A Personal Reply to Queen Mary & Barts and the London Conservative Society

Debate. Discussion. Passionate and informed sharing of points of view is at the core of engagement, decision making and democracy. A good debate can have reverberations around the world. It can set a group of people onto a trajectory, for better or worse, towards mass change. The power of debate should never be underestimated. It is indeed because of that power that I felt it necessary to make a few key points on the nature of debate.

When you get up on a podium as a defender of your viewpoint, you implicitly acknowledge that the opposing viewpoint is equally valid as your own. It is a viewpoint worth engaging with, examining and debating it's merit. It is why certain debates which for the sake of controversy take controversial viewpoints, are immediately counterproductive. I would never stand on a podium and debate with someone as to whether Homosexuality should be legal, or whether Interracial Marriage should be allowed. By pursuing that debate, by sharing a podium I am implicitly conceding that the opposing viewpoint is as equally valid as my own. I would not, because they are not.

It is why I was disappointed to see that Queen's Mary Conservatives were hosting a debate on whether Feminism Has Gone Too Far. The debate clearly is seeking controversy, but at what cost? At a time when the opponents of women's equal rights are ever more vocal, when abuse against women is endemic, is it really worthwhile giving a podium to potentially more anti-women rhetoric?  I have no doubt that Queen's Mary Conservatives will field speakers against the point, and will make impassioned and valid points as to why feminism is so necessary. But what of the other side?

But beyond that I have no desire to push, petition and clamour for the closing of the debate. Free Speech is indeed a right, but of course also it is a responsibility. It is important to remember that one's own speech has consequence. It is always worthwhile examining whether what we are saying is worth saying.

A draft letter on the case of Margaret Nambi

So if you haven't read about the case of Margaret Nambi please do, the article released by the New Statesman is just here. The case is utterly heartbreaking and Women Against Rape have done some brilliant work on getting Margaret released. As part of their campaign to push for release, which is here. I've written a draft letter to Mark Harper to campaign for her to be allowed to stay in the UK. Please feel free to use it or write your own to send to campaign for Margaret. Email The Home Office at public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk and Mark Harper Immigration Minister at mark.harper.mp@parliament.uk

Dear Mark Harper

I'm writing to you regarding the case of Margaret Nambi as recently reported in the New Statesman. Her case represents an utter failing, once again, of the UKBA to be at all sensitive to the needs of asylum seekers and to consider the situations they might find themselves in. Her story is heartbreaking, yet since arriving in the UK she has received no assistance or no respite.

Her case highlights systematic failings of the asylum seeking process. There are several key issues that this case raises:

1)      The high standard demanded for evidence when presenting for asylum. UKBA must move away from demanding all evidence for claiming asylum is presented on arrival. Too many asylum seekers arrive traumatised and terrified; demanding they instantly reveal everything they have gone experienced is an unrealistic expectation.

2)      Cuts to legal aid will mean many more cases like this will happen. Legal firms are required to make highly subjective decisions on whether someone’s case is worth carrying forward for legal aid, decisions that could decide someone’s life. The 50% chance success rate rule should not apply to asylum seekers, just as it would not for murder victims.

3)      The involvement of the private sector in this case is problematic. Recently we heard again of G4S using unreasonable force, and now of Serco not fulfilling its responsibilities. These companies seem to add little value to the provision of care for asylum seekers, indeed they are all too often the cause of harm.

4)      An unwillingness to account for the condition of people facing deportation. Deporting mentally unwell people, like Margaret, back to countries without proper provision of healthcare services, is abhorrent.

In light of these facts I suggest a systematic review of how you deal with asylum seekers, as clearly the current system is not fit for purpose. We have a system that automatically assumes asylum seekers are fraudulent, rather than presuming the cases to be valid. This is not the process we expect of the legal system, why should the most vulnerable be treated any differently?

I also sincerely request that you reconsider the decision to deport Margaret. I am hugely disappointed by the issues raised in this case, and look forward to your response.

Best Regards

Why Green Values are Working Class Values

I’m often told that Green initiatives are vanity projects on behalf of the middle classes. Vague wasteful projects, which serve little purpose beyond assuaging the liberal bleeding heart of the average Guardian reader. These aren’t projects that help the most vulnerable or the poorest. To those critics I say you could not be more wrong, because Green values are the values of the working class.

