Keep the Change

Everywhere you look these days, there are politicians promising you "change".  In the 2008 Democratic Presidential primary campaign, Hilary Clinton was "Working for Change", then "Ready for Change".  I guess she didn't work quite hard enough, or possibly she just wasn't ready, because she lost  to Barack Obama.   Obama in turn offered Americans "Change We Can Believe In".  He must have realized that nobody actually did believe in it, because the slogan itself was the first thing he changed; first it was "Change We Need", then "Change can Happen".  Many things happen, of course, including some you wouldn't want to have likened to your candidacy,  so Obama then offered us "Change that Works for You".

Congressional Republicans weren't to be outdone.  They countered with "The Change You Deserve."  It was an odd slogan for a party that had controlled the White House for 8 years, all the more so when it was revealed that the slogan was already in use - appropriately enough, some may say - in marketing a powerful anti-depressant drug.  At least in the ensuing election Americans did get "the change they deserved".  The Republican were overwhelmingly defeated and Democrats regained control of both the White House and Congress.

Across the pond, David Cameron and the Tories pronounced 2010 as "The Year for Change",  assured voters they were "Ready for Change" and exhorted them to "Vote for Change".  The Lib-Dems also jumped on the "change" bandwagon.  But rather than waste time and money  to come up a novel twist on the old theme Clegg at al shamelessly lifted Obama's "Change that Works for You" and tacked on the clumsy non-sequitur "Building a Fairer Britain.  I think it's a pretty sad state of affairs when politicians promising "change" can't even come up with an original slogan.

In the event, fewer voters than they hoped took them up on the offer, but the failure of either major party to gain an outright majority propelled the Lib-Dems into a coalition with the Tories.  "Change that Works for Us" might have been a more appropriate slogan.

But with the formation of the coalition, all that talk about "change" took on a new dimension.  The Tories and Lib-Dems, we were told, represented not just a new government but a "new kind of politics".  Does anyone seriously believe this nonsense?  The coalition is not a new kind of politics, at least not one that has any merit or longevity.  It is an interim arrangement borne of necessity that will last only as the Tories determine that it's in their interests to keep it going.  And regardless how long it does last, you can bet that the Tories won't be fighting the next election asking voters to return the coalition to power, new politics or no new politics.

The talk about "a new kind of politics" is intended to evoke images of greater transparency, less partisanship, greater accountability. Nick Clegg may be naive enough to believe in this, but his boss David Cameron certainly doesn't.  Although these are still early days, two recent incidents show that, for Cameron, it's strictly politics as usual - and politics of the worst conceivable kind.  Politics Tony Blair style.

The first example was Cameron's clumsy effort to rig the election for Chairman of the 1922 Committee, the committee of Tory back bench MPs that acts as a conduit between the leadership and rank-and-file MPs.   Cameron demanded that Ministers, contrary to tradition, be allowed to vote in the election.  His assumption presumably was that ministers would show their loyalty to the man who had given them their jobs by supporting his favored candidate.   But his high-handedness provoked anger from many back benchers already dissatisfied over policy concessions (albeit few in number) that Clegg had been able to extract in negotiating the coalition agreement. One MP described Cameron's tactics as a "mafia stitch-up"; another likened him to Robert Mugabe.  Cameron was forced to back down, and his candidate for Chairman was handily beaten by right-winger Graham Brady.  It was the worst possible outcome for Cameron.   It strengthened opposition to him in the parliamentary party and virtually assured defeat for his candidate.

They say that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it; the 1922 Committee fiasco was reminiscent of Tony Blair's attempt, shortly after taking office, to oust popular Labour backbench MPs Donald Anderson and Gwyneth Dunwoody as chairmen of two Commons select committees.  It triggered a revolt within the parliamentary party, and Blair was forced to back down.  Cameron, like Blair, appears to be afraid of dissent and intent on stifling potential opposition from within his own ranks, but hasn't figured our that respect, even from his own rank and file, has to be earned.  Or perhaps he just shares Blair's view that a "parliamentary democracy" is one in which parliament has to account to the government, rather than vice versa.

The second, even more baffling example occurred this week, when Cameron refused to allow a government minister to appear on the long-running weekly BBC discussion programme "Question Time".  The BBC is scrupulously careful in ensuring each panel includes a representative from each of the major parties.  On this occasion, Labour were to be represented by former Blair spin doctor Alastair Campbell.  When this came to Cameron's attention, the BBC were informed that unless the BBC replaced Campbell with a member of the shadow cabinet, the government would not allow any of its ministers to appear.  The BBC rightly refused to withdraw Campbell's invitation and the government boycotted the show.  The BBC then arranged, independent of Downing Street, for a Tory MP to participate.  Again, the worst possible outcome for Cameron.  After attempting unsuccessfully to bully the 1922 Committee he is now exposed as having attempted to bully, equally unsuccessfully the BBC. 

