Why did I call Viacom “knuckle dragging fuckwits”?
It does seem unreasonably angry, doesn’t it? After all, they are only trying to enforce their rights as copyright holders and get what they believe to be their fair due to investments made. But when I twittered this last night, I was pretty pissed off about the whole Viacom-Google battle. But I couldn’t quite put my finger on why.
I am certainly concerned about the privacy aspect of it, and I hope Google are still willing to stick up for YouTube users. I also feel quite concerned for the future of YouTube as a creative platform. What view will Viacom take of mash-ups for example? Will they try to remove them?
But there is something more profound that angers me about the whole thing and I only realized what it was last night. This whole thing is a battle between the past and the future, stupid people and clever people, believers in blunt instruments and exponents of nuance and originality. Viacom are the former, Google the latter. Let me be clear: Google are no angels. They are a company, like any other, out to make money. But their genius was to come up with a way of gathering money via the provision of a free service. It was a piece of genius that pointed to a future with a whole host of new business models. In contrast Viacom lack the wit and imagination to go beyond the business model they have been using for decades – all they know how to do is exchange money for goods and services. That is the be all and end all of their existence. And that is why YouTube has created such visceral rage in them – it threatens the only thing they know how to do. So this is certainly a battle between the past and the future. Ultimately, I have no doubt the future will triumph, but yesterday was certainly a set back. The biggest irony of all is that it probably won’t help Viacom – if anything it will delay their realisation that they have to change to survive, if they ever make it that far.
David Miliband – Progress Lecture, Palace of Westminster, 2nd July 2008
[This liveblog is based on notes that I took during the seminar. As ever, this post is entirely my own take on seminar. Any errors and omissions are completely my fault].
There are few politicians I will actually go out of my way to see if they speaking, but Foreign Secretary David Miliband is an exception. I have seen him speak a couple times before and find him to be astonishingly lucid and unusual in the clarity of his expression (and I say that as someone who has sat through some quite frankly dreadful speeches by frontline politicians). He manages to be both very wonkish, but also very affable and comfortable in front of an audience. This combination reminds me a lot of Australia’s Kevin Rudd, who is doing great things with the Labor Party down under. For that reason, I really hope that Miliband does get a shot at the Labour leadership at some point in the future. I have no doubt he would do a good job and connect well with the electorate.
The lecture he gave today was misadvertised slightly. In theory it was going to be about democracy promotion and human rights (Miliband has actually addressed this issue comparatively recently). Due to some unexplained miscommunication though, Miliband turned up armed with a speech on the UK’s relationship with Europe. Given recent events in Ireland, this is nonetheless a fascinating subject, so here is argument, as I would sketch it out.
I want to look forward today, ten, twenty years into the future. I am particularly interested in talking about what Labour’s agenda for European politics should be and progressive Europe might look like.
A fortnight ago, I was at a meeting with 27 other European foreign ministers. This was post-Ireland, and I think it is fair to say everyone was very nervous. All the leaders had just had their confidence shaken. Ireland had always been considered “a pro-European country”, and their citizenship still has a broadly positive view of the EU. But now they had said no to the treaty. I thought they would say yes to the treaty, and had been proved wrong. My confidence was shaken.
The events in Ireland led to commentators projecting their own ideas onto the result and interpreting it to advocate their own policy preferences. Some are now calling for a two-speed Europe, others for an end of enlargement, other for a simple trading bloc, lacking any kind of moral purpose. All of these projected futures for Europe are flawed.
The UK’s place in the world is wedded to Europe. But we can’t just plough on. The Irish no vote did mean something. We have to ask why it is an unpopular cause? We can’t have a tin ear.
Now fifty-five per cent of the EU’s citizens say the EU is a good thing. On the face of it, this sounds good. However if you go back twenty years, that approval rating was 75 per cent. Clearly we have a problem.
Eurosceptic voices will use this vote and bang on about what it means. But those of us on the progressive, pro-European left should too. We have to answer a difficult question: what is the EU for? It has an unclear mission.
