Politics 2015: understanding the outcome

“Hello young man, do you know we’ve soon got an election coming up?”

Ha, thought I, he obviously was unaware of the type of company of I worked for.

“I am.” I said.

“Well can I ask, will you be voting for UKIP? There are many young people like you now joining our party.”

Oh my goodness, I thought. I am being cajoled/ harassed into voting UKIP by a canvasser using nudge theory, on my own doorstep!

“I’m not.” I said, with my arms folded. “I’m really not quite sure why voting for UKIP would be in my interest, indeed for the rest of the country.”

I’ll be honest, I’ve normally got a lot of time for people who go knocking on doors to talk about politics. 

Yes, it’s quite self-serving i.e. they’re just looking for voter intention and data for their own records, but it is quite a task to knock on the majority of doors in a constituency and ask what people care about and dislike.

“Well...” said the man.

If I was guessing, he was in his late sixties. He wore a tweed jacket, had slightly unkempt grey hair, merrily rotund. Overall quite friendly.

“It’s in all our interest because we no longer have control of our borders, we no longer have control to make our own rules. It’s all in done in Brussels now you see.”

Wow, I thought, he’s gone straight for the nuclear argument. He didn’t even ask me how long I’d lived here, where I worked or if I had any particular concerns about the local area.

“So, what do you suggest?” I retorted. “We pull out entirely? I’m all for reforming the place, very much so, but I’ve yet to hear how the transition period would work.”

Then came the numbers. The costs. The statistics. The data.

In the end, it was a case of agreeing to disagree, but here was a UKIP man on our doorstep. That was pretty unheard of in Harrogate. I remember once upon a time seeing them drive around the town centre with a megaphone attached to their car, reeling off number after number. This was in the years after The Referendum Party, when UKIP weren’t even considered to be on the fringes, but quite extreme. Now we’re in a world where they have the UK’s biggest representation within the EU Parliament and are considered to be ‘mainstream’. Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised by his appearance.

Yet, we’re still adjusting to it all. The left look on in glee as the right splinters and the Conservatives are dragged between their traditional base and the election winning centre ground, whereas the right are savouring the shambolic state of centre left politics led by Ed Miliband and his day-to-day issues. While the Lib Dems may have a place in Government after the next election, who’s not to say that power may lie from within the clutches of either Nigel Farage or the SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon, if not in this election, then perhaps 2020.

The leaders' debate 2010.

There are no absolute truths in politics and the shape of the 2015 General election is becoming very interesting and completely unexplainable. A recent poll now puts the Conservatives ahead of the Labour Party by three points, but even in an economic recovery can we expect a Tory majority? Though some cruelly argue that a corpse could have done better against Gordon Brown in the 2010 election, is it likely that Conservatives will be able to maintain all their current seats, as well as gain the 40 or so more needed to gain a majority? The polls suggest it is unlikely.

The loyalty towards Labour’s Ed Miliband appears hollow and more importantly do voters have a real idea of what a Labour-led government would do with almost six months to go? Even the so-called 35% strategy may be pushing it at this rate.

Then there are the Lib Dems. Notoriously entrenched in the seats they hold and formidable grassroots campaigners, another ‘unknown unknown’ in this election is to whether they will be able to hold on to as many seats they forecast. Opinion polls before the 2010 election gave them a healthy 23%, yet they have slumped on average to this Parliament to a mere 7%. Will the public punish them for being part of the Government? Or will they claw on and fight?

The new SNP leader, Nicola Sturgeon

Politicians and commentators often hint at the suggestion that when a General Election comes round and things ultimately get serious, people always revert to the mainstream parties. There is an historic precedence to this and who can disagree with facts. Yet, we don’t have that certainty and politicians are hesitant to jump to a conclusion that there will be a regression to the mean. Call it an end to ‘three party politics’ or as the UKIP MP Douglas Carswell calls it ‘iDemocracy’, times are changing.

