibet protesters were peaceful, but a few took things a step further than necessary, and lead to scuffles and violence. It’s focused attention on the subject, certainly, but not in a good way for the campaigners. AFP reports the Dalai Lama even supports the Chinese Olympics, and he’s the cause celeb of Tibet.

Of course, the Chinese don’t come out of this well at all (even leaving aside their invasion of Tibet). The Chinese backed governor of Tibet said, on the forthcoming Tibet section of the relay,that “If… anyone should attempt to disrupt or undermine the torch relay, they will be dealt with severely according to law“, and a few other ominous words. Nice touch. The blue-coated escorts (or “smurfs” I gather the Metropolitan police referred to them as) just look a bit too serious and humour-free. Ominous looking guys.

And where’s Darfur in all of this? Spielberg’s decision to resign, drew attention to China not putting any pressure on Sudan over the crises in Darfur. It’s all been blown aside by the Tibet campaigners.

But it’s the Olympic spirit that is starting to suffer. If we’re back to politics as a central force in Olympics, I can’t help wonder what this means for London 2012 (although what campaigns we can expect, I’ll save for another day), but more importantly the future of the Olympic movement: Countries won’t bid if they attract criticism not support.

The complete and utter non-story that was Gordon Brown not attending the Olympic opening has thankfully disappeared from the BBC front page (and talks more of media-led group-think/panic than anything vaguely serious or important, other than perhaps Brown’s media team being hopeless), but talk of such boycotts really just undermines any hope I have that athletics and human achievement will be the focus of the Olympics.

Politics is important, and it’s important to pressure China, but at the same time it can’t let become the dominant theme of the Olympics. It’s against the ideals and goals, and undermines everybody involved. Dialogue with China is important, and if this goes on I fear we may be pushing this country away at a key moment in its recent history.