There is an irony here. Lisbon would have marked the end of a period of institutional navel gazing within the EU, where policy concerns have taken a backseat. Now that the future of the treaty or any kind of settlement is unclear, this uncertainty will continue.
The Irish result pushes us to ask what is the EU for? Thirty years ago, this was obvious. For my parent’s generation, the memories of the war and economic downturn were still fresh For them the EU was about bringing people together and moving beyond the blood nationalism that had caused so much conflict in Europe. This idea was noble and maybe even utopian. Judged by the standard of other international organisations and leagues, the EU has been a huge success. It has bought peace, stability and proved to be an anchor for democracy in both the South and the East of Europe. Economically, the EU has driven regional growth and undertaken huge projects, most notably the foundation of the Euro, which is now one of the world’s great currencies. The lesson here is clearly that big projects, focused on a powerful vision can work.
I know from my time at agriculture though that the EU can be the most maddening thing in the world. It is just sometimes hard to get things done (although all political institutions have their problems).
A key question to ask is what do people look to government for? I can think of three distinct areas where government works.
- To help them achieve control over their lives. This is something that can be achieved at the national level.
- To offer a sense of belonging. This is something that most people feel from their community and their country. Although a few people feel genuinely European, this has never been a popular feeling embedded among the populace.
- Protection from risk. This cannot be achieved at the national level, especially now we are faced with issues such as terror and the environment.
One way of phrasing this question would be ask what would the EU look like if we were creating it today? I want to consider three grand projects all of which would fit into the remit of a modern EU: the economy, climate change, and terrorism and security.
Economy. Protectionism does not guarantee protection. This is an issue that causes left/right confusion in politics. It is possible to mount both for and against arguments from either perspective. We must make a progressive case for free trade. Open trade can lead to more jobs, cheaper goods, greater investment, the closing of the skills gap and greater innovation. But we must acknowledge that not everyone wins. Government has a responsibility to offset these changes and help people through them. A flexible economy must be fair.
We can use the EU to win free trade beyond our borders. 500 million people are a powerful resource. It offers a platform for achieving a new global trade deal, most equitable for the developing world. We can aspire to remove barriers between the EU and other trading blocs such as NAFTA.
Environment. The EU could stand for Environmental Union. Climate change is the biggest existential threat we face. We need to be planning for and working towards a low carbon economy. The EU is capable of engaging with Russia in a way in which individual nations are not. The EU can take the lead in regulatory developments and establish models which are transferable and expandable. The EU’s carbon trading scheme (which currently covers 50 per cent of British companies) could be expanded to a global system, for example.
Terror and security. We now face new kinds of threats, which emanate from ungovernable spaces and regional conflict. To respond to this, the EU must use both soft and hard power to combat this.
The greatest soft power weapon the EU has at its disposal is enlargement, which can be used to embed reform in aspiring member states.
Hard power will also be necessary. I welcome France’s recent decision to rejoin the command structure of NATO. But we need more than NATO. Without its own capabilities, Europe will always have to wait for an American decision to get involved. Look back at the situation that existed in 1990-1995 in the former Yugoslavia, when he EU was completely unable to act effectively.
European defence is not a rival to NATO – and the US agrees. They have been hugely supportive. The EU can take on different tasks, both civilian and military and is doing so already. A central element of this process must be engaging Turkey, as they can develop Europe’s capabilities in the Middle East and North Africa in a way none of the current membership can.
For these regions, the access to European markets can be an anchor for stability.
I am not proposing that the role of member states be replaced, but that better use can be made of the power they possess.
Two old views of Europe might be described as federalism or Euroe a la carte. Now the federal vision is outmoded (if it ever was appropriate or desirable), because Europe is too large. The pick and mix a la carte model is no longer appropriate, as Europe is now too integrated and too complex to go and remove component parts. It is now time that Britain broke the pattern in place since the 1950s and lead rather than followed in Europe.
