A Thought for Thursday: Maggie

Britain's ex-prime minister Margaret Thatcher died on 8 April.

David Cameron described her as our "greatest peacetime Prime Minister” and said that she "saved Britain." Tony Blair said she was a "towering political figure." Everyone said she was (and remains) "divisive."

In the UK, parliament was recalled to debate her legacy. Street parties were organised by some to celebrate her passing.

In India, they created a sand sculpture:

Margaret Thatcher Sand Sculpture
[Source: Telegraph, April 2013]

Her death was covered at length by media across the world.

What surprised me was the strength of feeling expressed by people and the extent of the shadow she still casts over this and other countries' political life.

It's not often a person comes along that has this sort of impact. Reflecting on this week, it seems to me that the Thatcher era is destined to become a major section of history textbooks in years to come.

Adopting

Every now and again I see or read something that reminds me how lucky we are to live in a modern western democracy like the UK.

Earlier this week, the UK government promised more support to speed up the adoption process for prospective parents.  It's a positive but hardly revolutionary announcement and I probably only gave the story a passing glance when I first read it.

Then today, in a completely unrelated story, Russia announced that it would no longer allow Americans to adopt Russian children.  What a bizarre concept!  Reading further it turns out that this is actually just one part of a tit-for-tat series of isolationist measures between Russia and the US.

Still, seeing this reminded me of the UK announcement and really drove home to me the importance of the incremental but progressive reforms that we excel at in this country.  We don't move forward by leaps and bounds, but we do always seem to be heading in the right direction.

Why politicians should sack their aides

The news that Blair has publicly admitted that western intervention in Iraq has been a disaster may come as a surprise to some, but it will be welcome to most, if only because it will allow Britain to continue its work in Iraq more fully aware of the challenges our troops face. Even more surprising is that he made the comment in an interview with David Frost!

But don't jump out of your seats yet. Blair's spokesmen are already trying to pull the plug on Blair's remark, saying "he was simply acknowledging the question in a polite way before going on to explain his view" and didn't actually agree with the remark that Iraq has been a disaster. Well, judge for yourself:

Frost asked him whether Western intervention "has so far been pretty much of a disaster"?
Blair replied: "It has".

Just a polite acknowledgement? Or an honest and open answer? Which would Blair's spokesmen rather we interpreted it as?

Frustrate their knavish tricks

Next February we are to get a new £20 note. Edward Elgar, the Worcester composer, is to be replaced by Adam Smith, the eighteenth-century founder of modern economics and author of The Wealth of Nations.

Adam Smith will be the first Scot to appear on a British banknote. This is simply unacceptable. The Scottish already have their own currency. In fact, they already have Adam Smith himself - on £50 notes. They should keep their grubby hands off British money, or scrap Scottish notes altogether.

This is just the thin end of the wedge. Scotland now has its own parliament, but still elects MPs to Westminster to decide on issues only affecting England. Now they want to be represented on someone else's currency too! You know what we should do about it?

Nothing. 'Cos who really cares?

Civic pride

I have a wonderful little brother called Thomas, who is seven years old and attends Goostrey Primary School (left). Schools have become very important places in modern society; alongside pubs, they're the only true local "community" centres, now that church attendances have dropped. Goostrey School is currently celebrating its 150th anniversary. All the children have been involved in creating an exhibition on Goostrey's history. Today, I went to have a look.

I thought I knew quite a lot about my village. I am particularly proud to have been the person to create the Goostrey wikipedia article. How mistaken I was. There were displays on all sorts of aspects of village life, from the Victorian period to evacuees in the war to the importance of Jodrell Bank Observatory. The centre-piece was two 3D maps of Goostrey, showing the village in 1856 and again in 2006. You can see here how much it changed (below right).

Among other things, I learnt that the local viaduct was built by 150 men living in a shanty town; that the current church dates from 1798; and that, in 1959 (?), a man heroically snatched two babies from an oncoming train (his commemorative silver clock was on display).

Yet the most impressive thing about it was how the "community" suddenly coalesced in this insignificant school hall. I turned up at 2pm when the exhibition started, but already the Rev. Otley was present with a small group of elderly residents, accompanied by His Honour the Mayor of Congleton ("just call me Andy"). There was one display about Mrs Kettle, owner of a much-loved bits-and-bobs shop in Goostrey. Other parents and relatives soon turned up.

Later I was talking to my mother about whether "British identity" is threatened by internationalism and immigration. She thought it was, but I argued that actually identities become strongest when they are under threat. Goostrey is the same. There isn't really a "village community" any more. The old farming community has been swamped with rich commuters and pensioners who come and go. But as soon as village life starts to disintegrate, people panic and the identity is given new, enduring life. Last year the Rose Day celebrations became a huge event, and a scarecrow competition was held that is becoming a new tradition. There have been initiatives to improve the park and oppose a gas plant. And now, this celebration of 150 years of village life.

In a way, this new identity is artificial. The community is forced. People move to Goostrey aged 35 looking for a rural idyll, and when it looks to be disappearing they have to create it themselves. But today I developed a new affection for it. Who cares how communities are created, as long as we have them. People now start online "communities" based on their interests. Universities are becoming more important "communities" for the young adult. Is British identity under threat? No - as in Goostrey, British identity is just beginning.

Integrity

In a recent episode of Extras, Ricky Gervais accidently insulted a boy with autism. The show satirised the media frenzy resulting from his character's error by tracing how the media exaggerated the story until the papers were reporting that he hit the boy and his mother. He was only able to save himself by buying the boy a Nintendo.

