For my miniblog today I thought I would advertise the work of a group of bold Conservatives with whom I am very familiar. The Conservatives for Liberty are an independent libertarian, free market and socially liberal campaign group. I first came into contact with Conservatives for Liberty when I moved to London some months ago and since then I have become a regular at their monthly pint and a patter event. They are very welcoming and a credit to the hospitallity of those on our side of the political debate.
Last night they held a wonderful and well attended event in Westminster:
'Forgive us our Trespasses: The moral case for choice and responsibility '
The event had a range of speakers and we were honoured to have good solid Conservatives like John Redwood talking about the need for people to take back some responsibility for their own lives and stop handing authority to the state to make decisions on their behalf. It was a very enlightening discussion and all the speakers we're brilliant - especially those from the 2015 intake of MPs who brought a fresh perspective to the debate.
I urge everybody reading to go and look at the Conservatives for Liberty website because I guarentee that if you are a Conservative of sound mind you will find them to be a refreshing sight in a society that increasingly devalues our personal liberties.
You can find them here at:
http://con4lib.com/
Thursday, 26 November 2015
Wednesday, 25 November 2015
The European Union and International Security - Syria
Disclaimer: All information following this is the personal opinion of the author, and does not reflect allegations against any particular individual.
In full disclosure, I'm not qualified to give a personal account of how the EU affects my daily life. I'm not a European citizen, nor even a British citizen: I'm an American law student from the state of Florida. However, I am (at least somewhat) qualified to give my personal analysis of the affect that the EU has on international peace and security, with my undergraduate studies in Political Science and International Relations, and concentrating in International Law while obtaining my Juris Doctor at Stetson University College of Law.
Perhaps to give a bit of background, my analysis particularly stems from the framework of the European Commission, the President of the Commission, and the High Representative of the Union. Back in 1957, the first Common Policy area of Europe was created in the Common Commercial Policy. Since then, and specifically after the Maastricht Treaty, the EU has had a Common Foreign and Security Policy (or "CFSP"). The European Council sets out either Joint Actions or Common Positions, where the former is an actual policy and action agreement that all member states will follow, and the latter where member states merely agree in principle to the item but it serves only as a framework, not a set position of the Union.
The CFSP is, in theory, incredibly useful. It allows member states to pull their political capital together and create a joint position that utilizes the benefits of at least two of the most powerful members of the international community. Using the United Kingdom and France in a joint position, as Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council, carries more weight in theory because then those two nations will likely support EU action at that same Council. In practice, however, this rarely happens.
The CFSP has many glaring issues. Regarding the Syrian Civil War, the EU issued a joint communication in June 2013 which, essentially, set the EU policy position on the Civil War. The communique has some ten main policy points, many which are budgetary and sanction related, some refugee related, and some related to "[s]upport[ing] a political settlement through a robust EU position at the up-coming 'Geneva II' international conference." The communique goes on to say that the EU intends to "prepare" a political and diplomatic solution, but fails to suggest an actual means for helping provide it. In fact, to date, the only nation to actual provide a comprehensive peace process plan has been Russia (please note that by a 'comprehensive plan' I am referring to one that is being acted on, not just one that has been stated).
This article isn't meant to say that the CFSP is the sole reason the Syrian Civil War has to date failed. On the contrary, the blame lies largely with the United States and Russia for failing to take initial action towards peace talks and failure to abide by their own promises and conditions for the Civil War. But many fail to recognize that the United States and Russia won't be galvanized into action unless their European, Asian, and African allies jointly support a central position (AKA "coalition building"). Sure, the United States has a robust Coalition dedicated towards the destruction of ISIS/ISIL in Syria, but not one on Syria. Largely, that is because the EU is completely divided on the Syrian peace process. For years, Prime Minister Cameron has said that Assad "has to go" and, at least originally, should not be included in any peace process if the Syrian people were to heal. Chancellor Merkel has actually called for Assad to be included in any peace process. Hollande has also historically been anti-Assad, particularly for the military fight against ISIS/ISIL.
