A Rose in a Sea of Manure

UK: On Labour and Ed Miliband Waging Opposition Politics

2011-09-25T15:23:00.002-04:00

Here's a quote from David Miliband:

David Miliband on Ed: "He's going to lead the party in the way he sees fit. He's going to lead it with conviction and purpose."

Indeed! That is all good. But, can he win? Because according to Dan Hodges in The New Statesman this is tantamount to political suicide. I can understand and respect Labour re-appraising its roots, especially after Tony Blair and his entourage made sure through his mediated discourse to alienate just about everyone with his "New" Labour political discourse, but I also want Labour to win. If Miliband, instead of engaging a precarious balance that would rally the diverse coalition of forces that support this Party, is appealing to just his base, I fear that we're going to see conservatives and liberal democrats peddling their dysfunctional policy for the long term.

Opposition politics as process and practice is in itself complicated. If handled poorly it can result in bitter, unproductive sentiments for a former party-of-government. Well-handled, it means engaging in a constructive critique of government policy, offering suggestions in the name of the public interest and good governance, and denouncing the incumbents when they opt to ignore or side-step the opposition. All of this has to be done while projecting an image of government-in-waiting. Don't misunderstand me, I think Ed Miliband has what it takes. he seems a reasonable, well-centered, politician. It's the phrase 'rip up the rule book' that worries me. I agree with Hodges when he says that, from opposition, it is an unwise strategy, especially if you need to reach beyond your political base to get elected. Talking about 'changing the consensus' without any reflective approach to it could mean disaster for Labour, especially in this juncture. If the political-economy consensus is what made Great Britain the polity that is today, then a smarter approach needs to be considered. Smarter means not uncritical, if the dynamics of the market brought us to this, then the fault is not only with them but with the regulatory state. Miliband does have his political heart in the right place,

"It's about everything from inequality to the vested interests who think they're immune from democracy, to employers who don't exercise responsibility, to the triumph of finance over industry . . . It's about an ethic of take-what-you-can, something-for-nothing, the short term, the fast buck."

Again, this should not mean a break, nor an aggressive approach, but an assertive one. The labour leader couldn't have put it better: "It's about... responsibility and solidarity". What Labour and Miliband and the living, progressive political forces that support them should push for is a better, effective, unobtrusive, and assertive Regulatory State, one that opens up a democratic space were everyone, even private enterprise, is subject to public scrutiny. For this they need the press, and not just the ones sympathetic to Labour. One thing is to break with the Murdochs, another altogether is to redefine their relationship with them. Labour in opposition and, hopefully, in government needs not be subservient to them (like Tony Blair), but procure a working relationship (with other media outlets too) in the public interest, which is what, Labour should remind them, they serve.

Democratic accountability is the key phrase here. Labour soon-in-government should shape policy along assertive lines, to govern for the common good and the Crown, to instill progressive values of governance in British society, not solely project them from Parliament. The rules can be bent and adapted...from government. A break for the sake of radical change without regards for the political centre can be catastrophic, a repeat of the 'longest suicide note'.

The next election is Miliband's and Labour's to lose.

Tell me what you think...

True words than these were never spoken about President Obama's actions recently

2011-08-09T19:54:00.000-04:00

This was quoted by Mother Jones in a written piece titled 'What should Obama do' by Kevin Drum.

Michael Tomasky: "In [Alan] Brinkley’s words, Obama’s presidency 'is failing, and in danger of collapsing.' Lacerating battles await him on the budget (surprise: the debt deal didn’t solve everything!). The economy is grounded. Obama needs to quit trying to transform politics and just focus on winning fights on behalf of a careworn middle class. Otherwise, politics is going to transform him into a nicely intentioned one-term president."

Fairly warned, one might say. But is it too late?

What now? Papandreou survives confidence vote on handling of Greece debt crisis | World news | guardian.co.uk

2011-06-22T18:34:00.000-04:00

Surviving the confidence vote is one thing, it is but a small part of the political process. The other one is in Habermas' beloved public sphere where Greeks hammer out other possibilities besides total compliance with rules imposed elsewhere...

Papandreou survives confidence vote on handling of Greece debt crisis | World news | guardian.co.uk

But that is the problem isn't it? Succesive Greek governments deceived the European Union and the Greek people into believing that their public finances were sufficiently sound to insert the country into the Eurozone, hiding sovereign debt and public deficits that, left unattended, spiralled out of control beyond manageability. And the political (and the economic space) narrowed leaving out possibilities. Truly sad, even more so when a centre-left government is in charge.

