Feeling sick reading newspaper reports
May. 12th, 2010 11:37 amI just read: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1277685/UK-ELECTION-2010-A-Tory-Lib-Dem-coalition-needs-luck.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
I feel almost sick. I know we're likely to disagree about what's best for the country, but I tried to evaluate the potential alliances not just for whether they did what I wanted, but if they were a sensible compromise for the parties involved, but the Daily Mail contradicts me on almost every point.
Assertions I agree with
1. Peter Mandelson is slimy
2. Nick and Dave and the new government have a difficult time ahead, and whatever we think of the election result, and I hope they continue to act honourably and competently.
3. Brown is a "deeply flawed and infuriatingly contradictory man", "the towering figure who set the Bank of England free and played the crucial role in saving the western financial system from collapse."
3 is a very very bold assertion, I don't know if I can say its true, but it's not obviously deceptively false, which is more than I hoped for in all the statements below.
4. But at least we now have a Government. And under its promising leader, it has some hope of winning Commons support for tackling our terrifying deficit.
Indeed. People violently disagree whether they stand a BETTER chance than Brown. This directly contradicts your praise in #3. But I certainly hope they DO.
Assertions I disagree with
(Leaving out more subjective ones like "Cameron is the right choice for Britain")
1. Taking five days to form a coalition is "shaming"
2. Taking five days to form a coalition is "chaos"
I mean, honestly, I don't agree with all of the deal, I'm more traditionally old labour at heart, but we seem to have a fairly effective deal between Con and Libdem put together pretty quickly. If you agree that's the case, where do you put the credit? Do you think Cameron magically saw the only possible compromise on Friday, and Clegg refused for five days just to be difficult? Apparently you do. But don't you think that a workable compromise came about BECAUSE of detailed and apparently competent negotiations, rather than inspite of them.
3. The deal is due to Cameron having "great credit" and "delivering the perfect snooker to our electoral system". He "grasped this immediately" (as opposed to what, throwing his toys out of the pram and refusing to govern? He's not going to make a coalition with any other fucking party, is he?).
4. He was "generous" in "making any concessions necessary"
I agree he seemed to make a good deal, giving up more than I expected, and giving up (mostly, with some exceptions) the right things, not the stupid stuff. But "generous" directly conflicts with your previous description of him as decisive. Make up your mind -- I think "effective" if more than I'd hoped for, and if he gets that praise, he's doing very well!
5. The only hope of a stable government was in Libdem and Con joining forces.
I agree best, but only?
6. He has "sacrificed" and "how much of his manifesto he's agreed to jetisson"
Obviously if you think Cameron is Jesus, Clegg Judas and Brown the devil you're going to lament any Con concession at all, but as I say, I don't think the changes were unreasonable, nor, as you seem to imply, ill-thought-out or wanton.
7. He may have "gone a bridge too far when he agreed to a referendum on a change to the Alternative Voting system." Which if it passes through the legislative process ("a big if") may "wreck out chance of ever having a majority government again"
Given the wider party's desire for any electoral reform, I'm sceptical that LibDem would have agreed without at least this much. Given that we've just had very successful coalition negotiations, I don't know why you're turning around and panicking at the idea of non-majority government. And AV may not necessarily make parliament very proportional: even if it loses Con votes, it may well stay an essentially three-party system for a while, which is barely worse for strong government.
8. Mr Cameron has "emerged as a statesman who was ready to put the nation's interests before those of his party." He was "alone of the three leaders".
I agree he seemed to do a good job. But seriously, you seem not to understand politics. Some parties (BNP, Raving Loony) hold policies purely for the sake of it. But LibDem actually believe in the things they want and think they WOULD be the best for the country. Clegg didn't hold out for a good deal solely in order to make your life more difficult (although honestly, I blatantly agree with anyone who DOES act solely in order to make the Daily Mail's life more difficult), nor for his party (though there's probably some of that, and I honestly doubt Cameron didn't consider what would be good for HIS party) but because he actually wanted them for the country, just like Cameron supposedly did.
For that matter, Cameron was supposedly called "lightweight" by Obama within about 12 hours. That's not terribly statesmanlike, although I hope it wasn't true. Being called lightweight by a very competent president of the US is much worse than being called lightweight by the Daily Mail.