These differences are normal in international conflicts. There was a vast difference of opinions and positions on the Iraq and Afghan Wars between NATO/European nations, and there are many differing positions on the Iranian Nuclear Programme. Stating these differences is actually vital in allowing diplomats, negotiators, and heads of government the chance to find common ground and a compromise they can unite by. Issues over the Iraqi and Afghani interventions allowed for a more comprehensive position to develop, with Afghanistan especially forming the International Security Assistance Force and a joint NATO command structure. Issues over the Iranian programme allowed the US, Russia, the EU, the UN, and Iran to come to an agreement because specific issues where ironed out and compromise was found.
This kind of diplomacy allows all sides to save face, which, really, is the goal of any diplomatic negotiation. What has happened regarding Syria, however, has been grandstanding by the EU that has, I believe, forced positions from the US and UK. President Juncker originally was very pro-Russia when it came to Syria and was calling for the US to work alongside Russia. When Russia first announced its air-and-sea strike operation against ISIS/ISIL, and began to actually launch strikes, President Juncker was quick to change tack and decry Russia's actions as strikes targeting only the Syrian opposition, not ISIS/ISIL.
Well, the US is attempting to work with Russia on Syria now, but statements like this make things very difficult. Ordinarily, nation-states can find common ground because they have actual, legitimate interests in certain areas of concern. The EU is not a nation-state, but has a diplomatic corps and leadership team that is attempting to grandstand like one. The EU doesn't have a middleground on this issue. The US and Russia could work with the UK and France and create an international peacekeeping force, even NATO could join in, but the EU simply doesn't have a military force to do so. And even if the EU passed a Joint Action detailing a call for such a peacekeeping force, it can't require any sovereign nation to take part. Furthermore, if agreement was to be found at the UN, the EU would not be able to actually take part, formally, in proceedings usually. Instead, the US, the UK, France, Russia, China, and the non permanent members of the Security Council would make agreements and decisions indepedent of the EU. On one hand we have sovereign member states able to back down and save face at the UN, but on the other we have President Juncker and High Representative Mogherini don't have the same capacity to find common ground.
Talks with Russia have now headed at the UN, with France and Russia having competing resolutions at the Security Council. The French one, which passed, authorized "all necessary action" (sic) to tackle ISIS/ISIL. The Russian one, which has not yet been voted on and likely won't be voted on, also included that President Bashar al-Assad of Syria also be included in those actions. This provides the opportunity for France, the UK, and the US to back down from their previous positions and at least consider the inclusion of Assad. What wasn't taken into account in these negotiations was the position of Juncker, Mogherini, or the EU. But the statements by those same individuals and the organization nevertheless harm diplomatic efforts, and I believe it to be vital that these statements cease to come from European politicians and instead come from nation-states in Europe only and their respective ministers.
In full disclosure, I'm not qualified to give a personal account of how the EU affects my daily life. I'm not a European citizen, nor even a British citizen: I'm an American law student from the state of Florida. However, I am (at least somewhat) qualified to give my personal analysis of the affect that the EU has on international peace and security, with my undergraduate studies in Political Science and International Relations, and concentrating in International Law while obtaining my Juris Doctor at Stetson University College of Law.
Perhaps to give a bit of background, my analysis particularly stems from the framework of the European Commission, the President of the Commission, and the High Representative of the Union. Back in 1957, the first Common Policy area of Europe was created in the Common Commercial Policy. Since then, and specifically after the Maastricht Treaty, the EU has had a Common Foreign and Security Policy (or "CFSP"). The European Council sets out either Joint Actions or Common Positions, where the former is an actual policy and action agreement that all member states will follow, and the latter where member states merely agree in principle to the item but it serves only as a framework, not a set position of the Union.
The CFSP is, in theory, incredibly useful. It allows member states to pull their political capital together and create a joint position that utilizes the benefits of at least two of the most powerful members of the international community. Using the United Kingdom and France in a joint position, as Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council, carries more weight in theory because then those two nations will likely support EU action at that same Council. In practice, however, this rarely happens.
