Letter to a "Rising Tory Star"

Have a read of this article. [edit - article removed, but for the general outline: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/may/03/philippa-stroud-twitter]

The following is the email I just sent to Philippa Stroud: philippa@philippastroud.com. Enjoy!

"Hi Philippa,

I'm just writing to say thank you so much for your efforts leading up to the election. I read about your Christian groups and was so happy to learn that you are so commited to improving the state of the nation. I also learnt that you aren't being paid by the Conservatives, which makes it even more impressive.

As a potential Conservative voter I was looking for a party that represented my opinions and you have certainly made my decision easier. Your dillusional thought process has made it so much easier for me to make my mind up, and trust me, David Cameron will have been cringing at the revelations in the press concerning your prayer sessions to 'cure' gay people. You will certainly be having an impact on the outcome of this election, which as I mentioned before, is made even more impressive due to the fact you're not even being paid for it!

Your narrow mindedness and complete lack of awareness about what is/what is not acceptable astounds me. According to your website, what brought you into politics "was seeing the damage being done to people by a government that didn't understand what British people wanted or needed." I feel that your homophobic views have no place in British politics, and we would live in a very dangerous country if your opinions gained support. Step down Philippa, you're out of touch.

I have recently become interested in think tanks and learned that you are Director for the Centre for Social Justice. I will take every effort to campaign against you personally, and hope that my actions go someway towards your removal from British politics completely. I understand that you genuinely feel that your actions have the nation's best interests at heart, but you will undoubdetly be doing more harm than good. You are fundamentally wrong and have disgraced your party, please leave.


I feel genuinely sorry for your teenage children, but I hope they have the strength of character to not simply take everything you say to be fact. Imagine if one of them grew up to be a 'demonic' homosexual?! I hope your "thanks, but no thanks" phone call from Cameron's secretary goes well.


Good luck with your limited political future. Perhaps the BNP would welcome your opinions?


Regards,


Ben S"

Foreign Policy

Apart from the war, people in the UK seem to be demanding a focus on internal policies. I’ve been picking up for a while now that we need to concentrate on sorting out this country first, moreso than ever, but obviously we still have international obligations. Good foreign policy benefits us immensely. The Lib Dems in particular have come under criticism for a weak foreign policy, so I thought I’d give it some attention. Firstly, something that seems to have gone widely unmentioned by the media recently is David Cameron’s alliance with the Ulster Unionist Party in Northern Ireland. This will undoubtedly unsettle the peace process and is a very bad move, condemned as ‘reckless’ by Secretary of state, Shaun Woodward. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/02/david-cameron-criticised-northern-ireland

But anyway…


When it comes to standing up for England and arguing the point against the Obamas/Merkels/Sarkozys of the world, the individual personalities of the 3 leaders really comes into play. Agendas on meetings with foreign leaders are set out well in advance and Think Tanks are brought in by the political parties to discuss exactly what strategy we should adopt as a nation. Now, to be sitting on a think tank, you really have to know your stuff. Regardless of whoever’s in power, great thinkers will be putting forward well thought through ideas that will then be carefully considered and finalised by the ruling party.

So what I’m saying is, no matter which party wins, they’ll be incredibly well prepared before dealing with any situation beforehand. The thing to consider, in my opinion, is how each leader will perform off the record. There will be a certain amount of socialising going on, and as far as I’m concerned this is the real opportunity to win people over, and indeed around to our way of thinking. If two nations are at loggerheads on certain issues, there is every opportunity that deadlock could be the outcome. This will delay progress on that issue and could potentially have far more dangerous consequences. Agreed? Right.

Sometimes, the only way to solve a situation is for both leaders to give a little bit of ground, to go out of their way to smooth the situation over, even if it’s not exactly what they want. Informal talks get things moving. Situations are avoided by late-night international phonecalls… I wouldn’t even be surprised if the wives get involved. It all comes down to human politics from time to time - the way individuals react with one another. So with that in mind, how do we think the Party leaders would do?

Let’s consider an informal after dinner drinks setting that would be commonplace in the world of international politics:

Gordon Brown seems incredibly uncomfortable in front of people. The awkwardness he displays, plus and apparent lack of social awareness suggest to me that he’d always be the outsider. Dishing out inappropriately manic grins (did you see the end of the debates after his final speech?!) when he thinks things are going well and repeating the same throwaway questions over and over and over (like he did on a recent Sky News coverage of a meet and greet in Tescos) Gordon Brown wants to be Prime Minister obviously, but he’d prefer it if he could run the country from behind closed doors and didn’t have to socialise. First to leave the party with a lame excuse and poor at building any relationships that could help the UK.

I imagine Cameron to be the much better than Brown in this scenario. He has a certain amount of swagger about him and he’s probably very confident in such situations. Everything he does though, seems too staged. I wouldn’t be surprised if he brought along a group of frends (advisors) who he strategically placed in the middle of the room... He'd keep nipping back to them for input on how well he’s doing and strategy on how to get ‘in’ with his next target. I imagine he’d be one of those people who can’t help but show on their face that they're judging you. He’d let certain issues that he fundamentally disagrees with pass without argument, throwing a false smile that can, and will be picked up by the other guests. His ultimate strategy would be to get whoever he ultimately wanted to talk to into a car, whisking them away to a much quieter place so they could have a one to one. When he’d have them where he wants them, he’d probably dismiss personal space boundaries and try to put pressure on them that simply wouldn’t wash with some of the big players.