So this is the "new kind of politics"?  The "Change that Works for Us"?  The fact of the matter is that politicians who promise "change" insult the intelligence of the electorate.  Some change is good, but change for its own sake rarely is.  It's also a disingenuous tactic; it invites voters to make assumptions about what the party or candidate will do, without really promising anything.  A campaign slogan should say something about the party's underlying philosophy. It should tell voters what the party fundamentally stands for. "Change" is not a philosophy, and a party or politician that has to fall back on empty slogans like this either has no real philosophy (put Obama's name in that column) or just doesn't want the voters to know what it is.  Labour's slogan, "A Future Fair For All", may not have been the most artful, but at least it said something about the party.

I hope we've seen the last of this obsession with "change".   The next time one of these meaningless, tired and vacuous slogan is dragged out I hope the voters tell whoever's using it, in no uncertain terms, "Please - Keep the Change."

POSTSCRIPT - Shortly after this was posted, the Daily Telegraph reported that the second-ranking Lib-Dem Cabinet minister, David Laws, has announced his intention to repay $60,000 in "expenses" that he claimed in violation of parliamentary rules.  The improper claims were for rental accommodation in London.  In fact, Mr. Laws was residing with, and purportedly paying "rent" to. his long-term male partner.  Members are not entitled to claim as expenses rental paid to families and partners.  Mr. Laws apparently also failed initially to document claims for utilities and maintenance.  Mr Laws, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, denies being motivated by financial gain and claims he was simply trying to keep his relationship with the man secret.  So why did he claim the expenses in the first place?  Interestingly, David Laws was the minister penciled in to appear on Question Time before Cameron's decision to boycott the show.  Could it be that the Tory-friendly Daily Telegraph had tipped off Cameron's office that the Laws story was about to break and Cameron was more concerned that Laws would be ambushed by a question about his expenses than he was about the appearance of Alastair Campbell?  Nobody caught with his hand in the public till should be permitted to occupy any public post,  let alone as a senior Treasury Minister.  Laws needs to go - today. 

Hypocrite of the Week

Kudos to former Bush White House operative Karl Rove.  By Tuesday he had already comfortably locked up the Hypocrite of the Week Award.

The Republican hatchet-man turned Fox"News" commentator (is there actually any difference?) took to the airwaves yesterday demanding that a special prosecutor be appointed to investigate Republican allegations that President Obama violated Federal anti-bribery laws by offering Congressman Joe Sestak an administration post so he would not challenge incumbent Arlen Specter in the recent Pennsylvania Democratic Senatorial primary.  Sestak declined the offer and went on to beat the 80-year old Specter, a long-time professional politician, who had switched parties barely a year earlier to run as a Democrat after it became apparent he would be challenged in, and likely lose, the Republican primary. There's a man of principle for you.

When he switched parties, Specter extracted the agreement of Obama and the state party apparatus to support his re-election bid.  It was Sestak himself who revealed that the Obama administration had offered him an unspecified position to clear the way for Specter in the primary.  Obama's support for Specter turned out (predictably) to be less than fulsome, at least when he saw the opinion polls moving in Sestak's favor.  Sestak's victory is great news for the Democratic rank and file; they should be able to select their party's candidate in a free and fair election; they shouldn't have to settle for an aging political turncoat foisted on them by the party brass.  And Sestak, 20 years Specter's junior,  is exactly the kind of Senatorial candidate the Democrats should be looking for.  He is a former 3-star Navy admiral and Director of Defense Policy on Bill Clinton's National Security Council,  a compelling resume for the candidate of a party that the chicken-hawk Republicans like to smear as being "weak on defense". 

Obama's attempt to fix the primary doesn't look good - although he would justify it on the basis that he needed every Senate vote he could muster to pass health insurance legislation.  But the assertion that Obama violated criminal anti-bribery statutes is ludicrous even had it come from someone who understands what ethics is and knows the difference between politics and criminality, i.e., someone other than Karl Rove.  It is well accepted that the President has a broad discretion in picking senior administration staff.  We don't know what job Sestak was offered, but he would have been a first rate candidate for a top job at Defense, or a position on the National Security Council.  But where was Rove's concern about the anti-bribery statute when the Bush Administration was handing out public jobs, including plum ambassadorial posts, to political cronies and deep-pocket contributors who had little or no qualifications?  And Rove himself was the central figure in a series of Bush era ethics violations and scandals.  He was one of those involving in leaking, in violation of U.S. law, the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, apparently in a mean-spirited act of retaliation attack after her husband Ambassador Joe Wilson publicly debunked Administration lies that Saddam Hussein was attempting to purchase uranium in Niger.  Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby was sentenced to jail after being convicted of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements.  (His buddy Bush commuted the sentence.  All criminals should have friends in such high places.)  Rove himself was  investigated for perjury after e-mail evidence indicated that he had "forgotten" to disclose key information to a grand jury investigating the affair.  Rove was also linked with the Bush Administration's decision to fire seven U.S. Attorneys for no reason other than their perceived lack of loyalty to the Bush crowd, an unprecedented political interference by the White House in the Federal justice system.