Currently we hear too much about all the wrong things in Europe. The Tories milk this. Now it is not a positive cause, but something far less glamorous – it is the solution to problems. This might make us tactically weak when we argue for Europe. But I believe the Tories have a bigger problem, as they are strategically weak. If they talk about big issues, such as security and the environment, they will then find it very hard to argue that Europe is not part of the solution.
The EU we have is essentially inherited from an earlier age. Unlike my parents and people of their age, the key geo-political events of my lifetime – the collapse of the Berlin Wall and 9/11 – essentially stress the interdependence of the world. Thus the institutions of the EU are hugely important – and they are not good enough. We can best defend it by saying that it needs to be reformed.
Q. If we move the EU away from soft power and it becomes a rival to NATO, does that not cause confusion? Wasn’t that evident in Ireland?
It is important to remember that the membership of the EU and NATO do not overlap totally. I think this development will be complementary and fill a gap. This would not be a European army and the decision to deploy will remain with independent states.
Q. What do you think of the current situation in Turkey? What should the EU do?
Turkey will be a vitally important country in the future and can be a powerful example of the breaking down of barriers. On the specific circumstances facing AK, we believe that voters should choose governments not lawyers. AK is generally regarded as a positive example of an Islamic party. They do, for example, get lots of Kurdish votes – about 80 per cent in fact.
Q. What is the case for the constitution / treaty? Why is it not being made?
The constitution and the treaty are two different documents. The constitution essentially threw all the existing treaties in the bin and started from scratch. In contrast, Lisbon built on top of what was existing. That is a fundamental different.
The treaty would have ended the debate about institutions and allowed us to talk about policy. It would have streamlined and made the EU more effective.
Q. What do you think about NATO expansion? Does NATO suffer from a similar crisis of purpose?
It is clear that NATO is now less about Western Europe than it has ever been. It has a global security focus and is a very open institution for the rest of the world. As an organisation, I think it has a clarity of purpose. But it cannot offer solutions by itself. It lacks the necessary civilian infrastructure.
Q. Is there a trade off between the EU and the US?
We need Europe to be strong in the world. But it is not our only asset. The US is our strongest bilateral partner – and at least since 1960 (and arguably since 1947, at least in a pre-EU form), they have encouraged integration and stability in Europe.
Q. What are you views of the row between President Sarkozy and Peter Mandelson?
I heard it was about dinner in Paris.
David Lammy – Fabian Lecture, Portcullis House, 30th June 2008
[This is my own take on David Lammy’s lecture, derived from notes. Any errors or omissions are entirely my fault].
On Monday, I saw David Lammy give a speech on the lessons that British politics could draw from the American election. Lammy had spent some time out in the states with the Obama campaign, both at its hub in Chicago and also in Wisconsin during the primary, so had some direct experience of what has been going on. I was impressed – he resisted the temptation to draw easy or superficial emulation lessons (“if only our website did that!” syndrome) and instead toyed with the institutional context of politics and went as far as advocating open primaries, which particularly excited me, as it is something I have long been strongly supportive of. Lammy seems to understand that a modern political party, or at least the political parties that will evolve in the coming decades, will be nodal organisations, facilitating many forms of activism via multiple points of entry.
In recent months, Labour has been on a roller coaster. The May local elections, especially in London, was a huge disappointment. Then there were the results in Crewe and Nantwich, and more recently in Henley.
In contrast, on the other side of the Atlantic. After a long and remarkable battle, Barack Obama received the delegates to win the Democratic nomination. No less remarkably, John McCain has won the GOP nomination, and is rightly admired as for his integrity and remarkable life.
Can these events be connected, even if they may appear light years apart? A cynic would say no. We can’t compare the two. A different reading would say the essential ingredients of the American election – Obama’s charisma or McCain’s lifestory – are irreplicable in the UK. Another reading would suggest that this is just a symbolic election: a black man verses a women. All these readings are wrong. It downplays the extent to which this election has been a battle of ideas, rather than just competing ways of making history.