The CFSP has many glaring issues. Regarding the Syrian Civil War, the EU issued a joint communication in June 2013 which, essentially, set the EU policy position on the Civil War. The communique has some ten main policy points, many which are budgetary and sanction related, some refugee related, and some related to "[s]upport[ing] a political settlement through a robust EU position at the up-coming 'Geneva II' international conference." The communique goes on to say that the EU intends to "prepare" a political and diplomatic solution, but fails to suggest an actual means for helping provide it. In fact, to date, the only nation to actual provide a comprehensive peace process plan has been Russia (please note that by a 'comprehensive plan' I am referring to one that is being acted on, not just one that has been stated).
This article isn't meant to say that the CFSP is the sole reason the Syrian Civil War has to date failed. On the contrary, the blame lies largely with the United States and Russia for failing to take initial action towards peace talks and failure to abide by their own promises and conditions for the Civil War. But many fail to recognize that the United States and Russia won't be galvanized into action unless their European, Asian, and African allies jointly support a central position (AKA "coalition building"). Sure, the United States has a robust Coalition dedicated towards the destruction of ISIS/ISIL in Syria, but not one on Syria. Largely, that is because the EU is completely divided on the Syrian peace process. For years, Prime Minister Cameron has said that Assad "has to go" and, at least originally, should not be included in any peace process if the Syrian people were to heal. Chancellor Merkel has actually called for Assad to be included in any peace process. Hollande has also historically been anti-Assad, particularly for the military fight against ISIS/ISIL.
These differences are normal in international conflicts. There was a vast difference of opinions and positions on the Iraq and Afghan Wars between NATO/European nations, and there are many differing positions on the Iranian Nuclear Programme. Stating these differences is actually vital in allowing diplomats, negotiators, and heads of government the chance to find common ground and a compromise they can unite by. Issues over the Iraqi and Afghani interventions allowed for a more comprehensive position to develop, with Afghanistan especially forming the International Security Assistance Force and a joint NATO command structure. Issues over the Iranian programme allowed the US, Russia, the EU, the UN, and Iran to come to an agreement because specific issues where ironed out and compromise was found.
This kind of diplomacy allows all sides to save face, which, really, is the goal of any diplomatic negotiation. What has happened regarding Syria, however, has been grandstanding by the EU that has, I believe, forced positions from the US and UK. President Juncker originally was very pro-Russia when it came to Syria and was calling for the US to work alongside Russia. When Russia first announced its air-and-sea strike operation against ISIS/ISIL, and began to actually launch strikes, President Juncker was quick to change tack and decry Russia's actions as strikes targeting only the Syrian opposition, not ISIS/ISIL.
Well, the US is attempting to work with Russia on Syria now, but statements like this make things very difficult. Ordinarily, nation-states can find common ground because they have actual, legitimate interests in certain areas of concern. The EU is not a nation-state, but has a diplomatic corps and leadership team that is attempting to grandstand like one. The EU doesn't have a middleground on this issue. The US and Russia could work with the UK and France and create an international peacekeeping force, even NATO could join in, but the EU simply doesn't have a military force to do so. And even if the EU passed a Joint Action detailing a call for such a peacekeeping force, it can't require any sovereign nation to take part. Furthermore, if agreement was to be found at the UN, the EU would not be able to actually take part, formally, in proceedings usually. Instead, the US, the UK, France, Russia, China, and the non permanent members of the Security Council would make agreements and decisions indepedent of the EU. On one hand we have sovereign member states able to back down and save face at the UN, but on the other we have President Juncker and High Representative Mogherini don't have the same capacity to find common ground.