Karl Rove epitomizes everything that is bad about American politics; he is a cynical political operative apparently lacking any moral or ethical compass; a shadowy character, never elected to office, who nonetheless exercised enormous power and did so for purely partisan political purposes; someone who believes that might makes right and that the ends always justify the means.  A man with no respect for, and little apparent understanding of, the Constitution.   He's right at home on Fox News where, as in war, truth is always the first casualty.

If Barack Obama were ever in need of refresher course in ethics-in-government, Karl Rove would be the last person he should turn to.

The Sound of Silence

A couple of weeks ago I did something I hadn't done in a quarter of a century, and to be honest never thought I would do again. I bought a vinyl LP, or "record" as we used to call them.

In my youth, that would have been an inconsequential event, certainly nothing worth writing about.  But in this case it was one small step in what became an unexpectedly complicated and time consuming process, but one that brought back many memories. 

It all began when I was reunited with the turntable I had bought some thirty years back.  It's a venerable Pioneer PL-518 direct drive unit, which still seems to command quite a decent price on eBay.  Direct drive turntables were revolutionary in their day; because the motor drives the platen directly, no belts were required and this in theory eliminated the speed fluctuation that could occur with a belt drive turntable, especially as the belt became worn. 

But there were problems.  The first was that I needed to replace the spring loaded feet, because the rubber housings that attached to feet to the underside of the deck and held the springs in place had torn.  Finding a solution required several hours of Internet research.  But in the process, the memories started to return; it's essential to ensure that a turntable is acoustically isolated from any vibration (hence the original spring loaded feet).  For a few dollars I was able to buy some silicone rubber feet designed for just this purpose ("Vibrapods", they're called) and attached them to the original feet to replicate the effect of the springs.  I have to admit, I was pretty pleased with myself.

So now I'm ready to rediscover the sound that music buffs (and I make no pretense to be one) claim is "warmer" that the digital recordings of today.  But then came the next, and rather fundamental, problem.  Although I have been reunited with my turntable, I still don't have my old vinyl collection back.  Rather than wait, I decided a trip to the Princeton Record Exchange was in order.  It's a local institution that specializes in used albums and CDs, and it's a great place to pick up used vinyls for a few dollars.  As I browsed the shelves, I noticed several things that hadn't struck me on prior visits.  First, the vast majority of people in the store were looking exclusively at the vinyl racks.  Second, among the well worn album covers was a decent selection of brand new items - new releases, re-releases - selling in many cases at a premium over the price of a CD.  There were some bargains though. I was able to pick up a new re-release of a Coltrane collection for only $10 and headed home to try it out.

But then I began to have  doubts.  I had no idea what condition the stylus was in.  It had last been replaced about 20 years ago, and I hesitated to risk my brand new LP on a bad stylus.  I decided it prudent to invest in a new one.  But further Internet research revealed that my cartridge (the housing into which the stylus fits, and which transforms the vibrations from the stylus into an electro-magnetic signal) had long since been discontinued.  I found a company in Japan that made a replacement, but it was expensive and I wasn't sure about the quality.  Reluctantly, I decided I would have to get a new cartridge.  Well, I say "reluctantly", but truth to tell I was starting to enjoy what had become a voyage of re-discovery.  And then my luck turned.  I found a website specializing in everything to do with LP technology.  They were offering a "special" on a Shure cartridge (the same brand as the old one); the cost, including stylus, was less than the price of the Japanese stylus.  In addition, it had something called  a "dynamic stabilizer".  I have no idea what that a dynamic stabilizer is - my old cartridge didn't have it - but it sounded pretty nifty.  How could I resist?

