Saturday 30 April 2011
PoliceStateUK Police State UK
RT @sophiacr: Police commander Bob Broadhurst: “the threat to the #royalwedding is a threat to democracy" #irony #ithinkyoumeanaristocracy
(GB2011)
Synesthesia
Synesthesia
"A condition in which one type of stimulation evokes the sensation of another, as when the hearing of a sound produces the visualization of a color."
Directed by Terri Timely
www.territimely.com
"A condition in which one type of stimulation evokes the sensation of another, as when the hearing of a sound produces the visualization of a color."
Directed by Terri Timely
www.territimely.com
This royal wedding is Britain's Marie Antoinette moment
How well we do it! Was the princess beautiful in lace and was the prince charming? Indeed they were. The glorious pomp and circumstance did not disappoint those 2 billion worldwide watchers, indulging vicariously in the theatre of majesty. They tell us this is what we are best at, the great parade, the grand charade. If you weep at weddings here was one to cry for, for us more than them. The more extreme a ceremony's extravagance, the more superstitious you might feel about the outcome: the simpler the better the prognosis, in my experience.
But let's not speculate, for we know next to nothing of these best-marketed of global celebrities beyond the homely platitudes sparingly fed to the multitudes. We might agree that they are indeed "grounded"; we might ponder on the chances of a prince surviving so dysfunctional a childhood; or we may just wish them well and use the day off to party, as many did.
Is this what Britain is and who we are? Here was a grand illusion, the old conspiracy to misrepresent us to ourselves. Here arrayed was the most conservative of establishments, rank upon rank, from cabinet ministers to Prince Andrew to the Sultan of Brunei, the apotheosis of the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator in excelsis, a David Starkey pageant choreographed by Charles, the prince of conservatives.
Of course Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had no invitation, being the prime ministers who held back the forces of conservatism for 13 years. Displayed in all its assertiveness was a reminder of what Labour is always up against as perennial intruder. Constitutional monarchy is constitutionally Tory, the blue inherited with its wealth, in its fibre, in its bones.
The manicured story of the Middletons' four-generation rise from pit village to throne offers such perfect justification, living proof of David Cameron's promised social mobility, echoed in the jokey "It should have been me" souvenir mugs. Notwithstanding repellent sniggers of the Eton set who call the Middleton girls "the wisteria sisters" for their social climbing, or the "doors to manual" giggle at their former air steward mother, the Middletons belong in the top 0.5% of earners: children of new wealth always did marry into aristocracy. Besides, Kate Middleton, Samantha Cameron and the Hon Frances Osborne all went to the same school.
Yet despite months of coverage, rising to a crescendo of print and broadcasting frenzy this week, the country has remained resolutely phlegmatic. Cameras pick out the wildest enthusiasts camped out or dressed as brides, yet the Guardian/ICM poll and others put those expressing "strong interest" at only 20%.
In poll after poll, more than 70% refused to be excited. Laconic, cool, only half the population said they would watch Friday's flummery. Few are republicans – though latest YouGov polls show those of us hoping the Queen will be Elizabeth the Last has risen to 26% – but a healthy scepticism thrives. Not love of monarchy but fear of something worse wins the day as the spirit of "confound their politics" prevails over the thought of some second-hand politician as head of state.
A jaundiced view of royalty is not confined to blasé metropolitan sophisticates: you can hear it everywhere, north more than south, in any pub or bus stop and on Twitter – the knowing shrug that finds this stuff preposterous, childish and not who we are. How embarrassingly Brown stumbled trying to pin down an ineffable definition of Britishness. But he was fumbling for something other than images of monarchy and empire to assert, quite rightly, that this is not a conservative nation: after all, Cameron did not win the last election, even with an open goal. This may not be a nation of reforming radicals, but there is no lack of robust popular riposte to royal displays of inherited entitlement.
How will history look back on this day? Out in the world of bread, not circuses, in the kingdom behind the cardboard scenery, this has been a week that told a bleak story of the state of the nation. History may see the wedding as a Marie Antoinette moment, a layer of ormolu hiding a social dislocation whose cracks are only starting to emerge. The Office for National Statistics just showed GDP flatlining for the last six months, recovery stalled ever since the announcement of the government's great austerity. Most household incomes are shrinking – as never since the 1920s. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are being cut, services slashed, £18m taken from the welfare budget, university fees in crisis, consumer confidence plunging.