It is interesting though how New Democracy (the Greek right) is simply calling for elections. I wonder if they have thought of something the rest of us observers of the Greek crisis have overlooked. That is, how this situation would improve if they were in power, would they be able to negotiate better terms in the worst of scenarios? Just asking...

Tell me what you think...

Comment on: Ed Miliband offers cross-party talks on future of adult social care

2011-06-07T08:59:00.000-04:00

Labour and opposition leader Ed Milliband is offering to sit down with the Tory-LibDem government in a serious national debate on adult social care. Check the link below...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/07/ed-miliband-talks-future-social-care

The offer of a political dialogue comes after a first attempt collapsed in early January 2010 after, then-Tory opposition leadership inundated public debate with, most unoriginal, demagoguery. Surely a reflection of Tory lack of fresh ideas and a willingness to borrow the worst concepts from conservatives and tea-partiers in the United States.

The business of government is serious. Let's see how the coalition fares, that is, if they're willing to sit down with the opposition. Kudos to Milliband for showing mettle.

But hey, tell me what you think...

Pro-cuts activists to rally against debt | Politics | guardian.co.uk

2011-05-17T11:56:00.000-04:00

If this was any other time - and reality - I'd laugh at the notion of a Tea Party in the United Kingdom. Check it out...

Pro-cuts activists to rally against debt | Politics | guardian.co.uk

Reading the article, I'm still trying to get my head around the sheer two-fold irony of it: one, the fact that this activism is directed at a centre-right government, the second... well... check your history.

Interesting times in this polity indeed.

It's hard to get a read on intentions, especially where government is involved...

2011-03-26T16:25:00.001-04:00

In this news piece twos distinguished PBS journalist explores the hard-to-gauge camp of governing. It tells of the mumbles and fumbles of the Obama administration and the ambiguities of at least one of his political adversaries.

Rocks and Hard Places: Why Governing Is So Hard - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/03/rocks-and-hard-places-why-governing-is-so-hard.html

If governing is so hard (indeed it is) then the ambiguity of administration and opposition doesn't help one bit. The foreign policy of the United States is in an uncertain stand. Fatigued, stretched beyond their limits in personnel, resources, and budget it is unwilling to get involved itself further, especially in North Africa (although that is not necessarily a bad thing in itself, at least it got Europeans to coordinate strategy towards Libya), pieces of incomplete information, ill-timing on foreign policy stands, and lack of clarity confuses the American public (at least the bit that is quite interested in issues that are beyond domestic or provincial), and leaves the international community scratching their heads because a most prominent ally is... uncertain.

So, what is to be done? Not much...but coherence; consistency and clarity is, certainly, a good start.

Pathological obsession meets fiscal and political realities - Promise on Taxes Sparks GOP Rift - The Wall Street Journal.

2011-03-21T08:07:00.001-04:00

Check this news piece by the 'Wall Street Journal'. Funny isn't it? How political and fiscal realities hits hard the Republican's pathological utopia of "small government". Time to play serious government boys. Social and human factors are at stake.

Promise on Taxes Sparks GOP Rift

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703292304576212682332695092.html

Tell me what you think....

UK: Welfare bill 'penalises cancer patients'

2011-03-09T10:48:00.001-04:00

In this newspiece by London daily 'The Guardian' we see some details on the controversial points in this welfare reform legislation that could affect substantially cancer patients.

Read the article and the analysis below,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/mar/09/welfare-bill-cancer-patients

Funny isn't it? How when a country's finances are in dire straits welfare provisions and acquired benefits are the first to go (take Wisconsin, for example). In this case, allowances for cancer patients, a measure that permits them to live in relative independence and dignity while they are out of work, faces time limitations after only twelve months once you start receiving the benefit.

In terms of fiscal prudence the 'slight' change in policy might be sound. But I'm thinking about the human consequences of this policy. What if the patient needs more time? How about considering an alternative of a patient returning to work part-time with the state covering the difference? Why not allow for that patient to start his/her own business so they may be near their home and family and the places that might provide good care.

Is choosing how you take your treatment really a sound policy criterion in deciding coverage?