Because I didn't spring for the express shipping, it took over 2 weeks for the new cartridge to arrive, but it was worth the wait.  Beautifully packaged in a metal case, with its toolkit of miniature screwdriver and brush, it bespoke quality, craftsmanship, even  (ironically) high tech.  So I set about installing it.  I changed a good many cartridges in my youth, but in my youth my eyesight was much better and my hand a lot steadier.  Mounting the cartridge in the head shell with the tiny mounting screws and nuts took me a long while, but eventually it was done.  Then I noticed something in the box I had previously missed - a small rectangular piece of cardboard covered with grid lines and a hole in one end.  It was the "cartridge alignment protractor".  This was a new one on me, and I searched the instructions in vain for any reference to it.  Again, I turned to the Internet and ascertained that the "cartridge alignment protractor" is designed to help align the cartridge head precisely with the groove in the record.  It seemed close enough.

Having mounted the new cartridge I had to re-set the tracking weight to comply with the specifications for the cartridge - I remembered how to do that  - and the anti-skate force.  I switched the turntable on, and with the aid of the stroboscope (see pic) I adjusted the speed to exactly (OK, more or less) 33.3 RPM.  Finally the PL-518 was ready to resume service.

Attaching the turntable to my entertainment system was no easy matter - it involved moving the unit all of the equipment is mounted on to access the rear of the receiver and untangling the spaghetti-like cables that connect all the components together.  My amplifier/receiver isn't exactly new - 20 years old maybe, but still functioning perfectly - but even a unit of that vintage was built for the post-LP era and it doesn't have a "Phono" jack.  No problem, I thought.  There were a couple of empty inputs, so I connected the turntable to one of those.  I then carefully placed the LP on the platen, delicately lowered the stylus onto the LP, sat back and began to enjoy . . . silence.

The sense of disappointment was almost overwhelming. Then I began to think logically about it and more memories began to emerge from the mists of time.  I recalled that a turntable using a magnetic cartridge transmits a lower signal than a CD player, tape deck or other audio device.  A "Phono" input amplifies the signal to levels comparable to that of the other devices, but if you connect a turntable directly to a standard input the signal is virtually inaudible.  In order to use a non-amplified input I needed to get a "pre-amp".  After a consultation with my son, who happens to be a sound engineer and musician as well as a vinyl aficionado, I returned to the Internet to check out the available equipment.  I was momentarily disconcerted to find that some pre-amps cost upwards of $2,000, but I was able to find something that seems to do exactly what I want for the more modest sum of $30.   I placed the order.   And that's where the story ends, at least for now.  I am waiting for the pre-amp to arrive, but with every confidence that it is the final piece in the jigsaw.

But that really isn't the point of the article.  This process (on one of those TV reality shows, they would probably call it a "journey") made me wonder why they're still even making vinyl recordings.   Apparently sales of LPs are actually increasing, whereas CDs are declining.  I find this encouraging because it's is an entirely consumer-driven trend.  When did you last see an add on TV for vinyl LPs or turntables?  (Turntables are still made, of course, though surprisingly some manufacturers have reverted to belt-driven technology.)  So what is the enduring appeal?  Many will say that vinyls just sound better - warmer, and truer to the original.  For the same reason, the true "high end" amplifiers these days seem to be "tube amps", which most of us thought had be rendered obsolete by the transistor.

But I think in a perverse way the enduring appeal of the vinyl medium lies in part in its sheer inconvenience.

I made the transition to CDs at an early stage and for a good many years enjoyed their convenience and durability, as well as the greater dynamic range that digital music provides. But, let's face it:  at the end of the day CDs are also a real hassle.  First, to obtain a CD you have to schlep over to the record store and buy it, which could take an hour or more, and that's assuming they actually have it in stock.  Alternatively, you could order on line but then you have to wait for 3 days, maybe longer, to get it.  When you want to play it you have to locate the correct plastic case, hope the CD is actually in it (rather than in the entertainment system in the car or a different case), then bend down to put it in the player, which in my case is at ankle height.   It's just too much trouble.  I now keep all my music in digital form on my computer and when I want something new I download it from the iTunes store.  They have my credit card information on file - it couldn't be simpler.  With a couple of taps on my laptop keypad I can send music from any computer in the house streaming wirelessly to my stereo system.  If I can't be bothered to think about which songs to play or in what order, no problem; the Mac will decide for me.  And if I can't be bothered to walk across the room to get my computer, I can open the app on my iPhone and accomplish the same thing.  Yes, it's all so easy; maybe too easy.  We tap the keyboard and forget about it.  Sometimes I don't even notice when the music has finished, or when Mac has moved on from Bowie to Beethoven.

Vinyl technology engages the listener from start to finish;  placing records on the turntable; lowering the stylus, flipping the record at the end of Side 1 and making sure the tone arm retracts properly at the end.  The fragility of the vinyl form demands that it be handled with care, even reference.  We can take pleasure not only in the music itself but also in the artistry of the album cover, the detail of the liner notes; even the sight of the LP rotating slowly on the turntable.  For me, tinkering with my old turntable also brought back memories of events long ago; like those earnest late-night discussions about which speakers or cartridge produced the best sound; or searching the racks at the cramped back-street record shop in Cambridge that sold wonderful and hard to find Supraphon recordings from Czechoslovakia.

