X Factor goes political?

Nearly a week has passed since Simon Cowell championed bringing a bit of the X Factor into politics.

Let me lay my cards on the table. I like the X Factor. I’m not sure why. I know that it runs contrary to the default left-of-centre cynical position, but I’m not sure I need a reason, I just do. So there it is.

But what works for music on Saturday night TV doesn’t work for politics. This argument has been well rehearsed over the last week so let me just pick out a few highlights as to why…

First, it doesn’t matter that 10 million people voted in the X Factor final on Saturday night. This is still nowhere near the 27 million that voted in the last General Election, which, incidentally was an election with an almost historically low turnout.

Second, the model that Cowell champions is presumably primarily to generate revenue. Fair enough, he is after all a businessman. But this is a problem if it means subjects are intentionally not explored in their full complexity but instead reward emotive argument.

Take knife crime. Look at any opinion poll and locking up anybody found carrying a knife and throwing away the key is cited as a necessary deterrent.

But this presumes rationality on the part of the potential knife-carrier when deciding whether or not to leave the house with a knife in his pocket. It also presumes that, even if he has made a rational choice, he would decide that the likelihood of being arrested is higher than the likelihood of any threat he may fear he will encounter – in his mind, it may not do.

I somehow doubt that Cowell’s debates will spiral beyond the immediate issue into the more structural causes of society’s problems. On a Saturday night over a curry and bottle of wine I can’t see the appetite (and therefore commercial value) for it.

Third, the level of thought the public will give when voting on an X Factor-Political hybrid will be minimal in comparison to visiting a polling station. The electoral officials and the privacy of the polling booth instill gravity and importance of voting in the mind of the voter in a way that picking up the phone simply will not.

One might argue that all of the above are irrelevant – what does it matter if people phone in and make a potentially ill-informed judgement on the basis of incomplete and purely emotive evidence? But as Michael White points out in the Guardian - “It does matter if 10 million people think that by voting on TV they have given the Government of the day a mandate to do something…and do it now.” It shouldn’t be forgotten that only a few years ago, an opinion poll showed widespread support for introducing the death penalty for those found guilty of murdering police officers.

However, curmudgeonly moaning over, and in the spirit of Christmas, here is a link to Iain Dale’s blog where he speculates on what such a programme might look like…well worth a read.

 http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/12/x-factor-goes-political.html

All I want for Christmas is…

In this the festive season, Christmas lists are being penned hastily by children across the world. Fingers will be crossed that on Christmas Eve, Father Christmas will deliver the goods before supping the Whiskey left for him and showing a flagrant disregard for drink driving laws – do they apply to sleighs?

In this spirit, I always think we should ask our politicians to draw up their Xmas wish list. Asking them to for once break free of the (ultimately necessary) shackles of civil service pragmatism and outline, ‘in an ideal world’, what would they change? Bring some much-needed idealism back into politics.

At the top of my list would be a healthier attitude towards taxation.

I know the feeling. You open up your pay cheque and through deductions for tax a significant amount is sliced off. It is easy to feel resentful.

But  in my new worldview, those who talk of the Government “dipping their hand into my pocket” would stop and consider that this money – contrary to popular belief – does not fall into the possession of a remote Whitehall mandarin to be hoarded and guarded with Golom-esque glee. That money is schools for your children, hospital for an ailing relative.

The British Social Attitudes Survey consistently reveals increased support for public spending on education and health. Only 30% of those questioned in the 80s supported such spending, whereas well over 60% do now. A healthier attitude towards taxation could help make redistributive spending increases in these areas a reality.

TV debate a good thing?

The PM says he’s “made up his mind” on whether to have a TV debate but wants to leave an announcement until the format is properly decided. Mandelson today confirms it will happen.

So is it a good thing?

Yes for the PM – he’ll actually get a chance to question Cameron and force him to elaborate on catchy soundbites that lack substance once you scratch below the surface.

We’ll get more of this:

…and less of this:

It would also work for Clegg in that people would actually see him on their TV screens for longer than a couple of seconds.

Cameron however can only lose.

Or am I wrong?

Post-Conference bounce…but still significant

News tonight that pollsters YouGov have found that, since the start of the 2009 Labour Party Conference, the Conservative lead has declined by 7 points – i.e. cut in half.

You can read the full details here.

Now let’s not get carried away – as no doubt some still trapped inside the conference bubble will do (I escaped this evening). Parties always get a bounce after their annual gathering. Largely because they have dominated the news agenda for the past week and at least some people are bound to have liked what they heard. The true test will of course be what the polls say once the inevitable Tory bounce has settled down after next week in Manchester.

However, Labour should take heart from this bounce because it means that people are at least still willing to give their ideas a hearing. The door in the minds of the electorate is still ajar, not slammed and locked in the face of any potential policy initiative.

Not great news. But good news.

Now all eyes on the Tories for next week.

Conference – Monday

He might as well have come on to Barry Manilow crooning “oh Mandy…” so much were the delegates swooning in the aisles.

It was a fantastic speech, delivered with a cool wit, and all the more dramatic doesn’t normally ‘do’ visably passionate.

It did just the trick – honest, conciliatory, funny and appealing to the activists, with the extension of the car scrappage sche e and pledges never to limit University numbers raising the roof.

Sky News/Populus showing a 5 point Labour gain also will be a tonic for wound licking activists.