There are three key points I would like to stress.
Who does politics. This election has seen the success of two candidates – Obama and McCain – who are outside the political establishment. This reflects a dissatisfaction with the rhetoric and methods of mainstream politics. Outsiders candidates have displayed an ability to connect with people.
In Crewe Labour ran the “Tory Toff” stunt. It was misguided, but there was a grain of truth in what was going on. But the target was wrong. It is the political elite which people are most angry at, not a social elite. At the moment, we are talking to ourselves in coded language. The lesson from this is that parliament must draw on a wider range of people, going beyond the current political class. The danger when Westminster becomes an industry is that it becomes excessively narrow, and people will not be able to forge a connection with it. If this happens, they direct their energies elsewhere – positively, into single issue groups, or less positively into the BNP.
We need to go beyond the usual suspects, in order to allow our politics to arrive at better decisions. It is certainly important to encourage young people into politics. This will allow talent to emerge and offer them routes into office. To do this, we need new forms of democracy and policy mechanisms. Progressive politics must be open, inclusive, and responsible to the wider public.
Strategy. The political strategies of the 1990s look tired and outmoded. Often it would seem as if we were trying to close down difficult conversations rather than have them. But now this looks out of step with their times. Both McCain and Obama have taken risks, setting them against the political zeitgeist. McCain has supported immigration, Obama has said he will speak to nations of concern.
New Labour and their Democrat opposite numbers were too keen to define themselves against things, frequently their own party. They reduced complex issues down to bullet points. What they lacked was a clear articulation of what the good society should look like. They achieved much in areas such as economics, but could not pull this together into a narrative. Now is the time to talk about social issues, the public realm, quality of life and childhood. Only a Labour government can really address this issues, even though the Tories are trying to claim the narrative of social justice.
Labour is a hundred years old. New Labour is more than twenty years old. The question we have to ask is what comes next? We must start with a vision of the good society. We now have to have public conversations where we are willing to ask questions with no easy answers. This will be hard – especially in a culture of 24 hour news – but it is essential.
Create movements. We need to give people a stake in campaigns. We can do this by connecting activists and supporters to one and another. The Internet could be vital for this, but in the UK, it is frequently used to circumnavigate, rather than bolster party politics. We can use it to make politics work better and give supporters the tools they need to be active in the community.
The gap between this aspiration and the reality is great.Because we have bound political discussion in a kind of straightjacket, the blogosphere has become dominated by the right. We need to go beyond a stage where discussion looks like dissent.
Political activism must have low floors and high ceilings – it must be easy to get involved, but also there must be plenty of opportunity to do more. With each action, we must raise our expectations that we can do more. Real political drive comes from embracing friends and family and building political networks on top of them.
Obama’s success in the US raises a vital question: can the movement be maintained? Can a permanent drive to activism be achieved? In order to do this, we must promise people a voice in ongoing bureacratic processes. Young people – those in their 20s – are civically minded and interested in politics. However, they are not interested in party politics. There is data on the NGO community:
- 9 per cent of people who work in this environment would consider joining Labour.
- 51 per cent would consider campaigning against a Conservative campaign.
- 59 per cent would work for a Labour run campaign on an issue.
- 61 per cent would support a Labour campaign in their community.
Westminster is odd and distant. Something has to change. The question is whether politics is up to that challenge. It now looks as if the election may be someway off, but this is a blessing. While the press may write the government off, it gives us time to work on the streets developing a network of activists, making our party more responsive and inclusive. Now we can rebuild our own coalition from the bottom up.
Will post most detailed reax when I get a chance.
Some (sort of) live blogging
I’ve been attending a couple of cool seminars this week. On Monday, I went to a Fabian event where David Lammy spoke about his experience and views of the American election. Then on Wednesday, I went to Parliament to see David Miliband talk on his views on the European Union. I took copious notes at both and have just got round to typing them up (sort of snail live blogging). I’ll also try to offer some reactions to them, although I am far more qualified to comment on Lammy than I am on Miliband.
