The New Politics of Asylum

After the welcome announcement that the Lib-Con Coalition intended to end the detention of child asylum seekers in prison-like facilities such as Dungavel, (and the climb-down over time scales), we might be seeing a glimpse of how this issue is going to be dealt with. It could be rather bad news as regards the future of immigration policy in the UK and EU.

Last week, the EU agreed, in principle, to various member states setting up reintegration centres in Afghanistan. The centre planned by the UK Border Agency will be based in Kabul, with the facilities to handle 12 deported orphans per month and assistance for 120 deported adults per month. This would represent a massive step up in the numbers of asylum seekers being deported to Afghanistan.

It is worth remembering that Afghanistan is still an active warzone with a high degree of political instability and considerable problems with warlords, rape, murder and general human rights breaches. It is unlikely that British or NATO troops will exit Afghanistan in the near future without chronically destabilising the country. The idea that Afghanistan is safe to return asylum seekers to en mass is obscene and shows a lack of compassion or decency in the minds of our policy makers.

While initially, this is only going to apply to Afghanistan, I am concerned that it might open the doors to further similar projects in other countries. Many of the asylum seekers and immigrants from outside of Europe are here for genuine reasons and will face death or worse if they return to their original countries, something which this initial policy does not seem to take into account. Even with the recession, we should not be valuing the  wealth of state or the appeasement of the right above the value of a human life.

The Red Pill or The Blue Pill

The Liberal Democrats are in a historic position. The choices they make over the next few days will set the political agenda for years to come.

Should they go into coalition with Labour, Plaid, the SDLP, Alliance and the Greens, they will be lambasted by the right for propping up an unpopular government who helped to place the UK at the heart of the economic crisis. This rainbow coalition would be forced to make some of the most sweeping cuts in British history, tarring both Labour and the Lib Dems.

The idea that such a coalition would last four to five years is fantasy. Sooner of later, there would be a sufficiently large rebellion which would manage to either pass or nearly pass a vote of no confidence. If indications from John Reid, Tom Harris and David Cairns are anything to go by, the rebellion would likely be over a referendum on implementing a  single-member constituency single transferable vote election system. It is even possible that some of those who are more resolute in their opposition to coalition and on the right of the Labour party, such as Tom Harris, could defect.

Either way, I would suggest that the long-term outcome of such a parliament would be a Tory majority in the next election, a slashed Lib Dem vote share and Labour heading to the political wilderness.

The alternative is coalition with Tories. This has the potential for the creation of a stable government which would require the whole of the Lib Dem parliamentary party to cross the benches in order to pass a vote of no confidence. However, the Lib Dems face both a voter rebellion and a grassroots rebellion if they support the Tories. Over the past few days, I’ve seen Lib Dem voters, mainly young people, go through various stages of anger and disappointment at the positive progress made between the Tories and the Lib Dems in coalition talks. This is just a taste of what could happen.

The Tories would also face a backlash against the ‘age of austerity’ promised by David Cameron, as cuts begin to fall across all areas of government. That could usher in either another hung parliament in the future or a Labour government. They’d also face alienating the right of their party by making concessions to the Lib Dems. Lord Tebbit has already positioned himself as a cheerleader on that matter, and no doubt figures such as the US-style neo-con MEP Dan Hannan will be able to rally voters against coalition.

And which option is best for the United Kingdom?

Truthfully, neither of them. Like the Lib Dems, the UK is stuck either way. There isn’t a right answer, just two wrong ones.

And what of the the SNP and Scotland? Well, the party has made it clear that coalition with the Tories is not an option. Douglas Alexander, Tom Harris, Jim Murphy and others within Labour have rather foolishly made it clear that they are unwilling to work with the SNP at all. No doubt this will have repercussions, when, in just under a year, we elect a new Scottish Parliament.

Tory Candidate In Western Isles Gaffe

This isn’t the sort of post I’d normally make because it is, quite honestly, putting the boot into a young candidate who has a good chance of losing her deposit, but I know I have a few readers who are familar with the Isles and will no doubt be tickled by the reference.

From the Hebrides News website:

The prospective Tory general election candidate for the Western Isles has made a hugely embarrassing gaffe by backing a spoof harbour in a landlocked village.

Conservative hopeful Sheena Norquay confusingly insists that developing the fictional port at Achmore in the middle of the barren Lewis moor is a top priority.

The 22-year-old hopeful unexpectedly stressed one of the main island issues is “the building of the harbour wall at Achmore.”

However, the policy is a complete nonsense as no such harbour exists.

Achmore is a dry land village is located in the centre of Lewis, surrounded by hills and moor, and is the furtherest inhabited community in the Hebrides from the sea.

It has the distinction of being the only Western Isles community not located on the coast and the island’s TV transmitter mast  is sited on its high terrain.

