Lest we forget...

I have written an article in defence of the Trade Union movement here. I'd appreciate comments to bolster the article and show the target audience of the site precisely why Trade Unions are so important.

Mandy reverts to type...

News that Peter Mandelson supports the Royal Mail's hiring of 30,000 scabs to continue deliveries comes as no surprise, regardless of how much soft-soaping he gave himself at the Labour Party Conference (sorry for the mental image readers).

Anyone in any doubt as to why the Royal Mail workers should be supported should read "Roy Mayall's" excellent assessment of our postal service and see how the publicly funded Royal Mail infrastructure and workforce has been exploited by the private sector for years.

How should we consider this? Quite simply as only the most recent occurrence of the age-old tactic of politicians willingly bringing public services into disrepute amongst its 'customers' in order to improve the 'sell' of its eventual (full) privatisation. Yet another disgrace on the long, long docket of misdemeanours of this so-called Labour government.

Obama's Risky Diplomatic Strategy

For Barack Obama, the past fortnight must go down as the most bizarre of his Presidency.

On the one hand, his personal support for Chicago's Olympic bid ended up in disappointment. Cue much gloating amongst the American right, whether from grassroots organisations like Americans For Prosperity, from the Republican blogosphere, or from the buffoonish but popular commentators over at GOP mouthpiece Faux News, like Greg Gutfield...



Then, Obama is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Cue more idiotic attacks from the Gutfield over at Faux News. The prima facie argument that Obama was awarded this simply because he isn't George W. Bush is an enticing one, but erroneous.

Looking at the prize citation, there are a couple of key passages that goes some way to explaining this award:

"The Norwegian Nobel committee has decided that the Nobel peace prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples....

Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play...

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

(My emphases)

The key words here are 'international' and 'multilateral' diplomacy. While the likes of Greg Gutfield assert that "being likeable does nothing for America", this betrays Gutfield's own stark ignorance of how international diplomacy works in the current geo-political climate rather than provide any relevant truth into the workings of global relations.

Since taking power, Obama has had to work hard in an attempt to rebrand America in the post-Bush era. This is evidenced by his aforementioned Olympic bid support, made increasingly public towards the end of the bidding process perhaps against his better judgment, or his recent demand of his defence staff to review their nuclear weapons doctrine, and subsequent personal support and involvement the nuclear non-proliferation issue in the UN.

These have been typical of the diplomatic approach of his Administration - it truly is his diplomacy; he is very often the public face of American diplomacy, whereas the Bush Administration was typified by the various neo-con hawks sent to international institutions to provided political cover for Dubya, the likes of John Bolton (UN), Paul Wolfowitz (World Bank), Colin Powell (UN to make the case for the Second Iraq War), or to provide the mouthpieces for Bush policy, like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.

Clearly, Obama's great personal charisma, background and oratorical skills make him better able to present America's message to the world than the verbally clumsy second Bush.

However, in large part, Obama has also been forced into playing the diplomatic cards dealt to him by his predecessor and his coterie of advisors.

Broadly speaking, there are four key areas that determine how all politicians, regardless of nationality or ideology, try and wield influence internationally; through economics, military/intelligence operations, propaganda (e.g. public diplomacy, psychological operations and other forms of strategic communications), and statecraft.

Through the well known policy decisions and outright mistakes made in the Clinton and Bush II Administrations, whether informed by a lack of foresight or sheer arrogance, in the fields of economics, war-making and propaganda, statecraft is the only card Obama has left to play in the hopes that, over time, his leadership can rehabilitate the other areas once he is established as an honest broker.

However, this highly personal approach has two problems. Bush-era 'international' communications were actually aimed primarily towards domestic American audiences, to make the case for the so called Long War; such distinctions between 'international' and 'domestic' in the area of communications as redundant as such distinctions in other areas of politics and economics.

However, in attempting to mend fences abroad, Obama leaves himself open to criticism that either his approach is too soft to be effective abroad or, as the Gutfield videos demonstrate, that he is taking his eyes off the ball at home.