The working class have always intrinsically understood the core green values of sustainability, resource management and an avoidance of profligacy. The working class recycled long before it became widespread. They’ve always understood that resources are finite and must be managed wisely. Indeed wastefulness and reckless consumption have always been the territory of the upper class and to a lesser degree the middle class.

A message and an ethos against waste lost 

Modern day capitalism and industrialisation has done everything possible to strip the working class from its sustainable roots. Our country ripped out its agricultural core in the industrialisation of Britain. We realised the problem in World War II and saw the foolhardiness of not being a country that could feed its own people. Yet we forgot that lesson. We stripped out people’s facility to grow and forage their own food, especially in London, as we built over countless green space. Indeed today allotments are seen as a middle class pursuit, rather than what they always were.  A way for the working class to feed themselves.

Today’s society instead promotes disposability and ease of consumption.  According to DEFRA every year the UK wastes 7.2 billion tonnes of food. Yet such waste would not have been deemed possible by our antecedents. Our working class always understood that such waste was not acceptable and knew how to make the most of their food. 

Ever more landfills, ever more waste, ever less space

The values of make do and mend are too often lost today. We cannot consume as we continue to do so. It’s estimated that landfill space will run out in 2018 in the UK. Meanwhile improper disposal of waste chokes our seas and land. Yet even more worryingly the spectre of Global Warming looms, and its effects will affect the working class more than any other group.

It‘s well understood by environmental scientists that Global Warming will increase food and water insecurity across the world. The effects will cause global food prices to rocket, and who will be the most likely to suffer? The working class. Eurostat estimates that the price of fruit and vegetables in the UK are already the highest in the Europe. Unless something is done the situation will only be worse. It’s simply short termist to not tackle the issue of Global Warming today, as the impact on the most vulnerable will only be far worse later.

Equally the effects of pollution undoubtedly affect the working class more. Research by Neill et al (2003) has highlighted that the poor and working class are exposed to air pollution more, from where they live and where they work. London air pollution levels are way above EU limits yet no party is attempting to alleviate the causes, like too many cars on our roads. Too many deaths can be attributed to poor air quality. Promoting Green values would undoubtedly help the plight of our most deprived.

Helping everyone recycle. Cleaner air Making sure that food can be grown and sourced locally. Guaranteeing green spaces in cities. Ensuring that global warming does not adversely affect the most vulnerable. Core green values that derive from core working class values. Values that both my Algerian Grandmother who would dry her own couscous in the sun, whilst on a farm on the edge of Sahara, and my English Grandmother who would store her glass and paper for recycling bins, long before door collection, would understand. Green is not a vanity, it’s a necessity.

Can western education civilise the children of dictators?

It's not easy being the child of a dictator. You often find yourself the automatic hate figure for a realm of dissatisfied citizens. Simply by accident of birth you can find yourself personified as all that is wrong with a country. A symbol of greed, nepotism and brutality. What's more the battle to succeed one's father is hardly guaranteed, with troublesome siblings biting for a chance to brush you aside. After all who remembers Kim Jong-Un's older brothers? As someone, who believes that where you were born shouldn't mean that you don't have the same opportunities as anyone else, I care deeply about the children of dictators. Thankfully there is a solution. As the Pet Shop Boys would say "Go West".

Education in the West is the perfect option for any child of a dictator approaching 18. Spending three years at the higher education institute of your choice (as long as it's in Western Europe or the US), is the perfect opportunity to rehabilitate your image both abroad and at home. Come and study in the heart of democracy, and return to be groomed for power with a wise and reforming approach instilled in you. Your citizens will eagerly await your to succeed to the throne as you clearly offer a kinder and gentler approach than dear father, that will be greeted rapturously across the world.

Go to Oxford University and lose all traits of despotism, brutality and corruption

Does it sound ridiculous? Well it should, and yet it is an argument consistently used across the mainstream media in the Western Hemisphere. Take today's post in the New York Times here. Jamal Khashogi makes the point

"second-generation royals, who also received their education abroad and were exposed to a different life and governing system that provided services to its citizens, are getting closer to top positions in the kingdom. Will that make a difference for Saudi Arabia’s future direction? I think so"

The point is a nonsense as it assumes time in the West is some cure all for despotism, and yet we have learned time and time again it is utterly untrue. Bashar Al Assad is western educated and lived in London, yet proved to be just as brutal as his father. Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah is Sandhurst educated yet still sits atop one of the world's last remaining absolute monarchies, with little hint of reform. Mswati III was educated at a private school in Britain and yet bankrupts his small nation of Swaziland with his opulent lifestyle. On top who can forget Gamal Mubarak and Seif al-Islam? Heirs to succeed neighboring Libya and Egypt, western educated reformers who in the face of the Arab Spring became brutal enforcers for their fathers.

