There cannot be a runoff
President Hamid Karzai could not have wished for an easier path to victory, now that Dr Abdullah Abdullah has decided to withdraw from the second round of the Afghan presidential election.
When Dr Abdullah said that his decision was made “in the best interests of the country” he truly meant what he was saying.
President Karzai’s spokesman Waheed Omar obviously wants the second round to take place, but a run-off may be more problematic than people realise.
I was very surprised by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s comments that a runoff with only one candidate would not necessarily threaten the legitimacy of the process.
“There have been other examples in our country and around the world where in a runoff election one of the parties decides for a reason that they are not going to go on,” she said.
Well, the difference between the unnamed example she made reference to in the United States is that no American general election has been subject to allegations of widespread electoral fraud- depending on whether you consider the Bush v Gore recount worthy of the term “electoral fraud.”
Mr Karzai will face a weakening of his legitimacy once the electoral process comes to an end. If Karzai wins a large majority of the vote, he will look illegitimate in the eyes of many of his opponents and those of the European governments and of the Obama administration.
A runoff will not suddenly wipe away the widespread fraud that undermined the results of the first round.
Supporters of Dr Abdullah may use direct and indirect forms of action, such as protests and ironically abstaining from voting to vent their anger at their candidate being forced to pull out.
The international community must stand together to call a halt to the runoff on November 7. Dr Abdullah Abdullah is more likely to train the Afghan army and bring better governance and credibility to Afghanistan than Hamid Karzai. So, every effort has to be made to convince Dr Abdullah to reconsider re-entering the second round.
There is not much time for any diplomats to sit round a table with Abdullah, but the Afghan people deserve better than their current President.
Examining Gordon’s record
As I was browsing on Hansard, the database that features parliamentary transcripts as well as profiles and voting records of MPs, Gordon Brown’s record made interesting reading.
The man who says that we face a climate ‘catastrophe’ and the planet has fifty days to save the world has never voted on laws to stop climate change.
It is by looking at a politician’s voting record that gives you an idea of their position on domestic and international issues such as tackling climate change.
Osborne’s bonus plan
I welcome Shadow Chancellor George Osborne’s announcement to ban High Street banks from paying bonuses above about £2,000 in cash.
Unlike, the government is it encouraging to hear that an economic minister is talking about how to place restraint on the enormous bonuses being awarded to senior management and executives working for financial institutions.
It is also heartening to hear that someone is talking about freeing up credit for small and medium-sized businesses.
Moving slightly away from the main issue, when will the Chancellor get tough on the banks to lend credit to responsible lenders?
Now Mr Osborne says that his plan would free up £20 billion that could then be given to businesses and consumers- the response by Liam Byrne, chief secretary to the Treasury is that Osborne is a “hypocrite.”
He said: “Mr Osborne’s hypocrisy beggars belief. The Tories have fought against every plan we’ve delivered to support jobs and businesses.”
Mr Byrne believes that Conservative plans would “water down the toughest rules in the world”, saying: “I can’t understand the logic of that.”
On the surface, Mr Osborne’s plan seems perfectly logical, although there are flaws in it.
If he considers this a serious plan, then he must explain why the rules do not apply to investment banks.
Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vince Cable pointed out that the Tories “have not given full backing to Mervyn King’s proposals on splitting up the banks and these bonus proposals are short-term, stop-gap solutions designed to stem public anger but which fail to get to the heart of the problem.”
I wonder why the Chancellor has not really spoken about splitting up the banks.
One could argue that the Conservative Party have said more about the freeing of credit than any other political party during this recession.
I am referring to the £50bn National Loan Guarantee scheme talked about by Mr Osborne during the early days of the crisis.
What confuses me is why the loan guarantee scheme is not used to counteract Labour’s argument that a Conservative government have would have let the recession run its course.
President Blair?
Tony Blair cannot be elected President of the European Union, because him and George W.Bush invaded Iraq without any support from their European allies.
Anyone, remember “French fries?”
If Mr Blair seriously wants this role, he should explain to the rest of Europe what he feels he can bring to the European Union.
No statesmen or stateswoman should be automatically placed into such an influential position.
Not really surprising
On Friday, many business journalists and economists were a little surprised when GDP figures showed that the UK economy had contracted by 0.4% between July and September.
This is now the longest period that Britain has been in recession since records began in 1955.
Labour ministers who claim that this recession is not as severe as the recession of the 80s and 90s should seriously think about what they are saying.