Things are going to be a bit awkward for the next few days as – comically – no one in my town seems to have Internet. Apparently, according to BT, some vandals managed to do something which is going to take five days to fix. In the mean time, significant proportions of Camberley are fairly cut off from the world (or at least as cut off as they were in 1998). I still have email thanks to my phone, but the replies may not be as verbose as they normally are. And this post is coming to you from an Internet cafe in town, in which I suspect I am going to be spending a good few hours in the next few days.
You’ve lost that loving feeling
Yes fans of camp kitsch…. sadly it is gone, gone, gone (up in smoke).
An odd thing
An odd thing
Originally uploaded by nickanst
Well an odd thing just happened to me. I have a meeting at three off Trafalgar Square. I’m a bit early, so I was sitting outside the cafe actually on the square having a cup of coffee. Then out of nowhere, a girl comes over and gives me a yellow rose (one from a bunch she is carrying) and says have a nice day. She then disappeared. That’s certainly never happened before.
A few changes
You may have noticed… hopefully have noticed a few changes round here. New theme and I am also running WP 2.5. Very pleased so far and pretty much everything seems to be working with it. I’m not going to have much time for blogging in the next few months, but I will at least try to keep posting a bit (which is now a lot easier, thanks to Windows Live Writer working a lot better than it did).
When I have a bit more time to sit down, the whole lot is going to overhauled (along with my hard drive, the state of my iTunes folder, my autorun software – you get the idea. Tidying up my life). But until then, this will have to do.
Why did Hillary lose (or why Obama won?)
[I've been writing this on and off in spare moments since Saturday, so apologies if it is a bit stream of consciousness like].
Wow. After nearly a year a half it is finally over. The most remarkable political contest I have ever seen for sure, and I would venture to argue the most amazing thing seen in American politics since at least 1968, if not more. After that, it seems quite likely the general election itself will be something of an anti-climax. But now seems a good moment to offer some provisional and very sketchy answers on how the whole thing turned out the way it did. I’m not alone in this undertaking. Today’s papers were littered with pieces analysing the outcome (here, here and here for a few) and Daily Kos (here, here, here and here for some examples) has been running a symposium on just this subject.
The first thing that came into my head was what to call this post. The original version is the unbracketed title above, namely “why did Hillary lose?”. I added the additional bit because it seemed a little unfair not to acknowledge Obama’s achievements. But, despite all of Barack Obama’s manifold political achievements, it does seem more compelling to focus on Hillary Clinton, as her candidacy fits neatly into a broader story - an epic story at that - about the Clintons and the generation they are a part of. In this sense, her campaign is part of a curve in American politics that starts with the spike in birthrate in the postwar period, and continues as that generation has its political consciousness shaped by the Vietnam war and the events of 1968. 2008 might mark the last chapter in forty year journey, the end of what Obama refers to in the Audacity of Hope as “the psychodrama of the baby boomers”. In the shorter term too, we only need to go back about a year and it would have been hard to find more than a handful of commentators arguing anything other than Clinton’s inevitability. Undoubtedly, something did go horribly wrong for her campaign, even though Obama skilfully exploited the opportunity it presented.
So here is my, very provisional list of thoughts (and I also have to give a hat tip to my friend Jon, who I had email exchange with on this subject a few months back which has done a lot to shape my views on the question, although the decision as to which arguments to include and how to phrase - and thus their shortcomings - are entirely my own). Just before I begin though, I want to make one more point. I don’t believe their was a mono-causal reason for Hillary’s defeat. For that reason, I reject arguments such as that articulated by Maureen Dowd in the New York Times: “She didn’t lose because she was a woman. She didn’t lose because America isn’t ready for a woman as president. She lost because of her own — and her husband’s and Mark Penn’s — fatal missteps.R