The worst - or was it maybe the best? - thing about the old-fashioned "stereo system", as we called it in those days, was that it was only as good as its weakest link, whether it was the turntable, the cartridge, the amp or the speakers.  There was always a piece that had to be upgraded (which in turn created a new weakest link).  So there was always a reason to stay in touch with the the new products. That was part of the fun. I certainly wasn't an expert in he technology,  but I grasped the concepts.  I enjoyed that part of it.  But looking back, I realize that my interest in the technology ended with the purchase of my first CD player.  I never really figured out how shining a bright light at a plastic disk could produce sound, and the fact that it was all "digital" led me to conclude that a CD player was a CD player - period. It was much the same when I bought my first digital camera.

For those who want the convenience of digital music, downloads are the way to go.  MP3 is a better medium for storing digital music and if you ever need to have it on a disk, you can always "burn" one from the computer.  The medium really at risk is the CD.   My layman's prediction is that vinyl will live on, as a niche market for audiophiles and those who just appreciate all the "stuff" that goes with it, long after the last commercial CD has been pressed.  Twenty five years ago, who could ever have imagined it?

Class Act

Surprise, surprise. The royals are in the headlines again, and as usual for the wrong reasons.

This time it's Sarah Ferguson, a/k/a the Duchess of York, caught on tape accepting cash from a tabloid reporter posing as a foreign businessman.  She thought that the $40,000 she greedily stuffed into her purse was an advance on a $500,000 grease payment for introducing the "businessman" to her former husband Prince Andrew, Britain's roving trade ambassador  - and better known to readers of the tablloid press as "AirMiles Andy".  "Take care of me", she assured the News of the World journalist, "and Andrew will take care of you." 

After the news of the scandal broke, Ferguson promptly issued a statement stressing how "devastated" she was.  And I'll bet she was devastated.  The avaricious Duchess had just seen $500,000 slip through her fingers. The royal spin machine immediately cranked into action assuring the world that Prince Andrew had absolutely no knowledge of his former wife's attempt to sell access, while friends of the Duchess rushed to her defense, complaining she had been entrapped by a sleazy journalist.  Some even justified her attempt to cash in on her royal connections, reminding us that, to quote the vulgar Duchess herself, she "doesn't have a pot to piss in". How else can she be expected to make ends meet?

This certainly isn't the first time the classless Ferguson has provided fodder for the British tabloids.  After all, who can forget the occasion when - while still married to Prince Andrew - she was photographed sunbathing topless while an individual she later identified as her "financial adviser" sucked on her toes?  Maybe her financial advisers should have paid more attention to her financial, as opposed to her physical, assets over the years, because  the free-spending Duchess has apparently now fallen on hard  times.    She  has a liking for the finer things in life that far exceeds her ability to pay for them.  She reportedly resents the failure of the royal family to support the lavish lifestyle she aspires to and seems to believe her royal connections are just another thing she is entitled to peddle to the highest bidder.  It's hard to say what aspect of this tawdry episode is the most appalling.  Is it her bewildering sense of entitlement, her naked greed, her brazen lack of morality, or just her plain, utter and unimaginable stupidity?  But one thing is clear. It is time to call a halt to this once and for all.

First, there needs to be a full public investigation.  If laws were broken, the Dodgy Duchess should face prosecution.  The British people, whose taxes support the royal family, also have a right to know whether the money-grubbing Ferguson has tried to peddle access for cash in the past.  If so, from whom did she take cash and how much did she pocket?  Did she pay taxes on it?  And, most important, what  favors did the money buy?

It's also time for AirMiles Andy to be relieved of his so-called ambassadorial role.  If George Osborne is serious about cutting wasteful public spending, Andrew's lavish expense account should be at the top of his hit list.  The Prince may indeed have known nothing about the conniving of his former wife, with whom he reportedly maintains a close friendship, but the cash for access scandal has at best compromised whatever effectiveness he may have had (I personally think he had none) and at worst reduced him to an international laughing stock.  His removal would also send a long-overdue signal that Britain has reluctantly dragged itself into the second half of the 20th century and recognized that diplomatic skills and knowledge of international business are acquired through study and experience - they don't pass by heredity.

A Faustian Bargain

After five days of post-election wrangling, Britain has a new government and, as predicted here, the Liberal Democrats have thrown in their lot with the Tories in a coalition of ideological opposites that has already drawn rumblings of discontent from the rank-and-file of both parties.