Talks with Russia have now headed at the UN, with France and Russia having competing resolutions at the Security Council. The French one, which passed, authorized "all necessary action" (sic) to tackle ISIS/ISIL. The Russian one, which has not yet been voted on and likely won't be voted on, also included that President Bashar al-Assad of Syria also be included in those actions. This provides the opportunity for France, the UK, and the US to back down from their previous positions and at least consider the inclusion of Assad. What wasn't taken into account in these negotiations was the position of Juncker, Mogherini, or the EU. But the statements by those same individuals and the organization nevertheless harm diplomatic efforts, and I believe it to be vital that these statements cease to come from European politicians and instead come from nation-states in Europe only and their respective ministers.
liberte egalite fraternite
I have largely stayed my tounge about the attacks on Paris. I have done so out of respect. However my topic today is the topic of freedom and it felt appropriate to say that I am one of the many backing the campaign for intervention in Syria, not out of a desire for revenge for Paris but because of the very principles of liberty, equality and fraternity that the French national motto espouses. To quote Andrew Neil: ISIS, or IS or ISIL or whatever they call themselves are 'a death cult of barbarity that would shame the Middle Ages’.
Now.
Freedom.
The Oxford Dictionary defines freedom as "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants". In this day and age we take freedom for granted in the western world but it was not always the case that we were free to act, speak or think the way we wanted. This is not just true of history bt as we all know there was a very real movement in the 1930s and 40s which threatened to dominate the world if we did not stand against it and fight for the survival of our very way of life.
Since that time however, when the British lion roared so loud that the Nazi hoards were halted, we have to my mind at least shyed away from fighting for freedom. In his book Costas Douzinas talks about the failures of our world to truly embrace human rights as a concept. Yes it isn't a very Tory book but it is very insightful and I encourage people to read it for the unique perspective it offers to the debate.
We have continued to see throughout the so-era of human rights a progressive shift away from them. People are left to suffer at the hands of tyrants and murderers while we pay only lip service to the idea that life is sacred and needs to be protected.
I'm not suggesting by any means that we should go around the world and enforce our views on others. Different cultures after all have different interpretations of what freedom means and we need to respect that but... Where the suffering of our fellow humans is so great that they are literally putting themselves on planks of wood to escape from the terror they face in the their own country then my friends it is not time to be placid. It is time to take arms and defend freedom for all it is worth.
Winston Churchill, our greatest leader and himself a veteran of wars around the world once said: "One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!"
These words are very wise and should encourage us today to go out and fight for freedom rather then run to protect our own because in the end by facing the Syrian Death Cult which has the nerve to call itself an Islamic State we will be doing the cause of freedom a favour which will be repaid a thousand times over in future generations.
Wednesday Mini-Mini Blog - thoughts on canvassing and voter interaction.
My friend John is having trouble sending his finished blog through to me so while we're waiting I thought I'd talk a little bit about canvassing techniques.
Now during the election I both ran canvassing sessions and took part in them. I know how boring and tedious they can be if you're knocking on doors and not getting responses, however they don't have to be this way. Something I saw during the election was to have a leafleting session in an area the week before we'd canvass there. On the leaflet would be a line saying we'd be in the area again next week and if they wanted to talk about something they simply needed to leave this card/leaflet in the window. Just by doing this you can get feedback from people who actually want to give it to you and at the same time save your volunteers the heartache of knocking on 200 doors just to get a single response.
Something else I saw which we didn't take enough advantage of was digital media. Yes candidates use facebook and twitter but what about platforms like Kaleidoscope which let them talk live to audiences and answer their questions? what about using check-in stops like local pubs to hold ad-hoc town hall meetings? And what about youtube? Our party used it very well but individual candidates varied wildly as to whether they posted anything on there at all and in this day and age where even my mother is using digital media that simply isn't good enough.
We ran a great campaign this year. We did. I however want to run a better one in 2020 so we turn a 12 seat majority into a 120 seat majority. So let's use these next 4 years to trial new campaign techniques so that in 2020 we really are on the bleeding edge of campaigning.
Now during the election I both ran canvassing sessions and took part in them. I know how boring and tedious they can be if you're knocking on doors and not getting responses, however they don't have to be this way. Something I saw during the election was to have a leafleting session in an area the week before we'd canvass there. On the leaflet would be a line saying we'd be in the area again next week and if they wanted to talk about something they simply needed to leave this card/leaflet in the window. Just by doing this you can get feedback from people who actually want to give it to you and at the same time save your volunteers the heartache of knocking on 200 doors just to get a single response.