According to the article, Ms Norquay was brought up in Aberdeenshire and is a final year student at St Andrews. I do actually feel quite sorry for her, because she is, in every way the token candidate, with the Tories only polling 610 votes in 2005. I wonder if she’ll even be able to get the benefits of working an election campaign given her University commitments?

It does also, of course, illustrate why parties shouldn’t parachute in candidates who aren’t familiar with the area, as Labour have found out in Liverpool, where the PPC has not gone down well with the locals and may even have prompted a Socialist Labour backlash led by actor Ricky Tomlinson.

On Leaders’ Wives, Leaders’ Mums and The Mumsnet Vote

One of the themes of the election, which will no doubt provide Dennis Kavanagh with some food for thought should he decide to author the now-traditional academic analysis of the British General Election without his retired partner David Butler, is the introduction of the Leaders’ Wives, along with the the rest of the family, to the election foray.

I don’t think that it’s possible to actually press the blame on to any one person for starting this decent into banality. The press almost certainly take part of the responsibility, with vapid articles regarding the dress and career choices of Samantha Cameron and Sarah Brown. I suspect that Sarah Brown and Cherie Blair must also take some of the responsibility, with both familiar with PR and more then willing to step into the lime-light. The spin-doctors and strategists are also to blame, with the deployment of “the secret weapon” as David Cameron put it, suggesting that his wife is seen simply as an accessory to his political success rather then a career woman in her own right.

This type of politics, if you can even call it that, is demeaning to all involved. It makes assumptions about voters judging politicians on their home life, their childhood and their spouses. It is a simple attempt to avoid policy and to allow the voting public to be treated like idiots. It panders to the gutter press, who likewise, treat the public like idiots rather then fulfilling their role as the third estate.

I also think it is incredibly demeaning to the various women involved. At worse, they appear reduced to objects and at best they reinforce a horrifically traditional male-centric view of politics: “Let the men talk darling, you sit there and look happy/tearful/proud. Maybe make a supportive comment if the nice man asks you.” Of course, partners should be supportive of each other, but they should also be recognised for their own achievements, as Cherie Blair was, and for their own political opinions, as Sally Bercow is. They should not be reduced to political tools.

There are too few women in politics today, and it is no wonder if this is the message that our political leaders want us to see.

This is not being helped by the idea of “the Mumsnet vote”.

This is a concept which has been latched on to by the three main parties. It’s based around the average user of the Mumsnet web forum, which from what I’ve read, is largely middle-class mothers who are floating voters.

There is nothing wrong (as some commentators have complained) with seeking votes from this group, after all, middle-class mothers make up a large portion of the UK population and appealing to the Mumsnet member means appealing to a group beyond that one small corner of the internet. What is wrong is the methods by which parties are attempting to gain these votes – proving themselves to be dedicated fathers in fairy-tale marriages rather then putting forward policies on issues which are relevant to mothers.

If I was in that target group, I certainly wouldn’t be considering who to vote for on the basis of parenting qualifications. I would also be slightly annoyed that I was being taken for an idiot. I suspect I might want to know what exactly Brown and Cameron were planning on doing to improve neo-natal care, early years education and the tax credit system.

The methods being used to seek votes in this election campaign are truly poisonous. Politics should not be about personality, it should be about policy. It does not matter if a leader is a clunking fist or an Eton toff, it matters what their party believes is right for the NHS, the education system and defence. All I can say is that I’m very glad to be living in an area of the UK where politicians have both personality and policy rather then just personality.

David Cameron’s “Patriotism” Rhetoric

David Cameron opened a dangerous can of worms in his conference speech. By claiming that it is his patriotic duty to oust Gordon Brown, Cameron makes an arrogant and powerful statement.

However, the sentiment can be interpreted a number of ways. One of those which may well come back to bite Cameron is that he is anti-Scottish, seeing it as his duty as a Briton or an Englishman to out the lumpen, alien Scot. No doubt Labour will be able to make use of this in their election leaflets.

More importantly, Cameron is trying to line himself up as a British nationalist, trying to unite the UK behind him. This won’t work.

Year on year, the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey shows that the majority of Scots consider themselves to be Scottish rather then British when forced to pick one identity to describe themselves. When given the choice of Scottish Not British, Scottish More Then British, Equally British and Scottish, British More Then Scottish and British Not Scottish, there is still a majority for Scottish Not British and Scottish More Then British. Similar but less polarised results can be seen in Wales as well.

Baring in mind that a whopping 80% of the country call themselves Scottish, Cameron even risks alienating his own supporters by invoking patriotism. What’s good for parties like the SNP and Plaid (and even Labour which has been known to use Scottish nationalist rhetoric on occasion) isn’t going to be good for the Tories