That Tories are trying to reform welfare is hardly a surprise. But I am indeed taken aback by the fact that the Liberal Democrat leadership has not taken a bigger part in this, especially since they are coalition partners with the Tories and one would think that as a centre-left political organisation they'd want to tone down some of the policy dispositions in this piece.

I am more surprised, though, with Labour Party leadership. Miliband simply won't assume his role as opposition leader. This ambiguity, an inherited form taken from the (now-not-so) new Labour does not suit well with a party that has social justice (even a watered-down version of it) as its goal. Questions will have to be asked of Miliband's suitability as leader in a party that lived (still does) for form and not substance.

Tell me what you think.

Sent from my iPhone

@wapatv, 3/2/11 12:03 PM

2011-03-02T12:29:00.001-04:00

¿Y alguien piensa que no estamos cercanos al 'Estado de la Naturaleza' de Hobbes?

wapa.tv (@wapatv)
3/2/11 12:03 PM
Más asesinatos que soldados muertos : Las estadísticas de la Policía demuestran que la Isla supera en... http://bit.ly/gl9cyu

Es penoso ver como la dinámica del Ζώο εξο πολιτικά se impone en nuestra cotidianidad.

¿Qué hacer?

Sent from my iPhone

UPR: tras la violencia, atonement...

2011-02-23T11:24:00.001-04:00

Nunca me he sentido tan triste de tener la razón. Le mencioné a compañeros profesores y estudiantes que, luego de los incidentes del jueves 17 de febrero en la Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, al ver la dinámica que allí se produjo, dije que los próximos incidentes de violencia no sería entre estudiantes y policía sino entre estudiantes y estudiantes.

Es perturbador ver escenas de violencia como las del acceso peatonal frente a la UPR e incidentes como los de esta mañana frente al portón principal. ¿Qué reclamo, por más legitimo que sea, justifica agredir a compañeros estudiantes? ¿Cómo, tras esto, añadimos personas a la causa? ¿Habrá reflexión, atonement, por parte de los líderes del movimiento estudiantil?

Y como dijo una de mis estudiantes más brillantes: ¿Qué va a pasar con mi Universidad?

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Don’t Know Much About History - NYTimes.com

2011-01-31T21:51:00.000-04:00

This column piece by Gail Collins talks about the "intelectual" musings of ultra-conservative, tea-party darling Michelle Bachmann. Check it out.

Don’t Know Much About History - NYTimes.com

I just thought Democrats should know the people they are letting define the terms of the cultural (and political) debate.

Tell me what you think...

What do we make of it? AP News: Obama, GOP reach deal to extend tax cuts

2010-12-06T22:45:00.000-04:00

Welcome to the era of compromise.

The way these developments were presented you'd think polarisation of politics in Washington was just an utter exaggeration. It is not; it is a preamble of much worse things to come. That is, long-term sound policy in favour of the American taxpayer - which is probably what they voted for -, will step aside fir short-termism with intent at political advantage. All of it to deny a president they so pathologically hate a second term.

So... welcome to an short but intense period of bad-faith politics. But hey! You voted for it, so you deal with it.

A story from AP News:

Obama, GOP reach deal to extend tax cuts

Do tell me what you think...

Working out the kinks if Health Care reform | from the NYTimes: Consumer Risks Feared as Health Law Spurs Mergers

2010-11-21T16:20:00.000-04:00

Nobody said Healthcare reform was easy, or cheap. But, if one cares to notice, there is movement towards a very different dynamics of patient/provider economics of care.

Check the article below, courtesy of The New York Times. Then check the rest of my normative considerations.

Consumer Risks Feared as Health Law Spurs Mergers

Consumer advocates fear the new health care law could worsen some problems it was meant to solve.

http://nyti.ms/c889mS

Two things:

I'm uncomfortable with all this talk of cost-cutting and savings. The language of healthcare should be less of this and more of getting care to the ones who need it the most, especially to those suffering from chronic diseases. Which reminds me, where is the combative aura of Healthcare Reform supporters? Why is it that silence predominates in this group? Or am I mistaken? Where are the dynamics that should transform this antagonistic fight into an agonist discussion?

Second, I can understand the concerns that come with petitioning the federal government for a relaxing of antitrust laws that might help providers ease their burden when implementing new regulations. However, this should not mean a lack of oversight. Government should be vigilant of potential dislocation in any future exemption from the application of the law. Otherwise, no lessons would have been learned and we're back to politics as usual, which in this case would mean patient's rights are dead words and families' fear of financial ruin will still be a reality.