I also enjoyed the Guardian fringe. A couple of particularly good points:

- Helena Kennady argued that Labour must do better at clearly explaining to voters why the Tories are wrong for urging cuts NOW and not later. She proposed a narrative based on normal people’s everyday experience of taking on debt to build for their future (a mortgage, a student loan).

- James Purnell encouraged Labour to base the General Election campaign on education, as it would inject optimism about owning the future (excuse the horrible New Labour buzz words!) The Government he argues should commit to matching the spending levels of the best educating nations in the world and aim large – like erradicating illiteracy as South Korea and Finland have done.

All in all, a cracking day and some good new ideas…roll on GB tomorrow!!

Stephen Hesford’s Resignation

By resigning, Stephen Hesford MP, Parliamentary Aide at the Ministry of Justice (technically to Vera Baird QC not Baroness Scotland incidentally), has attempted to hammer another nail into the coffin of the Attorney General over her employment of an illegal cleaner.

His rationale however is an odd one. “In my view, the facts of the case do not matter” he says. An odd statement. In my book, deliberately overlooking the facts is seldom a good thing.

Incidentally, the facts – which apparently do not matter – are:

1) The UK Border Agency have acknowledged that Baroness Scotland didn’t know she was employing an illegal worker.

2) The Attorney General did request documents from the employee in question, which turned out to have been forged (hardly her fault).

3) The key error was simply an administrative one – Baroness Scotland did not keep copies.

4) A fine has been levied and paid accordingly.

I can’t see here where the point of principle is that would make Baroness Scotland unable to continue to discharge her duties as Attorney General…am I missing something?

No platform for the BNP

The dye is cast. It looks like Labour are going to put up a Cabinet Minister against Nick Griffin on BBC’s Question Time. A mistake? I think so.

I appreciate the arguments against the ‘No Platform’ stance:

1) That refusing the BNP their “fair share” of broadcast time will simply feed the victim mentality the party thrives on.

2) That we can only undermine the BNP’s arguments by exposing the flaws in those arguments, publically.

Fair enough. But both contentions – as Sunny Hundal points out in an excellent Guardian piece - rest on the assumption that voting BNP is a rational rather than emotional decision.

A BNP voter wears the opposite of rose-tinted spectacles, but the idea still applies. Every utterance, announcement and statement by mainstream parties passes through an emotional filter and is instantly discounted.

Any argument made by a mainstream party againstthe BNP are simply taken as further fuel on the fire of why that voter supports the BNP in the first place. A gut instinct impermeable to reason – “if they say it’s wrong…then it must be right!”

Much as I love the BBC, I think I’ll be sitting this particular installment of QT out.

Penalty fair?

Excuse the lacklustre pun in the blog post subject header.

It’s been a while since the last blog post – ammunition has been a little thin on the ground lately as tumbleweed rustle across the pseudo-Gothic halls of Parliament.

But as Parliamentarians limber up ahead of the new Westminster season, jogging down the tunnel and touching the “This is Anfield” sign that is party conference, something stoked me to return early to the blogosphere…no…not the Inter-Toto Cup.

Moving on from that over-stretched football metaphor, what has got my goat…? The answer – penalty fares on the train.

Having bought my return ticket from London to Shenfield with a Young Person’s Railcard concession, I felt secure in my legality as the ticket inspector approached. But I failed to produce the goods, my Young Person’s Railcard – which I had paid £25 at the start of the year – had been left in the drawer at home…”that’ll be a £20 penalty fare” the National Express employee growled.

Naturally I took the stiff-upper-lip approach and paid, but that’s not the point. As somebody under 26, why do I have to stump up cash for a railcard every year just for the privilege of getting an under 26 concession? This isn’t the case across continental Europe or on the Eurostar.

Youth fares on trains are great. They help young people out who often have less money, and encourage people to get into the habit of train (rather than car) travel at an early age, thus helping the environment. But making people pay for the right of travelling within their own age classification is surely wrong.

Rant over.

Am I just being naive? Or is this cheeky revenue raiser for the rail companies unfair?

The Republican take on the NHS

You have to feel for President Obama.

Here is what he is up against when trying to reform the American healthcare system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ulMj3SNtMI

Clearly the lovely people at ‘Club for Growth’ have overlooked the fact that Britain:

- Has a higher life expectancy than the US.

- Spends less per head on healthcare than the US.

- Is ranked 18th in the world for healthcare by the World Health Organisation whereas the US is in 73rd.

TED

Back from the Latitude Festival…holidays well and truly over until after the next General Election (whenever that may be of course!)

Quick blog today to get back into the swing of things after too much festivalling (and all that entails) and too little blogging over the last week.

Gordon Brown’s TED talk yesterday gave a taste of what more political speeches should be like – if you haven’t seen it, catch it here:

http://conferences.ted.com/TEDGlobal2009/

It was good to see the PM get the chance, for once, to flex his (considerable) intellectual muscle. The speech gave an indication of just how persuasive he can be when he deviates from his safe-zone of reeling of statistics and setting up “dividing lines” between Labour and the Tories. There was no “since 1997 (insert undeniable but over-used achievement here) in this speech.

What’s more, he’s got a point. Ahead of the Copenhagen summit in December where international governments will seek to establish a global climate agreement that can truly fight climate change, a global network of user-generated communication can drive those governments to act.

Blogged testimonies and videos of those already feeling the brunt of climate change, beamed around the world is exactly what we need to make what seems like a remote threat to many, more pressing and present now.

On a lighter note, if you get the chance, check out other TED talks at www.ted.com- particularly this one where Malcolm Gladwell talks about spaghetti sauce:

http://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce.html