Unemployment is moving ever closer to the 3 million mark, and Chris Dillow suggests that up to 5.6 million people are out of work.
Irrespective of these figures, no one should delude themselves in thinking that the recession is over because of a recent improvement in property sales and mortgage approvals.
As President Barack Obama often says, “we won’t rest until everybody who wants to work can find a job.”
Only when the unemployment rate is dramatically reduced, can we even consider declaring the end of the recession.
Analysis: Question Time
Question Time was a very different show to compared to previous editions I have watched.
Minutes into the show and the politicians of the three main political parties were keen to spell out how Britain has no room for not only Griffin’s racist ideology, but not for any racist ideology.
The audience erupted into cheers for the politicians- a huge rarity in itself.
Jack Straw made a very strong start, talking about how this country was only able to win WWI and WWII because of the diversity of our troops.
I was a little surprised that David Dimbleby allowed him to talk for so long. It also became apparent that Mr Straw tended to ramble on for a long time, as opposed to just providing a Yes or No answer. For instance, when he was asked whether the success of the BNP had been a result of Labour’s immigration policy, he responded with a barrage of irrelevant, slightly obscure contextual information.
I think Mr Griffin’s performance was shambolic to say the least, but when he attacked the government’s immigration policy, I do not know about you, but I heard a slightly muted applause in the audience.
I am no body language expert, but when the BNP leader criticised what he perceives as a very lax immigration policy, the Justice Secretary looked very uncomfortable.
Griffin also looked like a fool when he applauded when a serious point against him was made. I recall Greer saying in response to a question from a member of the public about changing the BNP’s constitution, “I do not know why you are clapping.”
Dimbleby conducted himself very well in what was a difficult and hostile show. I was impressed with the performance of Bonnie Greer and the Conservative Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion Sayeeda Warsi.
One of the best moments of the night, in my view was when Ms Warsi turned to Mr Straw and said that politicians have to be more honest about immigration to stop an expansion of BNP supporters.
Ms Warsi has appeared on Question Time on several occasions, and I can see why the Conservative Party would want her on the show speaking on behalf of the party.
People became more disillusioned with politics and politicians as a consequence of the MPs expenses scandal, but if there was no MPs expenses scandal, Labour would have taken more of a battering at the European elections because of their incomprehensible policies such as the profligate ID card scheme and an unfavourable Prime Minister.
A significant part of the show came in the form of a black gentleman, sitting on the front row who launched a stinging attack on Griffin, asking why he could not acknowledge the contributions that ethnic minorities have made to this country.
Bonnie Greer brought a touch of humour and common sense to the panel, and Liberal Democrat Home Affairs Spokesman Chris Huhne was calm and collected in what he had to say.
Just a final thought.
The party leaders of the mainstream political parties have never appeared on the Question Time panel, so if you wanted to play devil’s advocate, you could say that Nick Griffin has been given special treatment.
Separating the men from the boys
BNP leader Nick Griffin is making a ‘controversial’ appearance on tonight’s edition of Question Time.
A part of me cannot really understand why there is a debate about Mr Griffin sitting on the panel.
Both sides of the argument agree on one principle: The extinction of the British National Party.
So surely the likes of Secretary of State for Wales, Peter Hain who think debating Mr Griffin is a bad idea, should realise that the best way to expose the BNP as a preposterous party is to lay bare the fallacies of his statements on a show that is watched by millions of people.
However, I worry that Mr Griffin may get an easy ride on Question Time.
The questions posed to the panel come from members of the public, so if the questions do not force him to provide serious answers to serious issues such as how to get more people into work and the best way to proceed in Afghanistan amongst a range of other issues- then Mr Griffin has avoided being embarrassed on national television.
The wrong move
It will be business as usual for Royal Mail.
30,000 temporary workers have been hired to deal with a national strike.
Great news for households across the country. From a short term business perspective this is a good idea, but from a long term one, Royal Mail have probably angered their finest workers.
I wonder how the trust can be rebuilt.
Q&A: Samson Dada talks to Tony Lloyd
International development is a very important issue that is close to your heart. Can the country realistically afford to set money aside for international aid when the country is in so much debt?
Obviously at a time of global financial crisis there will be pressure on all manner of spending but international aid is still vitally important. We know that we pay a much higher price in countries like Afghanistan when things go wrong and military intervention takes place. Development assistance is a long term cheaper option. We know that issues like climate change require everyone to play a role and that is why Britain must continue to for practical reasons as well as moral or humanitarian ones; to be a key supporter of international development.