Gordon Brown surrendered office on Monday evening with consummate dignity.  It's easy to take cheap shots at a Prime Minister removed from office in the midst of a grave fiscal crisis, but he served his party and the country well, and I think in time history will judge him kindly.  He occupied the Treasury for ten years - more than any other Chancellor in modern history - and presided over a period of sustained economic growth and economic policy reform.  But he became Prime Minister at a difficult time.  Tony Blair's inexplicable obeisance to the Bush administration, and Britain's consequent participation in the illegal invasion of Iraq, had left the country divided internally and isolated internationally.  Brown's low-key and austere manner came as a welcome contrast to that of his flashy, self-righteous and self-serving predecessor, but he inherited the baggage nonetheless.

Pundits can debate why Brown lost the election, but at the end of the day Britain was simply ready for change, not because there was anything fundamentally wrong with Labour, but rather because it had been in office for too long.  British voters have traditionally seen to it that no one party becomes entrenched in office, and it was time for Labour to go.  Nonetheless, after the votes were in, I was amused to hear David Cameron proclaim that the country needed a change "after thirteen years of Labour misrule".   Possibly he used the phrase during the election too.   I am old enough (though Cameron is not) to remember first hand where the phrase came from; it was Harold Wilson, in the 1964 general election, who persuaded voters that "thirteen years of Tory misrule" was enough.  How ironic that in his moment of triumph the suave and smooth-talking Cameron had to turn to a former Labour standard-bearer for a good soundbite!

Details about the coalition negotiations are still emerging, but it seems that Labour didn't bend over backwards to try to cut a deal with the LibDems.  Gordon Brown stood down as party leader in large measure because he perceived his continued presence as a potential stumbling block to a Labour-led coalition, and in so doing he acted as one would have expected - honourably.  But many party activists opposed any deal with LibDems and,  for reasons discussed in an earlier post,  that is probably the best course for the Labour party.  Their challenge now is not just to unite around a new leader and re-tune their message, but also to rethink their fundamental values after the corrosive influence of Tony Blair.  Civil liberties would be a good place to start, but overall I think "New Labour" needs to be a little less "New" and a little more "Labour".  It will enjoy the luxury enjoyed by any opposition party during difficult times - the freedom to criticize tough decisions, without the responsibility to take them.  I hope they exercise the freedom responsibly and in the public interest, but Conservative plans to slash public spending while the country is still emerging from a severe recession provide Labour a continuing opportunity to highlight some basic policy differences between left and right.

The LibDems will have some seats at the Cabinet table for the first time in generations, and a good portion of its parliamentary party will likely land jobs in the lower tiers of government.  Leader Nick Clegg will be the "Deputy Prime Minister".  It sounds very important, but the position is an extra-constitutional one without formal responsibilities.  He will presumably also enjoy the title of  First Secretary of State, which, like the Deputy Prime Minister position, has no specific responsibilities but at least commands a salary.  As Michael Heseltine commented recently, the role of Deputy Prime Minister is whatever the Prime Minister wants it to be.  Heseltine should know; he occupied the office in John Major's government, and boasts that he was the person "through whom Major exercised power."  John Prescott, his counterpart under Blair, would doubtless tell a different story.  Cameron will need show appropriate deference to Clegg for as long as he needs to keep the coalition intact, but I believe Clegg's role will be largely symbolic.   Other LibDems will be appointed to the Cabinet, the most important portfolio going to the LibDem finance spokesman Vince Cable, who reportedly will serve as Trade and Industry Secretary.  He represents the Lib-Dems best hope to advance Lib-Dem policies from a ministerial position.

Events appear to have unfolded as Cameron had hoped.  Admittedly he has had to make some concessions on policy.  The details are still emerging, but aside from his agreement to hold a referendum on electoral reform (which he will campaign against), the most visible concession may be the shelving of plans to increase the inheritance tax threshold.  But Cameron comes out a winner there too. His administration will reap the benefit of maintaining inheritance tax revenues, but he can blame the Lib-Dems for his failure to follow through on a key campaign promise.  The Lib-Dems have signed on to the Tories' plans to slash $6 billion in public spending and appear to have abandoned the pro-Europe stance that has been a hallmark of their policy since the party's inception.

Having signed up to the pact, the Lib-Dems have struck their Faustian bargain.  Today Cameron and Clegg were the toast of the town; both proclaimed the emergence of a "new kind of politics" at a Downing Street event one pundit likened to a gay wedding.  However, it won't be long before the new politics gives way to politics as usual.  If they stick with the Tories for a full five years, as the coalition agreement reportedly envisages, the LibDems will lose all credibility as a progressive party and will share the blame for whatever unpopular measures Cameron takes to reduce the deficit.  If they withdraw from the coalition, they lose what little real influence they have, and face the unenviable choice of either precipitating an early general election by joining opposition parties to oppose major legislation (for which they would be blamed) or continuing to prop up Cameron for the duration of his mandate (for which they would also be blamed).