What is interesting to see is that the emergence of UKIP and SNP and their subsequent rise is not simply down to the state of affairs from the established parties or a mood of anti-Westminster. Both SNP and UKIP, have successfully used a mixture of old and new campaigning techniques, along with a charismatic and likeable leader, to not only to get themselves recognised, but have a voice at the table. The question for the long-term is whether their campaigning can bring in support, money, votes and ultimately policies.

I did not go away and vote UKIP in the European elections. Yet, I went away and told numerous people that I spoke to one of their campaigners. Politics works in funny ways and until May 7 and the counting thereafter, we may only really have an idea then to what new politics really is.

Footballers and Politics

The passing of the Brazilian soccer great Socrates not only leaves the world without a real footballing icon but neglects us from a passionate and illuminating sporting politician. Socrates will be remembered on the pitch as a highly technical and illustrious player, captaining the national side in the 1982 World Cup Finals, yet he also led an interesting life off the pitch. Socrates was not only a qualified medical doctor but a political activist. He openly campaigned against the military government in charge of Brazil during his time as a player, speaking at pro-democracy campaigns. He also highlighted the plight of children living in poverty and pushed for greater rights for players whilst playing for Brazilian club Corinthians. It leads me to question about footballers today, do any of them have any political will and would any of them be willing to challenge existing codes of practice in regards to politics, poverty or human rights?

Footballers traditionally are the role models that all young boys aspire to be. Not only do they fulfil every fan’s dream of scoring the winning goal or lifting the cup, but they also get paid handsomely to be a part of the club’s history and be adored by supporters. Fans go to extreme lengths to exalt their heroes through tattoos, naming children after them and creating shrines. The adoration is perfectly replicated in Ken Loach’s 2009 film Looking for Eric. Fans remember goals like childhood memories and the likes of Zola, Bergkamp, Shearer, Gazza were all childhood friends. Yet do supporters really care what a player thinks politically and would it really have an effect?

It is impossible to pigeon-hole any footballer’s political preference, but it would perhaps be acceptable to assume that with their great wealth, most would vote for the party that promises the lowest rate of tax. That is not to say that footballers are not politically astute, Chelsea’s Frank Lampard has a reputation with British journalists for his intelligence and admitted he votes Conservative. On the continent many footballers have publically declared their political affiliations, former West Ham and Lazio striker Paolo Di Canio confessed his admiration to Italian fascist Benito Mussolini, whilst Italian striker Cristiano Lucarelli is a card carrying member of the Communist party. Most famous of all is the World Cup winning French defender Lilian Thuram, who openly campaigns for better rights for ethnic minorities in France.

Finding players who openly admit to their political tendencies is only interesting because they are few and far between. How many athletes go on to write an autobiography after their career has finished yet end up writing rather insipid and lacklustre tomes? They often discuss key incidents or retell stories but rarely furnish it with thoughts on politics or leadership. It is unfair to say that all footballers are boring and lack intelligence but there are so many reasons why people admire them on the pitch yet look elsewhere for intellectual inspiration. Many footballers today tend to come from what we call the ‘working classes’ and though a horrible generalisation, put more effort into their football than their Maths and English. It doesn’t make them stupid but it does change their priorities. Making it into the first team takes precedence over which party is in power.

Football clubs are massive marketing machines and players play their part to oil the PR wheel. Players do not visit children’s wards for hedonistic purposes but because it fulfils contracts and charitable obligations. All charities, not just football clubs, are aware that by having a high profile patron helps promote a good image and generates donations, and in return it gives good PR to the patron. Certainly, some players front campaigns through goodwill e.g. Rio Ferdinand and his work to reduce knife crime in inner-city London, but all the while be certain he is well advised.

If you watch any press conference with a footballer, you can see they are briefed as if it were a police interview, all awkward questions are immediately rebuked by the communications team. Even in the dressing room they will follow the instructions from the manager, it is in an environment where saying nothing does you no harm. Think what Sir Alex Ferguson does to players who do not toe the line. The monosyllabic and cliché ridden responses stem from media training and the ‘I was only doing what the gaffer told me’ mentality. It is more than likely that many have interesting political opinions but either do not want the media hassle or the wrath of generating bad or unnecessary press for the club.