This week I went to Barclays' annual meeting to watch another monarch, CEO Bob Diamond. He is in line for £27m pay this year, despite shares falling, £1.6bn profits lost and dividends cut – at a time when bank lending to manufacturing has fallen. Angry shareholders in the hall rose one by one to protest. Elderly, sometimes inchoate, they echoed the Association of British Insurers, who recommended voting against the bank's grotesque boardroom remuneration. But no, the little shareholders were voted down by unseen fund managers, all in the same game. The board shrugged off its critics, claiming that if they cut their own pay "we could very quickly jeopardise the true rewards of our success". But for how much longer?
The NHS, the most politically sensitive of public services, is warned by the public accounts committee that patient care is at risk in a £20bn cut with no plan for services that go bankrupt. The OECD, hardly a left-leaning organisation, this week warned that poverty in British households will rise inexorably so "social spending on families needs to be protected". But it is not being protected: the opposite is happening, as Sure Start is stripped bare. "Cutting back on early years services will make it difficult for the UK to achieve its policy of making work pay," says the OECD report.
Few yet realise the scale of the conservative revolution in progress. Professors Peter Taylor-Gooby and Gerry Stoker have just revealed that by 2013 public spending will be a lower proportion of GDP in Britain than in the US. They write in the Political Quarterly: "A profound shift in our understanding of the role of the state and the nature of our welfare system is taking place without serious debate." Can that really be done without rebellion? That will be the test of what kind of nation we are.
Polly Toynbee @'The Guardian'
But let's not speculate, for we know next to nothing of these best-marketed of global celebrities beyond the homely platitudes sparingly fed to the multitudes. We might agree that they are indeed "grounded"; we might ponder on the chances of a prince surviving so dysfunctional a childhood; or we may just wish them well and use the day off to party, as many did.
Is this what Britain is and who we are? Here was a grand illusion, the old conspiracy to misrepresent us to ourselves. Here arrayed was the most conservative of establishments, rank upon rank, from cabinet ministers to Prince Andrew to the Sultan of Brunei, the apotheosis of the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator in excelsis, a David Starkey pageant choreographed by Charles, the prince of conservatives.
Of course Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had no invitation, being the prime ministers who held back the forces of conservatism for 13 years. Displayed in all its assertiveness was a reminder of what Labour is always up against as perennial intruder. Constitutional monarchy is constitutionally Tory, the blue inherited with its wealth, in its fibre, in its bones.
The manicured story of the Middletons' four-generation rise from pit village to throne offers such perfect justification, living proof of David Cameron's promised social mobility, echoed in the jokey "It should have been me" souvenir mugs. Notwithstanding repellent sniggers of the Eton set who call the Middleton girls "the wisteria sisters" for their social climbing, or the "doors to manual" giggle at their former air steward mother, the Middletons belong in the top 0.5% of earners: children of new wealth always did marry into aristocracy. Besides, Kate Middleton, Samantha Cameron and the Hon Frances Osborne all went to the same school.
Yet despite months of coverage, rising to a crescendo of print and broadcasting frenzy this week, the country has remained resolutely phlegmatic. Cameras pick out the wildest enthusiasts camped out or dressed as brides, yet the Guardian/ICM poll and others put those expressing "strong interest" at only 20%.
In poll after poll, more than 70% refused to be excited. Laconic, cool, only half the population said they would watch Friday's flummery. Few are republicans – though latest YouGov polls show those of us hoping the Queen will be Elizabeth the Last has risen to 26% – but a healthy scepticism thrives. Not love of monarchy but fear of something worse wins the day as the spirit of "confound their politics" prevails over the thought of some second-hand politician as head of state.
A jaundiced view of royalty is not confined to blasé metropolitan sophisticates: you can hear it everywhere, north more than south, in any pub or bus stop and on Twitter – the knowing shrug that finds this stuff preposterous, childish and not who we are. How embarrassingly Brown stumbled trying to pin down an ineffable definition of Britishness. But he was fumbling for something other than images of monarchy and empire to assert, quite rightly, that this is not a conservative nation: after all, Cameron did not win the last election, even with an open goal. This may not be a nation of reforming radicals, but there is no lack of robust popular riposte to royal displays of inherited entitlement.