Something else I saw which we didn't take enough advantage of was digital media. Yes candidates use facebook and twitter but what about platforms like Kaleidoscope which let them talk live to audiences and answer their questions? what about using check-in stops like local pubs to hold ad-hoc town hall meetings? And what about youtube? Our party used it very well but individual candidates varied wildly as to whether they posted anything on there at all and in this day and age where even my mother is using digital media that simply isn't good enough.
We ran a great campaign this year. We did. I however want to run a better one in 2020 so we turn a 12 seat majority into a 120 seat majority. So let's use these next 4 years to trial new campaign techniques so that in 2020 we really are on the bleeding edge of campaigning.
Tuesday, 24 November 2015
We're wrong on Corbyn.
Corbyn.
The Corbynator.
Mr. Knitted Jumper.
The man we brand as such a huge threat to national security that we need every last living person to vote Conservative to keep him out of power...
I don't buy it.
Don't get me wrong. Corbyn should be kept as far away from number 10 as possible. He is an unrepentant Socialist with an unrepentant communist as his Shadow Chancellor (AKA the only man worse then Ed Ball's for the job) and a parliamentary party which is in actual revolt over his policies after less then 6 months in the role.
During the election we went to great lengths to paint Ed Milliband as a joke. A man who would go into a room with Putin and five minutes later Putin would come out smiling with the husk of Miliband left behind him. Yet when Labour elected a man who wears knitted jumpers and looks to be frail enough that a stiff wind would break him then we suddenly start shaking our fists and calling him a threat to national security.
He isn't dangerous, he's a doddery old grandad that keeps talking about the old days when he had big muscles and a motorbike while the grandkids nod along politely and play on their phones. Since the election ended we have enjoyed a huge lead in opinion polls and we even look set to become the opposition in Scotland next year.
The Corbyn recovery seems to have ended before it even began. Yes his own army of supporters back him but with popular and well known Labour backers against him and ComRes giving us an 11% lead and most other polls predicting us ahead by comfortable margins Corbyn can hardly claim the red revolution is taking hold. In fact it's so bad even Miliband is getting in cheeky digs at the comrade.
So do I think we need to keep Jeremy Corbyn out of power?
But do I think Jeremy Corbyn is a threat?
Mr. Knitted Jumper is not a threat and we need to stop treating him like one or people may start to wonder if maybe we're doing it because we're scared of something he has to offer. After all it was once said that if Ed Miliband managed not to soil himself in a debate then he was defying expectations of him and to my knowledge he managed to stave off that particular fumble at least.
My point is, we need to treat Corbyn less like a Terminator and more like the man in Morrison's talking about the price of fish going up from when he was a boy - something irritating but, to quote the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Mostly Harmless.
The Corbynator.
Mr. Knitted Jumper.
The man we brand as such a huge threat to national security that we need every last living person to vote Conservative to keep him out of power...
I don't buy it.
Don't get me wrong. Corbyn should be kept as far away from number 10 as possible. He is an unrepentant Socialist with an unrepentant communist as his Shadow Chancellor (AKA the only man worse then Ed Ball's for the job) and a parliamentary party which is in actual revolt over his policies after less then 6 months in the role.
During the election we went to great lengths to paint Ed Milliband as a joke. A man who would go into a room with Putin and five minutes later Putin would come out smiling with the husk of Miliband left behind him. Yet when Labour elected a man who wears knitted jumpers and looks to be frail enough that a stiff wind would break him then we suddenly start shaking our fists and calling him a threat to national security.
He isn't dangerous, he's a doddery old grandad that keeps talking about the old days when he had big muscles and a motorbike while the grandkids nod along politely and play on their phones. Since the election ended we have enjoyed a huge lead in opinion polls and we even look set to become the opposition in Scotland next year.