For that matter, Brown sounded very good when he resigned. I don't know if he was personally responsible for problems with civil liberties in the last government and the coalition negotiations, but I sort of hope not. (And to be frank, surely that's the one thing the Mail would LIKE about Labour?)
9. Clegg, had "contemptibly underhand behaviour". He is "the Madame Fifi of British politics, fluttering his eyelashes at one suitor before sneaking off in secret to play footsie with another."
Um. I mean, obviously YOU agree with the Con manifesto so obviously YOU think the only reason anyone would do anything other than roll over and agree instantly to whatever they want is because they're evil. But honestly, it's actually normal for political parties, having a manifesto of X, to do what they can to achieve a maximum of X.
10. Clegg "schemed to extract every petty party-political advantage"
Obviously some of the manifestos are essentially sound-bites (eg. tax break on marriage which sounds good, but is far from the most efficient way of achieving anything positive). Others are more serious. Some you know are not actually going to happen. You claim that Clegg favoured retaining policies that sound good over ones that are actually worthwhile to achieve, and Cameron presumably the other way round. But you don't seem to actually list any. My impression is that Clegg was pretty sensible on that front, probably more so than Cameron (inevitably so because of his position, although he did well not to have ONLY trivial concessions). Citation?
11. You've only to "look at his negotiating notes ... to understand how this man's mind works."
There's a photo at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/interactive/2010/may/11/election-2010-coalition-nick-clegg. It seems to cover expected ground, but it's interesting to know what Clegg was actually considering most important. (It seems reasonable to me, assuming important issues that LibDem and Con don't actually disagree about are already covered. It also speaks against the Mail's assertions that the talks were too long, and were chaotic, if they were hammering this stuff out yesterday.)
12. Under the heading 'money', what interests him is the possibility of more government funding for the Lib Dems.
The first item was http://www.partyfundingreview.gov.uk/htms/recommendations.htm which doesn't sound unreasonable. And second, reform of funding for opposition parties, relevant if there's a more three-party system. Quite possibly Clegg wanted (or only wanted) a bigger slice of the pie for LibDem, but there's certainly no unambiguous evidence of that in the notes.
12. And under 'roles' appears the telling word: 'Me.'
Under "posts" the number of other LibDems in government and in cabinet is broken out into a second bullet point, leaving just this one. We don't know exactly what Clegg asked for, but presumably what he got. This does not seem unreasonable, it's surely the logical place for the leader of the smaller party. He COULD have stood down and only negotiated for other people to take roles in government, but that was not exactly likely. I don't think it indicates he ONLY cared about his own role, considered the final cabinet is very balanced. After all, you notice Cameron became prime minister, not stepping down in favour of any more compromise candidate like Brown. That probably wasn't necessary, but it hardly screams "Clegg is out for personal aggrandisement and Cameron isn't"
13. the 'new politics' of "which he speaks so piously?"
Implying, insincerely? Surely it's too early to tell.
14. In Brown's "last hours, he let himself be depicted as the plotter who was so desperate to cling to power that he was prepared to change our voting system without consulting the people."
Well, ok. But YOU'RE the ones depicting him like that. I mean, maybe he bears SOME responsibility for deceitful depiction, but surely it's primarily the fault of YOU, the one DOING it?
Firstly I think the proposed change to the voting system is reasonably objective. I'd object to the government doing it BADLY, but not to them doing it AT ALL. (Obviously, in fact, I agree with it.)
Secondly, Brown had already stepped down as leader of the labour party, so he was pretty much already committed to handing over power. It seems far more likely he was relieved, since labour probably could have made a coalition if he'd really really wanted to, but probably had a better chance with the option for a new leader. Maybe he wanted to cling to power at the expense of everything else, but the evidence doesnt' seem in favour of it.
15. Nightmarish problems ahead "made all the tougher by the huge differences between the Conservatives and their lightweight partners"
I agree not having been in power makes some of the LibDem policies more idealistic than practical. But the ones you list are simply the most populist policies, where even if you disagree, I'm not sure that the LibDem's Europe policy is more simplistic than the Mail's "No! No human rights! Ever!" approach, or that their immigration policy is more simplistic than "lets pick a number and stick to it" or their crime policies are more simplistic than "more bars!"
16. "Let the business of governing begin."
Yes. Very statesman-like wrapping up. But it's deceptive if you wish Clegg well after several hundred words spent slamming him.