How will history look back on this day? Out in the world of bread, not circuses, in the kingdom behind the cardboard scenery, this has been a week that told a bleak story of the state of the nation. History may see the wedding as a Marie Antoinette moment, a layer of ormolu hiding a social dislocation whose cracks are only starting to emerge. The Office for National Statistics just showed GDP flatlining for the last six months, recovery stalled ever since the announcement of the government's great austerity. Most household incomes are shrinking – as never since the 1920s. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are being cut, services slashed, £18m taken from the welfare budget, university fees in crisis, consumer confidence plunging.
This week I went to Barclays' annual meeting to watch another monarch, CEO Bob Diamond. He is in line for £27m pay this year, despite shares falling, £1.6bn profits lost and dividends cut – at a time when bank lending to manufacturing has fallen. Angry shareholders in the hall rose one by one to protest. Elderly, sometimes inchoate, they echoed the Association of British Insurers, who recommended voting against the bank's grotesque boardroom remuneration. But no, the little shareholders were voted down by unseen fund managers, all in the same game. The board shrugged off its critics, claiming that if they cut their own pay "we could very quickly jeopardise the true rewards of our success". But for how much longer?
The NHS, the most politically sensitive of public services, is warned by the public accounts committee that patient care is at risk in a £20bn cut with no plan for services that go bankrupt. The OECD, hardly a left-leaning organisation, this week warned that poverty in British households will rise inexorably so "social spending on families needs to be protected". But it is not being protected: the opposite is happening, as Sure Start is stripped bare. "Cutting back on early years services will make it difficult for the UK to achieve its policy of making work pay," says the OECD report.
Few yet realise the scale of the conservative revolution in progress. Professors Peter Taylor-Gooby and Gerry Stoker have just revealed that by 2013 public spending will be a lower proportion of GDP in Britain than in the US. They write in the Political Quarterly: "A profound shift in our understanding of the role of the state and the nature of our welfare system is taking place without serious debate." Can that really be done without rebellion? That will be the test of what kind of nation we are.
Polly Toynbee @'The Guardian'
wikileaks WikiLeaks
Robots call people to tell them its illegal to read WikiLeaks during Canadian election. It's not. http://is.gd/BqB8p3
The #ZUCKUP Dilemma
On the one hand, it is true that Facebook's social networking platform has served revolutionary organizers well in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere. The speed by which a call to protest can snowball into bodies on the streets intent on toppling a regime is awe inspiring and for the foreseeable future, Facebook will continue to play an important role in organizing protests and insurrections. And yet, Facebook is, in its essence, a capitalist business venture whose raison d'être is the commercialization of human relations. It is terrifying, and ultimately self-defeating that a commercially driven enterprise has insinuated itself into the soul of global activism.
On a deeper level, however, beyond all self-recriminations and angry tweets against Facebook's latest #zuckup the question remains: How will we, culture jammers, escape this dilemma? What are activists and revolutionaries to do in a world where a for-profit company has a near monopoly on social networking? Would thousands of us committing Facebook suicide wake Zuckerberg up? Could we jam Facebook into submission? Or must we develop our own non-commercial platform better suited to insurrection? What is the solution to this dilemma? How do we break the Gordian knot?
@'Adbusters'
lou_reuters lou charbonneau
REUTERS - Makeshift morgues in #Syria city Deraa hold 83 corpses, including women and children, killed in army attack -- rights campaigner
This England, 29.04.2011
Royal Wedding,austerity, unemployment, inner city riots. It's the 1980s again. The first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.
Music Fan Porn: Band Memorabilia That We Wish We Owned
Record label EMI published the results today of a charity auction it held earlier this month to raise money for tsunami relief funds in Japan. There was plenty of interesting material to be had, although it was, of course, all well out of our price range – but if you happened to have a spare $10k sitting around, you could have snapped up signed copies of David Bowie’s full back catalog, while $6,744 would have gotten you Billy Corgan’s handmade “Zero” t-shirt. The news got us thinking about other band paraphernalia we’d love to get our hands on – read on to see our selection, and let us know what you’d like on your mantelpiece.
Super Furry Animals’ blue rave tank
It was clear from the moment they first emerged from Wales in the mid-’90s that Super Furry Animals were a bit… different. Even so, they raised plenty of eyebrows with their chosen method of traveling to festivals around the time their first album was released: a bright blue tank. Apparently they convinced their record company to buy the tank instead of giving them an advance but hadn’t counted on how expensive it would be to run, and eventually had to trade it in for more practical transportation options. Amusingly, they sold it to Don Henley, who’s still driving it around his ranch in California.