The Western media will jump on board any heir to power with a British accent, a few years of education in Europe or the US and a knowledge of key buzzwords like "reform", "democracy" and "change". David Held, professor at LSE, heralded Seif-Al-Islam in the Guardian as:

"someone who looks to democracy, civil society and deep liberal values for the core of his inspiration"

Not only the media but we learned that US diplomats felt that:

“Libya's swelling ranks of young adults…may welcome him (Seif-Al-Islam) as Libya's knight in shining armor,"

Going back further American Vogue fawned over Asma Al-Assad calling her:

"a rose in the desert" whose household "is run on wildly democratic principles"

 A love of fashion and Vogue shoots clearly means democracy

Even at the beginning of the Syria conflict Hillary Clinton still called Bashar a "reformer". The level of naivety when it comes to dictators with smiling faces and western accents in the media is alarming. Thankfully we seemed to have learned that perhaps Bashar is not a "reformer", but the mainstream media is unwilling to extend the lesson much beyond.

Both Kings of Morocco and Jordan, Mohammed VI & Abdullah II, still receive warm welcomes in the west. Despite questionable human rights, widespread corruption and a clear deficit in democracy in their own countries. Similarly Meles of Ethiopia who passed recently received a eulogistic farewell from the BBC and other outlets despite widespread abuses of his own people.

Both the media and western governments have selective attention when it comes to the behaviour of countries who are willing to assist in western interests. What's more the media pushes forward these heirs to power as perfect paragons, merely because they have spent time in the west. It's an ethnocentric, vacuous and vapid belief that highly insulated, by wealth and by power, time at a British educational establishment will cure despotism. These heirs to power serve to only defend themselves, to remain in power and to keep their family in power. We forget in the West too easily that what we liberty we gained from our dictators we obtained with force, not with a PhD in International Relations from LSE.

Are swing voters centrist?

Fueled by a recent discussion I had I feel the question bears answering. The pivotal swing voter, that mythical being that lies within certain constituencies, capable of swinging an election one way or the other. What are their politics? Are they as much of the political elite presumes a centrist?

Centrism

Firstly I think it's important to classify actually what does centrism mean? Does centrism mean the ever winnowing gap between the Conservatives and the Labour party? Because increasingly that's a smaller space ever since the beginning of New Labour. Or do we actually mean the political ideology of centrism? A distinct ideology from the politics of the left and the right. A support of some attempt at egalitarianism while still accepting a degree of social hierarchy? The politics of the MoDem of France, CD&V of Belgium or the Nordic Agrarian Centre Parties.

What do centrist parties actually stand for? The Third Way stance is an ideology touted as centrist. A belief that greater equality can be achieved by focusing on achieving equal opportunity, but without income redistribution. Other stances frequently associated with the political centre include Christian Democracy and Liberalism. Throughout these versions of centrism it is clear centrism is a political ideology, distinct on its own and not simply a lack of ideology.

Too often is the voter who does not have a firm affiliation to a rightist or leftist ideology assumed to be centrist. Yet centrism is indeed a political ideology and more often these voters would be classified as without ideology, rather than centrist. The perfect example of this is the myth of the US Independent Voter.

Registered Independent voters have hit historic highs in recent times, yet actually how independent and how centrist are they actually? If you look at research by the American National Election Study they found that for the 2008 elections 36% of voters were registered Democrats, 31% Republicans and 33% were registered Independents.

Independents appear to make a sizable portion of these voters, yet when that was broken down further this was actually misleading. Actually over two thirds of registered Independents classed themselves as Independent Democrats or Independent Republicans. Moreover how they voted was utterly indistinguishable from Registered Democrats or Republicans respectively. Only 7% of the electorate classed themselves as true Independents. The idea of a large group of independent centrist voters is a myth in the US, much as it is here.

The Political Centre
 
If we take the alternative definition of centrism as the true definition of what a "centrist" swing voter stands for, sandwiched politically in the gap between Labour and the Conservatives, that also brings up some interesting questions. Firstly it acknowledges then that the "centrist" voter does not have a fixed ideology and is prone to the shifting sands of party policy changes. This is undoubtedly more true than the idea that swing voters are firmly affiliated to political centrism.