In a country where Premier League players earn on average over £20,000 a week with some easily earning over £200,000. It appears ironic to think that Robbie Fowler, Britain’s fourth richest footballer, once raised his shirt to reveal a vest in support of the Liverpool Dockers. Can players really have any loyalties when they live a life so far apart from ordinary fans? It is simply a fact British footballers live in a country where there isn’t a strong Labour movement and old sympathies no longer exist. Footballers earn enough so they don’t have to worry about these things.

The 'Right' of Europe

As the party conference season descends on the UK after the Summer Parliamentary recess, much of the focus will be on the three major parties and their policies towards the economy, education and health. One party that will be holding its party conference this week in Eastbourne, will be the United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP as it is ubiquitously known, and its charismatic leader Nigel Farage. Known within the mainstream as a party that rejects UK membership of the European Union, UKIP is often seen as a place for right wing Tories to retreat to when they don’t like the direction of the Conservative Party. Yet, with bailouts within the Eurozone and increasing concerns about immigration, where does the future lie for parties of the right within Europe.

All across the continent, parties with right wing agendas have surged in popularity. Countries like Finland, in the heart of liberal Scandinavia, saw the True Finns party take almost a fifth of the votes in the recent Parliamentary elections, finishing third overall. The True Finns reject the EU bailout of countries like Greece and Portugal and promote Finnish women to stay home and have more children, preferably ‘ethnic Finns’. This was all democratic, whilst across the border in Norway, Anders Behring Breivik a lone gunman killed scores of younger members of Norway’s Labor Party, an institution he felt that had polluted the Norwegian way of life.

Traditionally, we associate right wing politics with racism and anti-Semitism. The massacre at Clifford’s Tower in York, the conquest of Toledo in Spain and latterly the Holocaust. Yet anti-Semitism is becoming less accepted by most European countries, all European countries recognise Israel and have anti-Semitism laws in place. In fact, figureheads of Europe’s right wing movement such as Marie Le Penn of France’s Front National or Geert Wilders, the Netherland’s most outspoken politician both embrace Judaism. Most right wing parties on the continent have turned their scorn towards Islam.

Too much immigration is not necessarily a right wing dictum; you are just as likely to feel resentment of uncontrolled immigration from traditional UK Labour Party members to traditional Tories living in the Shires. The right has always been successful in threading such political wisdom through appropriating the right of the individual and the need for a smaller government. Single issues parties like the British National Party (BNP) have usually failed because their narrow point of view and lack of political organisation, rare successes can be attributed to voters wanting to give the Government of the day a bloody nose, nothing more. UKIP does not pursue a racist agenda, it is libertarian, it believes Britain has the right to control its own borders and sees Europe as a talking shop full of unelected bureaucrats. In the last European elections in 2009, UKIP secured 13 seats, the same as the governing party of the day, Labour, and under an electoral system that is slightly more favourable to them.

When asked about what concerns voters most, Europe is normally an issue that comes way down the list of priority for most of the electorate. Yet, it would be interesting to see what would happen if UKIP perhaps took a sharper line on immigration, like other European parties. The current Conservative Government of the day would have a dilemma of what to do regarding its coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats. In 2005, under the leadership of Michael Howard, the Conservatives took a right wing stance on crime, immigration and Europe, forcing Tony Blair to move his election strategy to the same audience, most likely because they did not have the capability of winning. In an age where austerity is king and voters want secure employment and an accountable political and tax system, it would be interesting to hear what Mr Farage has to say and whether he decides to tread on the toes Mr Cameron.

It's the economy, dumbass!