One can only wish Clegg the best of luck.

The Mother of All Elections

The election took place four days ago, but the people still don’t know which party (or parties) will form their next government.  There are reports of citizens being denied the right to vote, either because there were insufficient ballot papers or because the doors of polling stations were slammed shut in their faces after they’d waited for hours in line.  Legal challenges are threatened.  The results of the election are inconclusive and talks drag on behind closed doors about potential coalitions.  Secret deals are being cut.  The knives are out for the party leaders.  There are renewed demands to reform an electoral system that benefits entrenched political interests.

It sounds like a scenario from what we in the West condescendingly refer to as a “third-world country”.  Zimbabwe maybe?  But it’s not. It’s Britain, the so-called mother of democracy.

Each of the three major parties can spin last week’s election as a triumph of sorts.  Yet equally each emerges a loser.  The election will likely bring down the curtain on Labour’s 13 years in office and the beleaguered Prime Minister Gordon Brown has already announced his intention to step down as party leader.  Yet it is no small measure of its political resiliency that in the midst of a severe recession, continuing opposition to Britain’s involvement in Afghanistan, and Gordon Brown’s personal unpopularity (exacerbated when a live microphone recorded him referring to a lifelong Labour voter with whom he had just met as a “bigoted woman”), Labor did well enough to prevent an outright Tory majority.  The electorate may not have liked Gordon Brown, but they certainly didn't embrace either of his rivals.  Many potential Labour defectors presumably felt that the austere and dour PM was better equipped than David Cameron and his lightweight shadow Chancellor to steer the country out of its worst economic crisis in decades.  In watching the closing stages of the contest I was reminded that in his final campaign some decades ago, the late Philadelphia mayor Frank Rizzo unveiled a novel campaign slogan  – “You Don’t Have to Like Frank Rizzo to Vote for Him.”  One sensed much the same message from Gordon Brown.

For their part the Tories have declared victory, and indeed they did garner more popular votes and a greater number of seats than any other party.  But they also saw a double-digit lead in the opinion polls evaporate in the weeks leading up to the election, and with it their hopes of an outright parliamentary majority.  Party activists blame leader David Cameron, whose days also look numbered unless he is able to cobble together a coalition with the Liberal Democrats and form a government.  Cameron is a smooth character.  Thanks to his efforts at reforming the Conservative Party, some him likened to Tony Blair, but that comparison serves him poorly in times that demand tough measures and straight talk.

The LibDems find themselves in perhaps the greatest quandary of all.  Leader Nick Clegg’s credible performance in the televised leaders’ debates (a first in British electoral history) saw their poll ratings soar.  They briefly entertained hopes of beating Labour into second place in the popular vote and pollsters predicted they could increase their tally of parliamentary seats from 62 to 90 or more.  But it was not to be, and the LibDems actually lost 5 seats.  Clearly, when the time came to mark their ballot papers, many voters who felt ideologically most comfortable with the LibDems chose instead to support either of the “two old parties”, as Clegg had dismissively branded them.  The belief that a vote for the LibDems is a “wasted vote” is, apparently, alive and well among the British electorate.

Ironically, despite his party’s disappointing performance at the polls, Clegg now finds himself in the role of kingmaker – currently negotiating a coalition with the Tories, but with the possible option of joining in a “Progressive Alliance” (or a “Coalition of Losers”, depending on one’s political perspective) with Labour and assorted other parties, that could, albeit barely, command a parliamentary majority.

But the role of kingmaker has its risks.  The LibDems have long advocated electoral reform and the introduction of proportional representation, something hard-core Tories adamantly oppose.  Clegg’s future as party leader will depend on the the assurances he is able to extract on electoral reform from whichever party be eventually gets into bed with, and how those assurances translate into legislation.  But the biggest concession Cameron is likely to make (or indeed could make without facing a major backbench revolt) is the creation of a commission to study the issue (something LibDems activists would rightly regard as a meaningless gesture) and/or a referendum, albiet one in which the Tories would campaign vigorously to maintain the status quo.  And if the LibDems throw in their lot with the Tories, Clegg needn't look to Labour for any support in a referendum.