It was clear from the moment they first emerged from Wales in the mid-’90s that Super Furry Animals were a bit… different. Even so, they raised plenty of eyebrows with their chosen method of traveling to festivals around the time their first album was released: a bright blue tank. Apparently they convinced their record company to buy the tank instead of giving them an advance but hadn’t counted on how expensive it would be to run, and eventually had to trade it in for more practical transportation options. Amusingly, they sold it to Don Henley, who’s still driving it around his ranch in California.
MORE @'Flavorwire'
Christopher Hitchens: When the King Saved God
After she was elected the first female governor of Texas, in 1924, and got herself promptly embroiled in an argument about whether Spanish should be used in Lone Star schools, it is possible that Miriam A. “Ma” Ferguson did not say, “If the King’s English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it’s good enough for the children of Texas.” I still rather hope that she did. But then, verification of quotations and sources is a tricky and sensitive thing. Abraham Lincoln lay dying in a room full of educated and literate men, in the age of the wireless telegraph, and not far from the offices of several newspapers, and we still do not know for sure, at the moment when his great pulse ceased to beat, whether his secretary of war, Edwin Stanton, said, “Now he belongs to the ages” or “Now he belongs to the angels.”
Such questions of authenticity become even more fraught when they involve the word itself becoming flesh; the fulfillment of prophecy; the witnessing of miracles; the detection of the finger of God. Guesswork and approximation will not do: the resurrection cannot be half true or questionably attested. For the first 1,500 years of the Christian epoch, this problem of “authority,” in both senses of that term, was solved by having the divine mandate wrapped up in languages that the majority of the congregation could not understand, and by having it presented to them by a special caste or class who alone possessed the mystery of celestial decoding.
Four hundred years ago, just as William Shakespeare was reaching the height of his powers and showing the new scope and variety of the English language, and just as “England” itself was becoming more of a nation-state and less an offshore dependency of Europe, an extraordinary committee of clergymen and scholars completed the task of rendering the Old and New Testaments into English, and claimed that the result was the “Authorized” or “King James” version. This was a fairly conservative attempt to stabilize the Crown and the kingdom, heal the breach between competing English and Scottish Christian sects, and bind the majesty of the King to his devout people. “The powers that be,” it had Saint Paul saying in his Epistle to the Romans, “are ordained of God.” This and other phrasings, not all of them so authoritarian and conformist, continue to echo in our language: “When I was a child, I spake as a child”; “Eat, drink, and be merry”; “From strength to strength”; “Grind the faces of the poor”; “salt of the earth”; “Our Father, which art in heaven.” It’s near impossible to imagine our idiom and vernacular, let alone our liturgy, without them. Not many committees in history have come up with such crystalline prose...
Continue reading
vaughanbell Vaughan
11 hours by road, an hour by boat in the Amazon and found someone who wasn't aware of the Royal Wedding. Thankfully rectified the situation.
Friday 29 April 2011
Canada: Search 2173 US cables about Canadian government http://www.cablegatesearch.net/search.php?q=canada&sort=1 #wlcan
Vote yes to AV if you want to see Tories feel the fear again
Of course it is a snub. Of course it is deliberate. Not inviting Tony Blair and Gordon Brown to the royal wedding, while inviting Lady Thatcher and Sir John Major, is a cold, calculated act of high establishment spite against Labour. The failure to correct it – especially when the invitation to the official representative of the Syrian tyranny was so speedily withdrawn – only confirms the miserable, petty, ill-advised disdainful nastiness of the original deed. And I blame Prince Charles. His reactionary fingerprints are all over the wedding's programme of events. This wasn't William's wish, they say.
What's more, it all matters. But not because a royal wedding invitation is itself important. It matters because the snub is a symptom of renewed establishment confidence. British royalty's enduring historic hostility to Labour – a hostility that has very rarely been reciprocated, it should be pointed out – is unsurprising, even today. But the snub might not have been so confidently and publicly delivered without the more general sense, which stretches far beyond the snobbish ghastliness of Clarence House, that it is now absolutely fine and dandy for a public person to parade outright contempt for the Blair and Brown Labour governments.
Prince Charles is not the first or indeed the most important person to allow his judgment to be carried away by the mood of anti-Labour dismissal. David Cameron himself gave way to it only a week ago, when he foolishly permitted himself to use a radio interview to wave aside Brown's passionate desire to become the next head of the International Monetary Fund.