This is definitely highlighted with how various leaders have taken electorates on leftward or rightward shifts. Margaret Thatcher formed a compelling narrative on why the electorate should shatter the post-war consensus between Labour and the Conservatives, and she took swing voters with her rightward. Equally Clement Attlee reshaped politics post World War II and whilst losing reelection even made the Conservatives embrace core socialist initiatives like the NHS.

Swing voters that decide elections are not centrist but rather convincible. Any party that is able to form a strong narrative, as to how their ideology will improve the average voter's life, is much more likely to win over voters than the party that focuses on the blandest broadest stance.

We do live in a post ideological age, where unlike previously most voters don't have a firm commitment to specific ideologies. The world has proved too many ideologies imperfect and flawed for the electorate to be so firmly wedded. Gone are the days of the big idea, of Attlee's post war revolution or Thatcher's free economy and strong state. But that's not to say that the voter is not open to big ideas, and indeed in a time when neither Labour or the Conservatives offer big ideas there is most definitely an opening.

Indeed decreasing turnout in UK elections, lower political party membership and the increase in vote share of other parties all speak to an electorate disengaged. An electorate not enthused by the consensus of New Labour and the Tories on privatisation, austerity and foreign relations. An electorate that focuses on personality rather than policy because most people cannot see large differences between the two main choices. The electorate is ready for an idea. It is ready to be engaged. From anywhere on the political spectrum.

Small Parties and the Overton Window

So a constant question I get as a member of the Green Party, and I’m sure many other members of any smaller party get, is “what’s the point? “ If you aren’t going to win the election what is the point? When politics have devolved into intellectual team sports there perhaps isn’t an immediately obvious response. Indeed many of the members of the behemoths of Labour and Conservatives bemoan vote splitting smaller parties. Why should smaller parties act as spoilers, they argue, letting the opposing side slide into victory? But in reality there is a vital role for smaller parties, and larger parties would be wiser to share the space rather than play bully boy.

Vote Splitting

Vote splitting is a particularly fallacious argument against smaller parties. It firstly treats the electorate like fools, as if they aren't particularly aware of which party is most likely to win. Voters choose smaller parties in spite of this, and to bemoan their choice is a wilful rejection of democratic choice. Secondly it automatically assumes that if that smaller party was not present their votes would automatically transfer to the biggest party closest to that party on the respective wing of the political spectrum. This is not true on two counts.

If we look at the London Mayoral Elections, one of the few elections where voters get a second preference, we can see that voter's second preferences are not as straightforward as the big parties might assume. Figure 1 shows who voters chose for their second choice by the party they chose as their first choice. As we can see whilst 50% of the Green Party's 2nd preference votes went to Labour, over 17% of the vote went to right wing parties. Equally nearly 64% of the UKIP second preferences didn't go to Boris Johnson. People's political intentions are much more complicated than the two parties wish to portray.
 
Figure 1: The percentage of 2nd preference voters for each party by the party they chose as their first choice.

Moreover what is to say that if voters weren't given the option of smaller parties that they'd vote at all? Figure 2 shows which percentage of voters who voted for alternatives to Labour and the Conservatives but expressed no second preference. We can see that about 6%-10% of voters for the smaller parties did not record a second preference. Undoubtedly some of that will be down to not understanding the electoral system, but definitely a substantial amount of that will have been people who genuinely will not have had a desire to vote for another party. Would these voters have voted at all if there were no alternatives to the big two parties? Many would simply sit at home without the option for an alternative to Labour, the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives.

Figure 2: Percentage of voters for "minor parties" and independents who did not express a second preference.


This is particularly relevant in a time when the ideological gap between the Conservatives and Labour has dramatically narrowed. New Labour's acceptance of many Tory ideologies meant that in 2001 and 2005 only 1 in 5 voters could tell a major difference between the two parties (Garrett & Lynch 2007). As a result we've seen a declining loyalty in voters with less and less voters turning out to vote and an increase in the vote share for other parties year on year. Even the contested election of 2010 was still 5-10% behind turnout of pre-1997 elections, and miles behind the 80%+ turnout of 1950 and 1951.