But the problem for Clegg goes much further. If the LibDems join in a coalition with the Conservatives they may enjoy a brief taste of power – perhaps a couple of members in Cabinet, though none, doubtless, holding any of the major offices of State.  But it would be the beginning of the end of the LibDems as a viable progressive party in Britain.  Thanks largely to the Blair legacy, the LibDem agenda is, if anything, more progressive than that of so-called “New Labor”.  I would venture to suggest that few people who voted LibDem last week did so in the hope that it would help get the Tories back into office.  But whatever the outcome of the current political wheeling and dealing, another election seems likely within the next two years.  It is safe to say there will be no genuine electoral reform under a Cameron-led coalition and the LibDems would remain at an electoral disadvantage next time around.  But it won’t matter, because LibDem voters, disenchanted with their party’s support for the coalition and the measures it will enact, will defect en masse to Labour anyway.   "New Labour" would portray the LibDems as the "New Tories" and I predict (admittedly with no scientific basis) that the LibDems would lose 20 or more seats.  

And therein lies the ultimate irony.  For Labour, the best outcome could well be a Tory-LibDem alliance.  Given those two parties’ philosophical differences, especially at the grass roots level, the alliance would probably last just long enough for the new Labour leader to stamp his or her mark on the party and get geared up for an election with fresh faces and – maybe – some fresh ideas.  The economy certainly won’t get better quickly, and any government will have no choice but to make significant cuts in public services.  They will doubtless face the wrath of the voters for their efforts. 

So what then should Clegg do?  In my view, he should discontinue talks with Cameron and pursue the Progressive Alliance alternative. A Tory-LibDem alliance is probably doomed to failure anyway because of the policy differences that will inevitably arise, or due to the failure to make progress on electoral reform.  The LibDems could pull out of the coalition, leaving Cameron to lead a minority government.  But that simply presents Clegg with a fresh dilemma – join opposition parties in a no-confidence vote that would bring down the Cameron government but in so doing precipitate an early election that the LibDems couldn’t afford to fight, or sit on his hands and be accused of propping Cameron up.  The arguments would be re-hashed  before every major vote, and the longer it went on the more irrelevant and compromised the LibDems would seem to become.   In a Progressive Alliance, the support of the LibDems would be critical; that would translate into greater influence in policymaking – including on the key issue of electoral reform.

A brief digression on that topic. The existing system, under which the candidate with the most votes wins, is commonly referred to as “First Past the Post”.  But it’s really nothing of the kind, at least if the “post” is fifty percent of the votes cast.  It is not uncommon for a candidate to win with a plurality of votes, but not an overall majority.  A candidate who wins with, say, 40 percent of the votes has not even reached the post, let alone been first past it.

The most attractive alternative is the system known as “Single Transferable Vote”.  Under STV, voters rank the candidates in order of choice.  If no candidate achieves a majority of first preference votes, the bottom candidate is eliminated, and his or her votes redistributed to the remaining candidates according to the preference on the ballots, and the process continues until one candidate has an absolute majority.  The Electoral Reform Society, quoted in the New Statesman magazine, estimates based on polling research that if STV been in effect in the recent election, the Conservatives would have won 246 seats (as opposed to 306, a loss of 60), Labour 207 (as opposed to 258, a loss of 51) and the LibDems 162 (as opposed to 57, a gain of 105).  While no party would have had a majority, the principal progressive parties, Labour and LibDem, would have collectively 369 seats, a comfortable working majority.

It is unfortunate that debate on the issue of electoral reform is confused by the terminology.  The existing system of “First Past the Post” in many cases is not that at all, for the reasons explained above.  And I view STV not as “proportional representation” as many people understand it, but a better form of “First Past the Post”.  Because it is a constituency-based system, STV - unlike other forms of proportional representation - would not destroy the direct relationship between members of Parliament and the people that vote for them. And it would not give extremist parties, such as the ultra-right wing BNP, a seat at the table.  The argument against STV is that it would lead to more coalition governments,  but there is no evidence that this would result in weak or indecisive government, as opponents allege.  Aside from naked political self-interest, I don’t understand why anyone would oppose STV.  But one thing is clear:  there is something fundamentally unfair about a system under which, in the recent election, the Labour and the Conservative vote totals each translated into under 35,000 votes per seat in Westminster, whereas the LibDems total exceeded 338,000 per seat.

Fate has provided Nick Clegg a potentially unique opportunity to help secure for his party and the British people the electoral reform the LibDems and before it the Liberal Party have sought unsuccessfully for years.  It won’t be easy constructing a “Progressive Alliance” but it is worth the effort.   The country would benefit not only from a fairer electoral system, but also from a continuation of financial policies that, in large measure, have served the country well during difficult times.  Or Mr. Clegg can take what at first instance may appear the easier course, throw in his lot with the Tories, accept a meaningless post in the Cabinet, and watch as his party sinks into irrelevancy and oblivion.  Sadly, I suspect he will chose the latter.