Change is sacrifice, Americans should've learned that long ago. The goals of economic growth and prosperity for private enterprise should not contradict the goals of a healthy, productive, and more just society. They remain in constant conflict to be sure, but it is the role of the state to bring temperance and precarious balance when these forces collide in the public sphere.

Tell me what you think...

From Newsweek: Can Obama and the GOP Work Together?

2010-11-08T09:44:00.001-04:00

Here's a quote that has resonated all this week:

"the single most important thing we want to achieve" is defeating the president in 2012.

Just a friendly reminder to the American voters about the kind of "republicans" they put in charge. I'd also like to point out to democrats that this is a self-inflicted wound. And to republicans (if there are still any left at this Conservative party called the GOP) you have lost the political center in the party and in national politics. Your obsession with winning for the sake of power and your intransigent despising of government opened the door to something worse and, totally, anti-republican. Can you deal with it?

And as V said in the movie, "at the moment of looking for someone to blame, all we have to do is look in the mirror". The voters' desperation alongside their preference for fast-food politics and policy got them exactly what they wanted: gridlock, with a side of bad-faith politics and further polarization of America's political landscape.

Truly a government the voters (who voted, or didn't) deserve. Live with it.

Check out the article and tell me what you think...

Alter: Can Obama and the GOP Work Together? - http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/07/alter-can-obama-and-the-gop-work-together.html?from=rss

Shared from Newsweek, an iPhone app made with www.AppMakr.com

Sent from my iPhone

Sins of omission...

2010-10-15T08:31:00.000-04:00

And, as we see Barack Obama's impetus running out of steam one has to wonder if his lack of immediate choice of an economic team is part of his present political and electoral woes.

Six months, I can understand. But two years... You tell me. Read the article below.

Obama Praises Elizabeth Warren and Hints Consumer Pick Near - NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/business/economy/11empty.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

E.J. Dionne Jr. - Mike Castle's defeat -- and the end of moderate Republicanism

2010-09-16T11:44:00.000-04:00

In this article we see not only a reflective tone, but a word of warning of the dangers of extremism. If both parties are threatened by the Tea Party's media and financial savvy it is the GOP who stands to lose more from it. As this lunatic fringe dominates the Republican Party's ideological agenda moderates and centrists within it are either moving out of the party or increasingly afraid to raise their voices to speak out against the polarizing forces that will put this republic on shaky ground politically and socially speaking.

Politics not only deals with the exercise of power through decision-making and the formulation of policy. It also deals with how we live with one another (cohabitation or in Spanish convivencia) after the taking of those decisions and interacting socially with civility. The Tea "Party" does not stand for that. It does stand for the continuing atomization of American society. It displays a pathological hatred of government and the state. And, most disturbingly, would tear down a seminal piece of social justice legislation, Health-Care Reform without a second regard for the consequences, simply to see their obsessive goal of small (and ineffective) government through.

Check out the column,
E.J. Dionne Jr. - Mike Castle's defeat -- and the end of moderate Republicanism

Now, see of you agree with this analysis...

1. Democrats certainly have a share of responsibility for the "Tea Party's" prominence. Never have I seen such a sorry bunch of poor communicators and debaters. Not only that, and correct me if I'm mistaken, democrats allowed this lunatic fringe (and Fox News, is there really a difference?) to dictate the terms of the debate. I have not observed democrats or progressives in any position but the defensive. If they lose the majority in the House of Representatives it'll be mostly a self-inflicted wound. Shame on them and on their lack of leadership.

2. With regards to "republicans", I agree with E.J. Dionne (read the column) that moderate, centrist republicanism is at an end, if it has not ceased already. It isn't only that right-wing conservatives dominate the ideological agenda of the GOP, they have been allowed to do it. The populist rhetoric and discourse of conservatives is highly seductive. Its pull draws mostly from highly emotional discourse based on a "past collective happiness" that reeks of 1950s, and a appropriation of national symbols and memories of glorious deeds in history. This of course adorned with half-truths and fact-free arguments that are highly receptive with a frustrated public (now, what does that say about the voters?). And, with barely an alternative explanation from the opposite side of the political realm these less-than-truthful arguments take root.