I think Nick Clegg would be visibly happy to be there, or at least he’d convince everyone that he’s happy to be there. Unlike the other 2, he’d actually listen to the other guests, rather than simply waiting for his turn to talk. He’d be true to his word, candid, but fair in his reply, and would throw out the odd joke every now and again. (He’d probably even have a shot if he was offered one!) I’d put money on Clegg staying until the end of the night, staying focussed, but letting his hair down, playing the long game and winning the trust of the other guests. He’d be charming, confident and would end up being invited to an informal breakfast meeting to iron out some issues before the following day’s formal meeting.

So, when it comes to winning the game ON the pitch, we’re in a great position. Three strong leaders who argue well and have what they believe are the nation’s best interests at heart. But, if like me you’re keen to have somebody representing our nation who can build strong international relations with the other leaders of the world which in turn would benefit the UK, Clegg seems the obvious choice.

My Take On: The Election Debates

Something that never ceases to amaze me is that when it comes to politics, 2 people can watch exactly the same speech, but hear completely contradictory things. Anyway…

These debates have been what Britain has needed to inspire the masses into political debate. Thoroughly entertaining stuff, although Sky managed to take some of the magic away. Speaking for myself, I was thinking it was ‘time for a change,’ not because I feel that New Labour have let the country down, but simply because change is a healthy way of eliminating the stagnation that will always be created if one party rules for 13 years.

There was a bit of hype about Clegg and the Lib Dems leading up to the first debate. I’ve always thought of the Lib Dems as comparable to my local low league football team: I always keep an eye out for them, but realistically they’re not going to get anywhere any time soon. “A Lib Dem vote is a wasted vote.”

Every politician performed well and I was reminded of how lucky we are to live in a society that maintains such open and fair politics. People moan about the state of UK politics (see my earlier post: ‘The Trouble With Politics’) but look at the rest of the world. We’re lucky to be born here, if you can’t realise that then fuck off to the Congo and have a rethink.

Gordon Brown had the toughest job: New Labour have recognised that the nation is demanding change and he had to persuade us that the existing party are the ones to do the job. He put forward strong arguments, but focussed on knocking Tory policies too much. He was also the only person who interrupted a bit too much, but managed to stay within the realms of appropriate conduct. Just before the final debate, he was heard (by a microphone he’d forgotten about) calling a woman “bigoted.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14f3aOC929w – don’t know about you, but his embarrassed reaction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKZU7rzwagk&feature=related actually warmed me to him.

David Cameron has received criticism for being too polished and focussing on PR… but that’s what politics is all about. It’s also not his fault that he’s from such a privileged background. You could argue that he’s ‘out of touch’ if that’s what you believe, but to dislike him because he’s rich is pathetic. He spent too much emphasis rubbishing Labour, and this continual arguing seemed to be a strange tactic for the 2 main parties to adopt. Rather than acting as point scoring, it had the opposite effect. To think of it as a point system, Brown simply took points away from the Conservatives, Cameron took points away from Labour. In turn Clegg was neatly set up to be political adjudicator, highlighting “old school politics” and why such arguing needed to stop in order to benefit the country as a whole. I didn’t like the way Cameron avoided questions from time to time.

Nick Clegg had the easiest job for the first debate being the underdog. He’d obviously considered his approach very well, and it worked. In the first debate Clegg stood casually with his hands in his pockets as the other two argued amongst each other. He repeated the names of the question askers, and made personable gestures throughout. Notably, in the final debate, he really pushed the fact that he’s ‘just like you and me.’ For example with regards to the economy, he said “I didn’t create this, YOU didn’t create it, THEY created it” He was the only politician who got nods of agreement from the people who asked the questions, and he was a bit cheeky when he forgot the rules and said “just nod if I’m right” knowing, according to the rules, that he couldn’t ask a question.

It was clear during the first debate that Clegg was winning over the audience and was backing up his charisma with fair policies - even suggesting putting political allegiances aside and getting together to sort out issues such as the pensions situation. For some reason Cameron and Brown never really had a go at pulling apart Lib Dem policies and in Brown’s closing statement he even said “Nick’s policies on the economy are too much of a risk, as are David’s” which in a subconscious manner gave credibility to Lib Dem economic policy by suggesting it was similar to that of the Conservatives.

Turns out this is the first election in a long time that a Lib Dem isn’t a wasted vote. Polls suggest that Clegg outperformed Brown and Cameron, and Lib Dem policies seemed refreshingly fair. The important factor, in my opinion, is that Clegg came across as an honest man who would stick to his word. He did not claim to have all the answers, instead he made it clear that he was open to cross party conferral on key issues and made it clear that on major issues he would call a referendum.

My only reservation is the Lib Dem’s nuclear policy. I don’t get it – I can’t see how such an ideological view that “Britain will lead the way to a nuclear weapon-free world” can be put forward as a policy in serious politics. It can’t happen. It should never happen. We need a deterrent. It’s not about getting revenge if we come under attack, it’s about stopping rogue states such as North Korea from thinking they can take over the world.


--- "For a prince should have two fears: one, internal concerning his subjects; the other, external, concerning foreign powers. From the latter he can always defend himself by his good troops and friends; and he will always have good friends if he has good troops." Niccolo Machiavelli ---

So, personally, I’d like to see the Lib Dems in power. My passion for politics has been reignited and I trust Nick Clegg to do what he believes is the right thing. I don’t think he’ll let ego get in the way of things, and feel his decisions will be well thought through and just. He won’t see calling multiple referendums as a sign of a weak parliament, and neither will we.

Oh yeh, and 90 minutes is too long without a break. It’s not too bad if you’ve got Sky+ because you can pause it to discuss issues raised etc, but if not – you’re screwed. Next year, lets have 4 x 60 minute debates. And don’t let Sky get involved. Give the opportunity to Channel 4 instead. Thanks.