It's a fine line he has been forced to walk, but one he must walk nonetheless despite the criticisms of a hostile, perhaps nihilistic Republican Party.

Collective consumerism; Will the penny drop for politics?

It never ceases to amaze me how short people's memories really are.

But it would seem that in the contemporary mania for the ‘new’, there is still space for older ideas to resurface and grab the public attention, albeit that the proponents of these ideas wouldn’t dare call them anything but ‘new’.
An exemplar of this is the current vogue for so called ‘buying clubs’.

As the ABC link says, “The clubs work on the premise of power in numbers,” so ensuring their members discounts when they reach the checkout. According to Forestdale Solutions, buying clubs are “a new and unique initiative”.

To anyone with any historical perspicacity, however, they clearly aren’t.
In a recent Guardian report, their consumer expert ‘The Negotiator’, took readers through the mechanics of setting up and operating a buying club:

Set-up for success
Form a group with friends or business associates so everyone can easily keep up to date – using something like Yahoo groups makes this very easy to do. Make clear rules on how the group will operate, for example, consider how you will pay the retailer (individually or as a group) and whether you will put the money in a kitty prior to starting negotiations.

Hmmmm… sounds very much like how a Trade Union works, doesn’t it? Indeed, sounds very much like how a voter-led democracy works – just that the power lies in ballots, not wallets.

But there’s more…

Negotiator patter
Your chosen negotiator should prepare his or her attention-grabbing opening statement to deliver to your chosen retailer, keeping in mind the object is to show what is in it for them. Be polite and friendly, but make sure you don't let the salesperson feel that you would all purchase from them regardless of gaining a discount – the biggest weapon in the negotiator's armoury is the power to choose where to buy…
When a price is quoted or an objection made – for example, "The price advertised is the best we can offer" – use your research to your advantage. You could counter, "We notice you and retailer B have an extensive range to choose from. Each of us was intending to spend around £250. Initially we were buying independently across several stores, but I suggested clubbing together, offering you a minimum of £2,500 of trade while we get a more favourable deal. Would you be interested?"
You are saying the same message differently (many discounts occur after you ask the question two or three times), but emphasising the high stakes involved and adding the personal touch.
The incentive could be price, but also accessories or delivery, installation or the assembly of products.
You may be surprised by how easy it is to get a discount, but if the first retailer you try doesn't budge you must move on to the next.

Yep, sounds just like how collective bargaining on behalf of the members of a trade union, or how motivated constituency members can hold their MPs to account.

But then for over 30 years we have, in the main, had naught told to us by the political elites but the supposed evils of socialism and trades unions, and the primacy of the individual, creating a body politic whose mantra is “Why should I vote? My vote counts for nothing.”

Yet, if the rise of ‘buying clubs’ shows anything, it is that the very old and very true idea that collectives achieve greater benefits more for its individual members than atomized individuals going it alone is alive and well. All that is required for a reinvigoration of our domestic politics is for the realisation to hit that what is working, now, for consumers will also work for voters. It always has and, despite the best efforts of Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown to convince us otherwise, it always will.

Sorry I've been away...

I've been away for the past month on holiday and moving back to the UK from South Korea where I've spent the past year.

Now I'm back, and fully immersed in our politics again, I hope to jack up the content of the blog.

Thanks for you patience.

As an aside, I've also started writing for a politics website aimed at 18 to 25 year olds, The Vibe. I think it's a great site full of dedicated, engaged contributors and I'd encourage everyone to check it out.

More NHS-bashing filth from Faux News....

Now the line is that to implement universal health care is to open a society up to terrorism...



Utterly, utterly disgraceful, xenophobic, misrepresentative trash from this Murdoch channel.

This isn't journalism; this isn't even bad journalism.

This is pure partisan political propaganda, and proves once again that Faux News is a cancer on the journalistic profession and society as a whole.

(Hat tip to a good friend of mine for passing on the video).

Cameron distances himself from Daniel Hannan's NHS attack...

BUT, signally fails to rebuke him. I just wonder whether, at this moment, he wishes the odious Hannan would disappear.

Details and videos available here.