I'd be remiss if I said that moderate and centrist republicans are not to blame. After all, they allowed the ideological and religious right-wing to take over the party. In unleashing this monster towards the end of the 1960s they cared less about ideological integrity than with winning for the sake of power. They've won alright, in fact they've been dominant in the past half-century of American politics, gradually destroying the liberal paradigm that (not always effectively) the United States projected. In my view, there's very little they can do to place this political organization back to the center, short of involving themselves in bloody infighting, which, with the very little influence they have, they might as well lose.

We'll see. In the meanwhile, tell me what you think...

Something so groundbreaking as advances in slowing Alzheimer's disease through scientific exchange shouldn't come as a surprise.

2010-08-28T09:50:00.000-04:00

As a lecturer in political science research methods I always emphasize to my students the importance of dialogue within a community of academic researchers, social or otherwise, through the sharing and critical discussion of research. I believe as much is said in college texts on the matter. So why are the researchers in this news article below surprised at the progress made on identifying markers that give a broad profile of Alzheimer's disease that in turn will help in its treatment?

Check the link to the article and keep reading afterwards,

From The New York Times: Rare Sharing of Data Leads to Progress on Alzheimer's. The key to a collaborative Alzheimer's project was an ambitious agreement to share all the data, making every single finding public immediately.

http://nyti.ms/9u3Ly3

One has to wonder the kind of anomic societies we live in, where scientists and researchers are not able to communicate nor share data and/or findings based on the selfish lure of financial gain. Sad indeed is the world where pharmaceutical companies dictate the terms where medical and neurological research based on business decisions keeping the findings to themselves and not for the biochemical and neuropsychological benefit of societies.

It is, however, more disturbing that the surprise in research collaboration should come from scientist in the government's payroll. This is indicative of a deficient and questionable scientific and organizational culture, where egos are allowed to thrive and competition between agencies transforms into lack of advancement in research. But hey! I'm just a political scientist. You tell me...

From The Wall Street Journal: Democrats Face Economic Facts: Updraft Unlikely

2010-08-28T09:37:00.001-04:00

Wow! How is this surprising? Are democrats really that naive? Well...now they're going to have to talk to voters with their mouths, and think with their brains...oooohhhhhh!

It is unbelievable how a party, unable to unite towards a few policy objectives, articulate a coherent discourse, and refusing to engage in public debate by allowing conservative opposition to dictate its terms, pin their hopes on just an economic turnabout.

It's politics, you imbeciles! And you're realizing that detrimentally late. Check the link below.

Democrats Face Economic Facts: Updraft Unlikely

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703418004575456032134447578.html

Daily Kos: Obama's biggest mistake

2010-08-11T11:01:00.000-04:00

This blog post by the DailyKos assessing Obama's form of governing is perhaps one of the most accurate I've read. Check the link below,

Daily Kos: Obama's biggest mistake

It is indeed one of his biggest mistakes. To think of separating politics from governing, especially a this extraordinary juncture, is political self-immolation (I don't want to say political suicide yet, though it increasingly looks like it; I shall wait for the mid-terms). In a polity such as the United States in 2010 to assume the reins of a government in a society so polarized, playing "hardball" or "politicking" is implied. The excellent communicator that he is, Barack Obama, Robert Gibbs and others in the administration should have worked tirelessly the air and television waves not allowing conservatives and the right-wing lunatic fringe to set the terms of the policy debate. This is, thus, a self-inflicted wound that has begun to show first signs of infection.

I hope the president is right and turns around this dire political situation in the wake of November's mid-term elections. Otherwise...

Tell me what you think...

An open letter from Jacqui Smith to Theresa May

2010-05-14T10:02:00.000-04:00

I saw this article from The Independent and thought it might be of interest to you.

Beleaguered and defeated MP and former Home Secretary (i.e. Minister of Interior Affairs) Jacqui Smith writes a letter to Conservative MP and her replacement at the Home Office, Theresa May, on the challenges that await on this job. Some of them include tackling crime, including how communities are essential in combating it, police matters, and immigration. It is also a warning that much of the policies implemented - good and bad - will be inevitably judged in terms of her gender. Click on the link below.

The handover: An open letter from Jacqui Smith to Theresa May

Both the letter and David Cameron's inaugural speech in Front of 10 Downing Street's door paying hommage to former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown are testimony that there is still some semblance of civility in politics. The British may yet give us some lessons in it.

Tell me what you think...

Sent from my iPhone