The Corbyn recovery seems to have ended before it even began. Yes his own army of supporters back him but with popular and well known Labour backers against him and ComRes giving us an 11% lead and most other polls predicting us ahead by comfortable margins Corbyn can hardly claim the red revolution is taking hold. In fact it's so bad even Miliband is getting in cheeky digs at the comrade.
So do I think we need to keep Jeremy Corbyn out of power?
But do I think Jeremy Corbyn is a threat?
Mr. Knitted Jumper is not a threat and we need to stop treating him like one or people may start to wonder if maybe we're doing it because we're scared of something he has to offer. After all it was once said that if Ed Miliband managed not to soil himself in a debate then he was defying expectations of him and to my knowledge he managed to stave off that particular fumble at least.
My point is, we need to treat Corbyn less like a Terminator and more like the man in Morrison's talking about the price of fish going up from when he was a boy - something irritating but, to quote the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Mostly Harmless.
Monday, 23 November 2015
Lets Have a Vote
After the Scottish Referendum I was watching a show on BBC 3 online. It was Frankie Boyle's Referendum Autopsy. In it he made a number of claims, one of which was that the extention of the voting franchise to young people in the referendum did not go far enough. That in fact we should extend the franchise to hawks because they have about as much mental capacity as some adults and adults don't need to prove their mental capacity in order to vote.
Yes it a silly notion, but it raises a good question about voting: who should be able to vote?
Now we all know that in general the state imposes restrictions on voting. This is done for a variety of reasons from protecting young people to punishing criminals. In the past however there were restrictions in various countries based on things which we today would consider outright discrimination. The Jim Crow Laws in America prevented black people from voting on numerous grounds, women in our own country had to fight for sufferage and in New Mexico Idiots and Insane People cannot vote to this day.
What this tells me is that voting laws are fluid.
We accept that changes need to be made every now and then and we make them.
Now there are a lot of reasons cited as to why we shouldn't let 16 year olds vote. A popular one is that young people are not mature enough to cast a vote, that they will make a poor choice... but then again 4 million supposedly mature adults walked in voting booths this year and put a cross next to UKIP. Adults don't have to prove maturity so why should children? and to extend this argument even further. A child age 6 could drop into a coma for 13 years and wake up in time to register for a vote. Now to their mind they are still a 6 year old child but in reality they are an adult who can go out and drink beer, get married, vote, join the army and even stand for election if they were so inclined.
Yes I know a situation like that would never occur. But it could.
Another reason is that children simply don't know who to vote for. They wouldn't have formed a proper opinion yet. Except a recent book on the subject showed that in general reasons we vote for certain candidates are arbitrary and include things like the candidates surname, the attractiveness of the candidate and even how you describe yourself in the bedroom.
So where does that leave the case of denying votes to young people? suprisingly it is still quite strong. Voting laws have changed due to overwhelming evidence of need rather than want. I don't see thousands of young people chaining themselves up outside of Westminster, I don't see 'young rights' activists being arrested after mass protests. What I do see is a number of older people look at young people and thinking they might agree with them so deciding to give them a go at the voting booth.
As I pointed out at the beginning voting laws are arbitrary. We draw a line at 18 because thats where society currently says it should be and while the reasons giving for lowering voting age beng a bad idea can be discredited its very easy to back them up with evidence that young people are very easily influenced by peer pressure into doing drugs, smoking, drinking and stealing.
Maybe one day voting will be extended to 16 year olds, but for now I don't see the need.
Yes it a silly notion, but it raises a good question about voting: who should be able to vote?
Now we all know that in general the state imposes restrictions on voting. This is done for a variety of reasons from protecting young people to punishing criminals. In the past however there were restrictions in various countries based on things which we today would consider outright discrimination. The Jim Crow Laws in America prevented black people from voting on numerous grounds, women in our own country had to fight for sufferage and in New Mexico Idiots and Insane People cannot vote to this day.
What this tells me is that voting laws are fluid.