Do you believe that a place like East Manchester that statistically has high levels of crime and unemployment can be seen as a place where people can get a good job and get onto the property ladder?
Many people in East Manchester do get on to the property ladder and work hard for themselves and their communities. Crime has been going down in East Manchester although unemployment is still a massive issue, particularly for younger people. But even in the present recession East Manchester is still a great place to live and will only get better as new institutions like the new secondary school come in to being.
One Advertiser reader commented “that some local councillors and you see no problems within East Manchester and everything including employment is rosy.” Has there been a serious acknowledgement of the seriousness of the recession among you, other councillors and Greater Manchester MPs, and that voters cannot be smooth talked about jobs being created when unemployment is so dire?
I don’t know where the quotation has come from and certainly never said anything like this myself. At a time of global recession, we know that unemployment will increase; and it has increased. The action that the government is taking has diminished the very worst impact of the global recession but not done away with the problems. The Work Guarantee that the government has announced includes a guaranteed offer of work or training for every 18-24 year old at risk of becoming long-term unemployed. The government will also fund 250,000 jobs in the public and private sector with more than 150 companies and organisations having already signed up. We need to make sure that we fight for existing jobs and create new ones. No one can pretend that it isn’t a serious issue.
A problem with the recession is that skilled workers have to take on unskilled work that does not make the most of their skills and qualifications. Does Manchester Central have enough skilled jobs to be competitive?
The centre of Manchester is the economic capital of the north of England with many skilled jobs. The future of the economy in Manchester and in the UK is not in long term unskilled jobs but in upskilling the work force.
Seen as the leaders who are setting lengthy emission targets will not be in office, or even alive, are these targets truly realistic?
Setting targets for 2050 is important to making long term and sustainable reductions in carbon emission and it is important that the UK is the first country to introduce the idea of a legally binding target. A target for 2050 is not a way of putting off changes but of making sure that they form part of a long term plan. The Climate Change Bill which the government has laid out contains not only a target for an eventual 80% reduction in emissions, but crucially a carbon budgeting system to set out the trajectory to 2050.
The Guardian newspaper revealed 120 Labour MPs will step down at the next election. As one of your constituents, will Tony Lloyd be standing for Manchester Central at the next general election?
I will be standing for re-election in Manchester Central at the next general election.
Do you have any ambitions to become a minister again?
I have never had particular ambitions for office apart from doing my best for the people of Manchester and the country.
Are you one of the more rowdy MPs in the chamber who likes to shout ‘Hear, Hear’? Who are some of the more rowdy MPs in the chamber, or what party has the more rowdy MPs?
I don’t tend to take part in the parliamentary noise!
Can you give me a sense of how a Labour Parliamentary Party meeting works and how it feels to chair the party?
Obviously meetings of the PLP are by its very nature private but they do vary enormously. Given the great variety of issues, they can sometimes get heated but it is always a great privilege to chair a meeting of the Parliamentary Party.
Do you tend to send the odd ‘tweet’ during sessions in the chamber like some of your colleagues?
No I can’t say that I’ve ever used Twitter in the chamber!
How did you spend your summer recess?
Most of the time I was working in the constituency but I had a short holiday.
Are you a football fan? What are your views on Manchester City’s spending this summer?
I am a lifelong Manchester United fan although I have always wanted to see Manchester teams do well. United have always been regarded as a rich club and certainly can’t cry foul when Manchester City spend. For all of us however, maybe football today is taking leave of reality for normal people with the ridiculous sums of money involved.
It’s an overdue start
Next Tuesday marks the first live discussion where Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg will be sitting side-by side.
Questions about how to get more women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities into parliament will be asked by several MPs. The discussion will be chaired by Commons Speaker John Bercow.
Gordon Brown will certainly relish the chance to expose what he sees as David Cameron’s lack of substance on fundamental issues of fairness and opportunity, and Nick Clegg will want to differentiate himself from the two men by what he says.
We still await an annoucement about the live televised debates, but I welcome this positive news.
I am pleased that technology is being called upon to run a web forum during the question-and-answer session.
Although, many members of the public will raise questions about impartiality, even if the session is being moderated by the Speaker.
Proceedings will be aired live on BBC Parliament next Tuesday. I urge everyone who has the time to watch it to do so; Check your TV guide for the time and make a note in your diary!
Flickr Photos
|
Recent Comments