Conclusion
I shouldn't have put myself through that. But even though I knew to expect it, I was shocked to find so many factually incorrect statements in one short article :(
I feel almost sick. I know we're likely to disagree about what's best for the country, but I tried to evaluate the potential alliances not just for whether they did what I wanted, but if they were a sensible compromise for the parties involved, but the Daily Mail contradicts me on almost every point.
Assertions I agree with
1. Peter Mandelson is slimy
2. Nick and Dave and the new government have a difficult time ahead, and whatever we think of the election result, and I hope they continue to act honourably and competently.
3. Brown is a "deeply flawed and infuriatingly contradictory man", "the towering figure who set the Bank of England free and played the crucial role in saving the western financial system from collapse."
3 is a very very bold assertion, I don't know if I can say its true, but it's not obviously deceptively false, which is more than I hoped for in all the statements below.
4. But at least we now have a Government. And under its promising leader, it has some hope of winning Commons support for tackling our terrifying deficit.
Indeed. People violently disagree whether they stand a BETTER chance than Brown. This directly contradicts your praise in #3. But I certainly hope they DO.
Assertions I disagree with
(Leaving out more subjective ones like "Cameron is the right choice for Britain")
1. Taking five days to form a coalition is "shaming"
2. Taking five days to form a coalition is "chaos"
I mean, honestly, I don't agree with all of the deal, I'm more traditionally old labour at heart, but we seem to have a fairly effective deal between Con and Libdem put together pretty quickly. If you agree that's the case, where do you put the credit? Do you think Cameron magically saw the only possible compromise on Friday, and Clegg refused for five days just to be difficult? Apparently you do. But don't you think that a workable compromise came about BECAUSE of detailed and apparently competent negotiations, rather than inspite of them.
3. The deal is due to Cameron having "great credit" and "delivering the perfect snooker to our electoral system". He "grasped this immediately" (as opposed to what, throwing his toys out of the pram and refusing to govern? He's not going to make a coalition with any other fucking party, is he?).
4. He was "generous" in "making any concessions necessary"
I agree he seemed to make a good deal, giving up more than I expected, and giving up (mostly, with some exceptions) the right things, not the stupid stuff. But "generous" directly conflicts with your previous description of him as decisive. Make up your mind -- I think "effective" if more than I'd hoped for, and if he gets that praise, he's doing very well!
5. The only hope of a stable government was in Libdem and Con joining forces.
I agree best, but only?
6. He has "sacrificed" and "how much of his manifesto he's agreed to jetisson"
Obviously if you think Cameron is Jesus, Clegg Judas and Brown the devil you're going to lament any Con concession at all, but as I say, I don't think the changes were unreasonable, nor, as you seem to imply, ill-thought-out or wanton.
7. He may have "gone a bridge too far when he agreed to a referendum on a change to the Alternative Voting system." Which if it passes through the legislative process ("a big if") may "wreck out chance of ever having a majority government again"
Given the wider party's desire for any electoral reform, I'm sceptical that LibDem would have agreed without at least this much. Given that we've just had very successful coalition negotiations, I don't know why you're turning around and panicking at the idea of non-majority government. And AV may not necessarily make parliament very proportional: even if it loses Con votes, it may well stay an essentially three-party system for a while, which is barely worse for strong government.
8. Mr Cameron has "emerged as a statesman who was ready to put the nation's interests before those of his party." He was "alone of the three leaders".
I agree he seemed to do a good job. But seriously, you seem not to understand politics. Some parties (BNP, Raving Loony) hold policies purely for the sake of it. But LibDem actually believe in the things they want and think they WOULD be the best for the country. Clegg didn't hold out for a good deal solely in order to make your life more difficult (although honestly, I blatantly agree with anyone who DOES act solely in order to make the Daily Mail's life more difficult), nor for his party (though there's probably some of that, and I honestly doubt Cameron didn't consider what would be good for HIS party) but because he actually wanted them for the country, just like Cameron supposedly did.
For that matter, Cameron was supposedly called "lightweight" by Obama within about 12 hours. That's not terribly statesmanlike, although I hope it wasn't true. Being called lightweight by a very competent president of the US is much worse than being called lightweight by the Daily Mail.
For that matter, Brown sounded very good when he resigned. I don't know if he was personally responsible for problems with civil liberties in the last government and the coalition negotiations, but I sort of hope not. (And to be frank, surely that's the one thing the Mail would LIKE about Labour?)