We accept that changes need to be made every now and then and we make them.
Now there are a lot of reasons cited as to why we shouldn't let 16 year olds vote. A popular one is that young people are not mature enough to cast a vote, that they will make a poor choice... but then again 4 million supposedly mature adults walked in voting booths this year and put a cross next to UKIP. Adults don't have to prove maturity so why should children? and to extend this argument even further. A child age 6 could drop into a coma for 13 years and wake up in time to register for a vote. Now to their mind they are still a 6 year old child but in reality they are an adult who can go out and drink beer, get married, vote, join the army and even stand for election if they were so inclined.
Yes I know a situation like that would never occur. But it could.
Another reason is that children simply don't know who to vote for. They wouldn't have formed a proper opinion yet. Except a recent book on the subject showed that in general reasons we vote for certain candidates are arbitrary and include things like the candidates surname, the attractiveness of the candidate and even how you describe yourself in the bedroom.
So where does that leave the case of denying votes to young people? suprisingly it is still quite strong. Voting laws have changed due to overwhelming evidence of need rather than want. I don't see thousands of young people chaining themselves up outside of Westminster, I don't see 'young rights' activists being arrested after mass protests. What I do see is a number of older people look at young people and thinking they might agree with them so deciding to give them a go at the voting booth.
As I pointed out at the beginning voting laws are arbitrary. We draw a line at 18 because thats where society currently says it should be and while the reasons giving for lowering voting age beng a bad idea can be discredited its very easy to back them up with evidence that young people are very easily influenced by peer pressure into doing drugs, smoking, drinking and stealing.
Maybe one day voting will be extended to 16 year olds, but for now I don't see the need.
Saturday, 21 November 2015
Public Life, Roadtrip and the clean up of politics
I'm sure most people are aware by now of the tragic death of Elliott Johnson earlier this year. I myself had met Elliott only a handful of times but his death struck a cord with me because of the allegations around senior party members and bullying. While my time with the Conservative Party has been welcoming and accepting it was obvious that in Elliott's experience that had not been the case and as someone who suffered through bullying at various times in my life I was deeply hurt to discover that.
Since Elliott's death a number of stories have been in the media and a number of senior party members have been accused of either knowing about the bullying or in one particular case taking part in it. For legal reasons I will state now that all parties are innocent until proven guilty and that my words here should not be taken as an indictment against the character or story of anybody named here or anybody involved in the situation. I am not privy to investigative details and will not be discussing in detail any events or making any accusations. I will be linking to official news stories around events and will be using the name of a single person alleged to be involved however if they ask to be removed from this piece I will honour any such requests.
With that out of the way, a lot of the media attention on this story has focused on a former Conservative Parliamentary Candidate, Mark Clarke, and his campaigning organisation Roadtrip which aimed to bus Conservative activists into target seats for a day of campaigning and was largely successful in that aim.
I did go on a roadtrip event during the election, though most of my time was taken up as a Council Candidate, General Election Campaign Manager and full time employee so I wasn't as involved as perhaps I would have liked. I really did enjoy being in the company of my fellow Conservatives and it will be sad if the concept is not continued because it helped me feel like I was taking part in a much wider campaign. Obviously though new safeguards do need to be put in place to ensure that no participants are made to feel harassed or bullied - safeguards like these should always be included in any organisation - so that the experience is enjoyable for everybody.
The investigation into Elliott's death has thrown up a lot of curve balls. We've seen Mark Clarke suspended for life from the Conservative Party, we're had the entire Conservative Future National Executive suspended from the party, allegations of affairs* and god only knows what else will come out of the woodwork.
The whole situation reminds me of the ill-fated Back to Basics campaign ran by then Prime Minister John Major. The trouble is that in this the era of twitter and facebook, the scandal can so much worse. We all know how one thoughtless tweet can hurt a reputation, or how quickly an old photo we hoped no one would see can go around the internet. It means our mistakes become public very quickly and can haunt us forever.
But on the other hand it may just be a good thing.