The political change taking place across the Middle East and North Africa has surprised most commentators and politicians in terms of its success and speed. Many of the countries that have changed during the ‘Arab Spring’ had been controlled by strongmen who had been in charge for decades. Hosni Mubarak, who stood down from Egypt after thirty years, was only the third president since the 1952 revolution. What has interested me most besides the timing, has been the reaction of the world’s major countries, particularly America. The US has been a major player in the region in the past sixty years, providing aid (and arming) Israel, placing sanctions on Iran and removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. The US has a varying record across the world but it is always unanimous when it comes to promoting and pushing values of democracy and liberty.

These values are mentioned dozens of times in any presidential speech and evolve ultimately from America’s Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. American troops are deployed all around the world to protect the love of their country and the values it evokes. Yet despite the vivid portrayals of flags and parades adjoined to the rhetoric from the likes of Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, I wonder whether America is perhaps over-democratised and whether its ‘brand’ of politics is tarnishing the way the system works?

To many, 20 January 2009 was a historical day across the world, but particularly in America. Barack Obama was sworn in as the first black US President. It was a magical moment to watch and the banners for change were painted across cities and small towns in America through the ubiquitous ‘Hope’ posters that will come to define a generation. Yet since that day the obvious stalling of the American economy has defined Obama’s first term as President and with that an infectious antagonism has developed between the President’s Democrats and the Grand Old Party (GOP), the Republicans.

The passage of Obama’s healthcare bill that in essence extended insurance provision to the poorest in society caused fractions between both parties. Obama’s Presidential opponent, Senator John McCain called the bill ‘unconstitutional’ and the President was called a liar by Republican Joe Wilson during a joint session of Congress, a major disrespect in American conventions and in most democracies. The issues of late has been the nation’s high unemployment rate, around 9%, and the inability to agree on America’s deficit (currently America’s total debt stands at $14 trillion (and increasing)). The Democrats, who suffered defeats during the midterms, struggled to pass through the President’s budget until the last minute. Yet, the belligerent GOP who block every bill proposed by Mr Obama, have struggled to formulate their own deficit reduction plan. Congressman Paul Ryan who put forward a much tougher plan, compared to the Democrats, called the ‘Path to Prosperity’ wanted tighter reforms to healthcare and federal spending. This too was voted down. Politicians are embattled over the Treasury’s ceiling limit of American federal debt and the unrest is visible as states such as New Jersey, California and New York struggle to tackle their public spending, even the NFL nearly went on strike. Yet amongst all this, it appears we are yet again in election season.

Despite the US elections being over 18 months away, we have already descended into the hubbub of caucuses and campaigning. The Republicans candidates are still deciding whether 2014 is the best opportunity for them to run. Most headlines nationally and internationally focus on the glamorous, relentless yet fallible Sarah Palin. An ambassador of the Tea Party and a saviour to America’s right, Palin has taken herself on a tour of the US but has yet to confirm whether she will stand. The flamboyant property tycoon Donald Trump also ruled himself out after questioning Obama’s citizenship. Another unhealthy idea evolving from America’s Right is the re-emergence of Reagonomics, in honour of the Republican’s ideological God – Ronald Reagan. Yet Reagan’s policy of cutting taxes yet maintaining a large military capability through borrowing seems idiotic but plays with the patriots’ hearts, despite a horrendous deficit. There appears to be plenty of choice of candidates but no one outstanding.

American electioneering has revolutionised the way democracy and politics works and moves. From the advent of Presidential debates that saw the rookie John F, Kennedy defeat the experienced Richard Nixon to the sophisticated internet campaign that saw Obama steamroll Hilary Clinton as nominee then John McCain. Presidential campaigning is a billion dollar industry and has been used over the years to the Philippines, Venezuela, even the Scottish National Party (SNP) adopted the technology in the recent local elections in the UK.