As for Blair – well, where do you start, save to say that in a culture in which Ian Hislop's weekly sneer on Have I Got News For You probably shapes more political attitudes than any of us will ever manage in a lifetime, the man we elected three times no longer even stands a chance of a hearing, never mind an invitation. Left and right have colluded in the process. But the political benefit from it is all on the right. As a result, the right no longer fears Labour. These snubs reflect that absence of fear.
God knows, I've had my criticisms of Brown. And I am not saying he is the ideal person for the IMF job; and I'm certainly not pretending his behaviour has made it easy for Cameron to support his case. Brown has not played this campaign well. But he is without doubt a plausible and serious candidate for such a post. As a former prime minister and long-serving chancellor, he is due a certain amount of courtesy and respect for his achievements, which were as real as his failures. He does not deserve to be snubbed like this by either prince or prime minister. But he can be, because Labour generates no fear among the Tories.
Last week's radio interview was a reminder that Cameron can sometimes be too cocky. He gives in to this over-confidence more than he used to. He did it again this week, to Angela Eagle. He needs to curb this unattractive occasional trait. It is politically dangerous, partly because moderate voters do not like it – Brown suffered from it, too – and partly because it is at odds with his greatest political strength, the clear-eyed strategic recognition that the Conservatives had to knock Labour off the political centre ground, and then keep them off it in the future.
But you can see why the prime minister is feeling so full of the joys of spring – in spite of economic flatlining, the unpopularity of his NHS reorganisation, a stalemate in Libya and the prospect of big Tory losses in the elections next week. All these ought to be pressing down on him, and some of them are, the NHS in particular. But Cameron nevertheless feels confident, because he is pretty sure that he has got Labour where he wants it, still off the centre ground on economic credibility and increasingly at daggers drawn with the Liberal Democrats, not least over the pivotal electoral event of this parliament, the AV referendum. Again, he is free from fear.
The AV referendum campaign ought to be an argument on the merits. It ought to be about fairness and, come Thursday, I suspect that for many voters it still will be. But it has been weighed down by party political calculation. In the process though it has restoked the Tory fear that is so conspicuously absent elsewhere.
The Tories may have hesitated initially over the referendum because they did not want to exacerbate their own relations with the Lib Dems, which were already becoming more brittle over issues like health and banking. But goodness, when they acted, they went for it with overwhelming force and resources, in effect taking over the no campaign as a wholly-owned subsidiary. Intelligent Conservatives like Cameron have always understood that the Tory interest is always likely to lie in defending the first-past-the-post system rather than a fairer voting system, and in preventing Labour and the Lib Dems from making common cause. That's why, a year ago, Cameron was so quick to seize his opportunity by offering coalition to Nick Clegg.
Labour, by contrast, has little understanding of what creates Tory fear. Labour still thinks short-term and tactically, not long-term and strategically. It is obsessed with the wrong target, with battering the Lib Dems, with punishing Clegg for the coalition and the cuts, and using those votes to propel itself back into an overall majority. The first part of that may well happen, starting with the local and devolved elections. The second part, though, is much less certain. It depends on breaking the coalition quickly and winning an early election. But that isn't going to happen, even if AV goes down.
If everyone in Labour thought straight they would see there is a powerful argument for saying that the coalition will be more weakened by a yes vote than a no. If you want to weaken the coalition you want the Lib Dems to be bolder in standing up for themselves against the Conservatives on a range of policy issues. That is more likely with the security of AV, which favours the Lib Dems because it is fairer, under their belt.
You also, however, want to weaken Cameron's standing in his own party and strengthen the influence of the more rightwing Tories to create mayhem. A yes vote would be a lightning rod for these angry Tories. That's why, if you want to harm the coalition, vote yes to AV. If you want to make the British establishment fear Labour again, vote yes. If you are happy to see Labour snubbed by princes and taunted by prime ministers, by all means vote for the status quo, and see where it gets you.
Martin Kettle @'The Guardian'
What's more, it all matters. But not because a royal wedding invitation is itself important. It matters because the snub is a symptom of renewed establishment confidence. British royalty's enduring historic hostility to Labour – a hostility that has very rarely been reciprocated, it should be pointed out – is unsurprising, even today. But the snub might not have been so confidently and publicly delivered without the more general sense, which stretches far beyond the snobbish ghastliness of Clarence House, that it is now absolutely fine and dandy for a public person to parade outright contempt for the Blair and Brown Labour governments.