Politics has been marred in corruption for decades. Cash for Questions? Cash for Honours? MPs expenses? All of these were major examples of scandals. Yes things have improved since then but we still see... bad eggs cropping up from time to time largely due to the effects of social and digital media where nothing is really private anymore.
Maybe this influx of information will lead to an overall reduction in the number of scandals in future generations of politicians and leaders. After all if you know that your dick pic will end up all over facebook (no matter how careful you are) then a politician might think twice about taking it. Same with doing drugs, accepting rotten donations and bullying people.
Information is power and with your whole life available at the push of a button maybe people will learn to do better and our leaders of tomorrow may just end up being the cleaner then cleaner generation we've been looking for.
---------------------------------------------------------
*As a side note I feel it is worth pointing out that in this day and age sex scandals are a bit silly. They merely serve to reinforce negative victorian gender stereotypes that consenting men and women engaging in sex or sexual activity are somehow doing something wrong or disgusting. Yes I understand that in the case of an affair it isn't exactly nice but it is hardly a crime and certainly not worth reporting on when we are facing bigger issues
Since Elliott's death a number of stories have been in the media and a number of senior party members have been accused of either knowing about the bullying or in one particular case taking part in it. For legal reasons I will state now that all parties are innocent until proven guilty and that my words here should not be taken as an indictment against the character or story of anybody named here or anybody involved in the situation. I am not privy to investigative details and will not be discussing in detail any events or making any accusations. I will be linking to official news stories around events and will be using the name of a single person alleged to be involved however if they ask to be removed from this piece I will honour any such requests.
With that out of the way, a lot of the media attention on this story has focused on a former Conservative Parliamentary Candidate, Mark Clarke, and his campaigning organisation Roadtrip which aimed to bus Conservative activists into target seats for a day of campaigning and was largely successful in that aim.
I did go on a roadtrip event during the election, though most of my time was taken up as a Council Candidate, General Election Campaign Manager and full time employee so I wasn't as involved as perhaps I would have liked. I really did enjoy being in the company of my fellow Conservatives and it will be sad if the concept is not continued because it helped me feel like I was taking part in a much wider campaign. Obviously though new safeguards do need to be put in place to ensure that no participants are made to feel harassed or bullied - safeguards like these should always be included in any organisation - so that the experience is enjoyable for everybody.
The investigation into Elliott's death has thrown up a lot of curve balls. We've seen Mark Clarke suspended for life from the Conservative Party, we're had the entire Conservative Future National Executive suspended from the party, allegations of affairs* and god only knows what else will come out of the woodwork.
The whole situation reminds me of the ill-fated Back to Basics campaign ran by then Prime Minister John Major. The trouble is that in this the era of twitter and facebook, the scandal can so much worse. We all know how one thoughtless tweet can hurt a reputation, or how quickly an old photo we hoped no one would see can go around the internet. It means our mistakes become public very quickly and can haunt us forever.
But on the other hand it may just be a good thing.
Politics has been marred in corruption for decades. Cash for Questions? Cash for Honours? MPs expenses? All of these were major examples of scandals. Yes things have improved since then but we still see... bad eggs cropping up from time to time largely due to the effects of social and digital media where nothing is really private anymore.
Maybe this influx of information will lead to an overall reduction in the number of scandals in future generations of politicians and leaders. After all if you know that your dick pic will end up all over facebook (no matter how careful you are) then a politician might think twice about taking it. Same with doing drugs, accepting rotten donations and bullying people.
Information is power and with your whole life available at the push of a button maybe people will learn to do better and our leaders of tomorrow may just end up being the cleaner then cleaner generation we've been looking for.
---------------------------------------------------------
*As a side note I feel it is worth pointing out that in this day and age sex scandals are a bit silly. They merely serve to reinforce negative victorian gender stereotypes that consenting men and women engaging in sex or sexual activity are somehow doing something wrong or disgusting. Yes I understand that in the case of an affair it isn't exactly nice but it is hardly a crime and certainly not worth reporting on when we are facing bigger issues
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)