9. Clegg, had "contemptibly underhand behaviour". He is "the Madame Fifi of British politics, fluttering his eyelashes at one suitor before sneaking off in secret to play footsie with another."
Um. I mean, obviously YOU agree with the Con manifesto so obviously YOU think the only reason anyone would do anything other than roll over and agree instantly to whatever they want is because they're evil. But honestly, it's actually normal for political parties, having a manifesto of X, to do what they can to achieve a maximum of X.
10. Clegg "schemed to extract every petty party-political advantage"
Obviously some of the manifestos are essentially sound-bites (eg. tax break on marriage which sounds good, but is far from the most efficient way of achieving anything positive). Others are more serious. Some you know are not actually going to happen. You claim that Clegg favoured retaining policies that sound good over ones that are actually worthwhile to achieve, and Cameron presumably the other way round. But you don't seem to actually list any. My impression is that Clegg was pretty sensible on that front, probably more so than Cameron (inevitably so because of his position, although he did well not to have ONLY trivial concessions). Citation?
11. You've only to "look at his negotiating notes ... to understand how this man's mind works."
There's a photo at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/interactive/2010/may/11/election-2010-coalition-nick-clegg. It seems to cover expected ground, but it's interesting to know what Clegg was actually considering most important. (It seems reasonable to me, assuming important issues that LibDem and Con don't actually disagree about are already covered. It also speaks against the Mail's assertions that the talks were too long, and were chaotic, if they were hammering this stuff out yesterday.)
12. Under the heading 'money', what interests him is the possibility of more government funding for the Lib Dems.
The first item was http://www.partyfundingreview.gov.uk/htms/recommendations.htm which doesn't sound unreasonable. And second, reform of funding for opposition parties, relevant if there's a more three-party system. Quite possibly Clegg wanted (or only wanted) a bigger slice of the pie for LibDem, but there's certainly no unambiguous evidence of that in the notes.
12. And under 'roles' appears the telling word: 'Me.'
Under "posts" the number of other LibDems in government and in cabinet is broken out into a second bullet point, leaving just this one. We don't know exactly what Clegg asked for, but presumably what he got. This does not seem unreasonable, it's surely the logical place for the leader of the smaller party. He COULD have stood down and only negotiated for other people to take roles in government, but that was not exactly likely. I don't think it indicates he ONLY cared about his own role, considered the final cabinet is very balanced. After all, you notice Cameron became prime minister, not stepping down in favour of any more compromise candidate like Brown. That probably wasn't necessary, but it hardly screams "Clegg is out for personal aggrandisement and Cameron isn't"
13. the 'new politics' of "which he speaks so piously?"
Implying, insincerely? Surely it's too early to tell.
14. In Brown's "last hours, he let himself be depicted as the plotter who was so desperate to cling to power that he was prepared to change our voting system without consulting the people."
Well, ok. But YOU'RE the ones depicting him like that. I mean, maybe he bears SOME responsibility for deceitful depiction, but surely it's primarily the fault of YOU, the one DOING it?
Firstly I think the proposed change to the voting system is reasonably objective. I'd object to the government doing it BADLY, but not to them doing it AT ALL. (Obviously, in fact, I agree with it.)
Secondly, Brown had already stepped down as leader of the labour party, so he was pretty much already committed to handing over power. It seems far more likely he was relieved, since labour probably could have made a coalition if he'd really really wanted to, but probably had a better chance with the option for a new leader. Maybe he wanted to cling to power at the expense of everything else, but the evidence doesnt' seem in favour of it.
15. Nightmarish problems ahead "made all the tougher by the huge differences between the Conservatives and their lightweight partners"
I agree not having been in power makes some of the LibDem policies more idealistic than practical. But the ones you list are simply the most populist policies, where even if you disagree, I'm not sure that the LibDem's Europe policy is more simplistic than the Mail's "No! No human rights! Ever!" approach, or that their immigration policy is more simplistic than "lets pick a number and stick to it" or their crime policies are more simplistic than "more bars!"
16. "Let the business of governing begin."
Yes. Very statesman-like wrapping up. But it's deceptive if you wish Clegg well after several hundred words spent slamming him.
Conclusion
I shouldn't have put myself through that. But even though I knew to expect it, I was shocked to find so many factually incorrect statements in one short article :(