Prince Charles is not the first or indeed the most important person to allow his judgment to be carried away by the mood of anti-Labour dismissal. David Cameron himself gave way to it only a week ago, when he foolishly permitted himself to use a radio interview to wave aside Brown's passionate desire to become the next head of the International Monetary Fund.
As for Blair – well, where do you start, save to say that in a culture in which Ian Hislop's weekly sneer on Have I Got News For You probably shapes more political attitudes than any of us will ever manage in a lifetime, the man we elected three times no longer even stands a chance of a hearing, never mind an invitation. Left and right have colluded in the process. But the political benefit from it is all on the right. As a result, the right no longer fears Labour. These snubs reflect that absence of fear.
God knows, I've had my criticisms of Brown. And I am not saying he is the ideal person for the IMF job; and I'm certainly not pretending his behaviour has made it easy for Cameron to support his case. Brown has not played this campaign well. But he is without doubt a plausible and serious candidate for such a post. As a former prime minister and long-serving chancellor, he is due a certain amount of courtesy and respect for his achievements, which were as real as his failures. He does not deserve to be snubbed like this by either prince or prime minister. But he can be, because Labour generates no fear among the Tories.
Last week's radio interview was a reminder that Cameron can sometimes be too cocky. He gives in to this over-confidence more than he used to. He did it again this week, to Angela Eagle. He needs to curb this unattractive occasional trait. It is politically dangerous, partly because moderate voters do not like it – Brown suffered from it, too – and partly because it is at odds with his greatest political strength, the clear-eyed strategic recognition that the Conservatives had to knock Labour off the political centre ground, and then keep them off it in the future.
But you can see why the prime minister is feeling so full of the joys of spring – in spite of economic flatlining, the unpopularity of his NHS reorganisation, a stalemate in Libya and the prospect of big Tory losses in the elections next week. All these ought to be pressing down on him, and some of them are, the NHS in particular. But Cameron nevertheless feels confident, because he is pretty sure that he has got Labour where he wants it, still off the centre ground on economic credibility and increasingly at daggers drawn with the Liberal Democrats, not least over the pivotal electoral event of this parliament, the AV referendum. Again, he is free from fear.
The AV referendum campaign ought to be an argument on the merits. It ought to be about fairness and, come Thursday, I suspect that for many voters it still will be. But it has been weighed down by party political calculation. In the process though it has restoked the Tory fear that is so conspicuously absent elsewhere.
The Tories may have hesitated initially over the referendum because they did not want to exacerbate their own relations with the Lib Dems, which were already becoming more brittle over issues like health and banking. But goodness, when they acted, they went for it with overwhelming force and resources, in effect taking over the no campaign as a wholly-owned subsidiary. Intelligent Conservatives like Cameron have always understood that the Tory interest is always likely to lie in defending the first-past-the-post system rather than a fairer voting system, and in preventing Labour and the Lib Dems from making common cause. That's why, a year ago, Cameron was so quick to seize his opportunity by offering coalition to Nick Clegg.
Labour, by contrast, has little understanding of what creates Tory fear. Labour still thinks short-term and tactically, not long-term and strategically. It is obsessed with the wrong target, with battering the Lib Dems, with punishing Clegg for the coalition and the cuts, and using those votes to propel itself back into an overall majority. The first part of that may well happen, starting with the local and devolved elections. The second part, though, is much less certain. It depends on breaking the coalition quickly and winning an early election. But that isn't going to happen, even if AV goes down.
If everyone in Labour thought straight they would see there is a powerful argument for saying that the coalition will be more weakened by a yes vote than a no. If you want to weaken the coalition you want the Lib Dems to be bolder in standing up for themselves against the Conservatives on a range of policy issues. That is more likely with the security of AV, which favours the Lib Dems because it is fairer, under their belt.
You also, however, want to weaken Cameron's standing in his own party and strengthen the influence of the more rightwing Tories to create mayhem. A yes vote would be a lightning rod for these angry Tories. That's why, if you want to harm the coalition, vote yes to AV. If you want to make the British establishment fear Labour again, vote yes. If you are happy to see Labour snubbed by princes and taunted by prime ministers, by all means vote for the status quo, and see where it gets you.
Martin Kettle @'The Guardian'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