And yet we do know that voters turnout more when there is more real choice. PR elections, which increase the likelihood of smaller parties gaining seats in legislatures, generate higher turnout than First Past the Post as seen in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Average percentage of voters according to electoral system used

The worlds 66 PR elections on average generate nearly 10% higher turnout than the worlds 63 FPTP elections. It seems clear that a system with fair votes and more choice generate more interest and more voters. Voters intentions are always a more complicated than might be guessed and that a more open system with more choice is the best way to engage the electorate.

The Overton Window

Talking of engaging with the electorate it is false to believe that only the largest of parties are able to shape the political narrative. It is undoubted that UKIP, a party without representation in the House of Commons and which polled 3% at the last general election, has shaped the discourse on the European Union. Agree with their politics or not UKIP are a major force in the European Elections and Nigel Farage as a politician undoubtedly has better name recognition and more political clout than countless MPs. The same is also true of Caroline Lucas and the Greens. The Greens have done much to stimulate discussion on the environment and awareness of issues like climate change. The political narrative is not shaped solely by Labour and the Conservatives.

More importantly with the narrowing ideological gap between Labour and the Conservatives, there is more space on either flank of the parties. As seen in Figure 4 (as produced by the Political Compass site) the gap between Labour and the Conservatives has dramatically winnowed as both has lurched to the right, embracing neoliberal economics and a rather authoritarian approach to civil liberties. In a time where the main 2 political behemoths offer little difference between the other where is the space for radical and different approaches and ideas?

Figure 4: The political stances of the big 3 parties since 1972.

 

If you look at 2010 there were no bold and innovative ideas from either Labour or the Conservatives. Cameron's constant talk of big society proved to be ultimately inconsequential dressing for cuts to services than rather any real ideology, whilst Labour's austerity light offered little difference. Of the major parties only the Liberal Democrats offered any bold new options, like increasing the tax personal allowance, electoral reform, the end of student fees and increased tax on the rich. Of course you can judge how effectively they delivered on those ideas. 

Nevertheless relentlessly no big fresh ideas are coming out from the two big parties anymore. Even the Conservatives biggest projects, NHS reform and Welfare reform, are merely the continuation of a slow march towards privatisation that started with Thatcher followed by Major, Blair and now Cameron. No leader, as it stands, in either Labour or the Conservatives offers to change this trend. Instead we have two parties circling the same "centrist" ideas and the same mainstream ideas. The two parties are too afraid of upsetting middle England to embrace any radical ideas. Even the Conservatives have endorsed marriage equality, now support is in the mainstream.

This is where smaller parties serve a vital purpose. In a system where the major parties serve only to consider the interests of an ever smaller pool of "centrist" swing voters policy has become safe. Smaller parties freer of these concerns are much more capable to drive the narrative on issues and generate discussion. For instance only UKIP and the Greens support the decriminalisation of drugs and prostitution, despite the fact that numerous research has suggested that such moves would be massively worthwhile. Any individual that has supported such views within Labour or the Conservatives has been dramatically slapped down (lest we forget David Nutt).

This is a great opportunity for smaller parties because they are not constrained by the Overton Window. Proposed by Joseph Overton he theorised that for a politician to be elected there is a narrow window of political views that are acceptable to the mainstream that they can endorse. As seen in Figure 5 he rated each political stance as to how acceptable it was likely to be found by the mainstream from Unthinkable and Radical to Popular and Policy. As it stands the decriminalisation of drugs and prostitution remain rooted between unthinkable and radical for many in the public sphere, despite sane reasons for decriminalisation. Yet smaller parties can be the driver of the discourse on these issues and through campaigning and canvassing move these sensible ideas toward policy, much as marriage equality has moved to acceptability. Radical policy has always been achieved by small groups initially pressuring leaders and winning over the public. I absolutely feel that sometimes parties outside of the big party machines are perfect vehicles to achieve these goals.

Figure 5: The Overton Window

Conclusion

I do finish with a caveat that I don't believe that Labour and the Conservatives is utterly devoid of any game changing ideas. David Davis on civil liberties and Bob Ainsworth on drug decriminalisation serve as two examples of people taking on the party machine to push for change. Equally it's why I believe that when you are a Labourite or a Conservative who supports certain parts of UKIP or Green policy you should see them as natural allies, rather than competitors. Both the leaders of each party have proven themselves to be perfectly willing to disregard the views of their members (for each see Iraq or the EU). It will take both internal and external pressure for the party machinery to pay attention, maybe a case for embracing rather than reviling your competitors.