Now here is the problem, expect utterances of ‘American exceptionalism’ and the usual musings of freedom, hope etc. Yet, it appears to deflect from the big elephant in the room. Bill Clinton’s infamous election phrase, ‘It’s the economy stupid!’ America is in a safer position compared to Britain because the dollar is the world’s reserve currency and developing nations are still prepared to buy US Treasury bonds. Yet the dynamics of American electioneering deflect from the intrinsic importance of policy making and sorting out the economy. The current UK coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats could of course collapse at any time, coalitions do, but the five year plan to wipe out the deficit, despite its critics, is backed and understood by most members of the British public. The British economy is of course entirely different to the American, but the flexibility of the Parliamentary system, which does have its flaws, has shown that the benefits over a codified and rigorous constitutional system. America’s love of democracy isn’t helping any recovery.

America should be proud of its values and persistence to promote and enhance the lives of others across the world. Its labour markets are flexible enough to create new jobs and adapt to the global economy, yet it the constant dogmatism and disorder, perhaps over-democratisation, mixed with the professional electioneers, has caused it to stall and lose focus on important matters. By no means, would any American lust for the Chinese political system or the over bureaucratic system of India but it would aspire for year on year high economic growth and end site to potential financial meltdown. The world could not afford the American economy to default, but you wish someone would stop talking about flags and just say ‘it’s the economy stupid!’

What drives them?

I have written before about heroes and why people choose sporting icons as people they aspire to. Sportsmen and women command respect not only for their punishing training regimes and collection of silverware, but their determination and mental attitude. Their regimented and relentless struggle to push themselves not only inspires us, but also makes us question their resolve and will to compete. These people, from all backgrounds, have a purpose and drive that often shuns the normal plateaus of human endurance and takes them to the top of their profession and the podium.

The Olympic Games is nearly within a year and it is the sporting event that perhaps captures the public’s imagination the most. Though most of the athletes are now professional and sporting contracts have made athletic careers more lucrative, it is popular because there is something very organic and pure about the competition. Years of struggle, injury and scrutiny, culminate in the opportunity to reach the ultimate goal in sport. Why do they push themselves so far and often to the edge? And why do we admire these people so much? What is it that separates them from politicians or scientists?

Perhaps the first thing to reflect on is the result. Athletes yearn to the pinnacle of victory. Defeat is an obstacle that drives them further. A critic could suggest that in today’s wealth and sponsorship dominated market, athletes can comfortably survive, even if they do not always finish first. However, it would be naive to suggest that the top athletes enter competitions purely to fulfil branding and contractual obligations. They are there to win, there is no other alternative. The trials of Tim Henman at Wimbledon became of perennial interest to the British public because of the struggle and narrative. His story represented the ‘glorious loser’ as he struggled to contain Pete Sampras or failed to put down Goran Ivanisevic. Though fond in the British public’s eye, I’m certain Henman would prefer to be history’s victor rather than nearly man.

The determination of most sportspeople is something different that we cannot contemplate. For many it is the only life they have ever known. Boxing is an avenue for them to harness something out of life, away from the traumas of poverty and crime. There are of course plenty of rags to riches stories within the world of politics and business but they do not encapsulate the same setbacks as sportspeople. The candour can often be lost in Hollywood films but it represents a dogma that both children and adults aspire too.

Contrast that to the lives of politicians. They possess that drive and vigour to achieve something and create ‘change’ for the better. However, the fog and cloudy toxicity in politics is something that does not represent something pure or clean. We do not see the negotiations and compromises. We see politicians as shady and self-serving; determination is a thirst for power not success.

Compare and contrast two men of time: Steve Redgrave and Gordon Brown, both highly determined and motivated people. Brown, a custodian of power for the past 15 years is seen as spiteful and insolent, his insipid relationship with Tony Blair fragmented the heart of New Labour and tarnished the portrayal of government. Redgrave, the five-time Gold Olympian rower, was diagnosed with diabetes three years before the Sydney Games in 2000. The media wrote him off and said that someone with condition would not be able to compete. Redgrave, 35 at this point, used this as a thrust to win. Three years later he was picking up his fifth and final gold medal. Perhaps it is unfair to contrast the two but it represents the difference between drive and selfishness in these two fields.

Politicians’ legacies are often judged by history, politicians like President Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon had obvious personal flaws; cold, ignorant and opportunistic, but their history is written in legislation and its evolution in society. Whereas sport captures in real time the first person over the line, the goal in the final minute and the shot that beats the clock. We recognise the training and the punishment, but we remember ‘the moment’. That is what drives sports people over the edge. That is why we understand the rage and the adulation. The goal is to win and that is final.

It is often why people take extra measures to ensure success. The likes of Ben Johnson and Marion Jones were under pressure to perform and they knew drugs were an easy option to achieve that. Just like politics the necessity to smear and stain rivals is often an easier, yet dirty road to journey.

Politics and sport define eras, and define the way we organise our lives. It is just that sport conveys emotions in a much more visceral and raw manner. Being a part of that as a fan is an inspiration, but being the athlete that everyone wants to cheer and recognises is the spur that pushes them over the line. Sport answers easy questions, politics does not.

The Flashman papers.

The role of the media in politics and its use to construct and then ultimately destruct the careers of those in power is well known. For years sketch writers and cartoonists have lampooned the credibility and fallibility of politicians and in reverse speechwriters, spin doctors and political advisors have been hired to lionise their every move and utterance. The cult of personality in electoral politics can be grave or a procession to a Ministerial promotion.

It is particularly interesting to look at the relationship between the three major parties and their own ‘witticisms’ of each other. The age of coalition government has flipped the previous polarities and has increased the forensic detail on policy and partnership, particularly in the Liberal Democrat’s ailing leader Nick Clegg. Clegg, whose election debate performances spun the short-lived craze of ‘Cleggmania’ is now perceived as the manservant to the Bullingdon boy David Cameron. Clegg was previously deemed a fresh faced reformer on the outside, yet a year later his political reputation has been tarnished by his partnership in Government that supposedly quashed his principles. Clegg’s short lived ascendancy and decline, is through a cocktail of his political weakness and the media turning the screw on his every mistake.

Labour leader, Ed Miliband exclaimed that the Prime Minister, David Cameron, was like Harry Paget ‘Flashman’, the ‘hero’ in the George Fraser MacDonald novels. Harry Flashman VC, KCB, KCIE, Legion d’Honneur and so on was a Victorian soldier who was chucked out of Rugby and whose father bought him a commission in the light dragoons. Some say he was a cavalier, cheat, thief and womanising cad – not exceptional talents for a politician to have. Though Flashman was heroic as well, he saved British India, confounded the French and defeated the Su Indians; he even took part in the Charge of the Light Brigade. It is not necessarily a bad portrait to take on. It was the Soviet’s who pejoratively called Mrs Thatcher the ‘Iron Lady’ yet she used this to enhance her personality.

Ed Miliband whose distinguishing features have seen him titled ‘Red Ed’ for his apparent Old Labour views. He has also been toyed because of his inferiority to his bigger brother, former Foreign Secretary, David. The issue with asserting a personality is that it can inevitably lead to parody and typecast. John Major, who came to power after ten years of Mrs Thatcher, was portrayed as the ‘grey man’ for his insipidness. Tony Blair, despite the charisma and personality, is known for his lack of substance too. Playing to the media helps politicians get to where they want to belong but the continuous airbrushing assimilates a portfolio to one of Lord Sugar’s rejects: all talk but utterly hopeless.

It is unfair because politicians are never going to get things right. The age of 24-hour news examines every single angle of a story and grasps every opinion. An apology shows weakness, but defiance can show a lack of sympathy or pure haughtiness. The end of Gordon Brown’s tenure in Downing Street reflected this perfectly. Enoch Powell famously said that ‘All political lives end in failure’ and whilst Cameron and Miliband will continue to play their Punch and Judy politics, Clegg will continue to stand in the background resembling Hamlet’s indecisiveness and retain his position as media/electorate punch bag.