Tabloid stuff, you might think. Well, not anymore. Observe the comparable frenzy resulting from Jack Straw's recent ill-judged remark about Muslim women's veils. Newsnight got caught up in it after it emerged that the same day, a woman had her headscarf snatched from her at a bus-stop. Kirsty Wark was clearly personally aggravated by the whole thing. In her interview with two Muslim women, she repeatedly tried to trick them into admitting they were forced to wear veils by their husbands. Later, in the studio, she got her guests ranting about this terrible society where a woman could have her veil snatched off her face. It wasn't a veil, Kirsty! It was a headscarf. Loads of people wear headscarfs! What will we hear tomorrow - that the man at the bus-stop hit her too? I hope he can afford that Nintendo.

Why I'm a hypocrite

State control of the media has to be one of the most abhorrent characteristics of any government. We gasp in horror when we hear that Somalia has banned radio stations from broadcasting music, that Turkey is prosecuting an author for "anti-Turkishness" or that China has starting vetting foreign news reports. State control is a symbol of growing oppression, of withdrawal from the international community, of a distrust of one's own citizens.

How come, then, that in Britain we have the BBC? The BBC is a state-funded media giant. It accounts for 26% of all television viewing and 47% of all terrestrial television viewing. The BBC also accounts for 55% of all radio listening, national and local - more than all the hundreds of commercial stations put together! It is an affront to our media's liberty and our citizens' liberty. If we want to watch TV, we have to pay for a licence and fund the BBC, whether we want to use the BBC or not. It is an embarassment to this country's values. Any self-respecting liberal democracy should jettison it immediately.

How come, then, that in Britain we love the BBC? You never hear anyone call for the BBC to be disbanded. We grumble about our licence fees, but we love radio stations with no commercials. We love to watch Match of the Day or the latest dramatisation of Jane Austen. We love the BBC news website, and we know that people all over the world love it too. I am no exception. My radio consumption is split between BBC Radio 2, Radio 3, and Radio 4 (BBC comes up with the best station names, too!). I watch Newsnight, the Daily Politics and Question Time (I know, I know...). How do I square this with my views on the role of the state?

This is one of the great paradoxes of politics. If I lived in a country with no state media, and the government said, right, we're now going to tax you £100 a year and start making our own broadcasts, I would be horrified. No-one would want it. But now that I do have the BBC, I wouldn't want rid of it ever. I can understand why Americans value the right to carry arms for self-defence. I can understand why that's an important expression of their liberty. But even though I live in a country where that liberty is denied, I don't want it - we seem to get along fine without guns.

Does this mean I am inconsistent? I don't know. All I know is that given the choice between the BBC and guns, I'd choose the BBC every time. And I'll still think of myself as a champion of civil liberties.

What's the matter with Kansas?

An article in the Guardian looked at an peculiar quirk in Americans' voting habits. In 2004, the 10 states with the lowest household income all voted Republican. The 5 states with the steepest falls in income also all voted Republican. Curious, because aren't poor people supposed to vote Democrat? A book by Thomas Frank, called What's the Matter with Kansas?, blames this phenomenon on "values" voting (gay rights and abortion). The poor, he says, have been hoodwinked into voting against their economic interests.

Well, actually, Mr Frank is wrong. The problem is not that poor people are voting Republican, but that they aren't voting at all. According to CNN polls, 63% per cent of those who earn less than $15,000 a year and 57% of those who earn between $15,000 and $30,000 voted Democrat. But the turnout for those earning less than $20,000 was only 48%.

The reason that the poorest states all vote Republican has nothing to do with the poor, because they aren't voting. Something else is going on. According to the Guardian, it's the rich people that you need to look at. In wealthy states, the rich split their votes between Republicans and Democrats. But (and this is the important bit), rich people in poor states always vote Republican. So the poor states always turn out red.

If the Democrats want to win an election, the answer is quite simple. Develop policies that appeal to the poor. There's a whole load of them just waiting to vote for you if it looks like it's worth it. According to US census figures, since 2000 poverty has risen by 7%, and median household income has fallen by 3%. As everyone surely knows by now, the question is not What's the matter with Kansas?, but What's the matter with the Democrats?

Superpowers

Amid the many articles about the fifth anniversary of 9/11, I notice the news that China has increased its censorship of the media by banning foreign agencies from distributing their own reports. From now on, the state-owned Xinhua news agency has the power to censor foreign reporting.

Obviously, this is a bad development. It struck me because I've used Xinhua myself to get news about China, and I've always been impressed by its constructive criticism of the Chinese government. On second thoughts, I suppose I've never seen anything there about Taiwan, ethnic minorities or human rights.

David Cameron today spoke against "anti-Americanism", which he says "represents an intellectual and moral surrender". It has often been remarked that America's unilateral approach to the "War on Terror" has lost it much of the worldwide sympathy it gained after 9/11. Certainly there is much in American foreign policy that deserves criticism. On the other hand, if we must have a world superpower, I think I would rather it be America than anyone else, so I'm inclined to agree with Cameron on this one. Previous superpowers, from the Roman Empire to the Mongols to the British, respected other societies far less than the Americans have done. I am grateful the Soviet Union lost the Cold War.

As China grows in confidence, it is worth asking ourselves what sort of superpower it might become. I am no great lover of America, but I know who I would prefer exercising world dominance. Today, as we reflect on the last five years, I hope that anti-Americanism isn't the abiding legacy of 9/11.

Why PR makes sense

I'm interested in American politics. It works very differently from politics here in Britain, or so I thought. Americans seem to split every issue into 'conservative' or 'liberal'. Every newspaper or news channel is either 'conservative' or 'liberal'; every person is either a 'conservative' or a 'liberal'; and every policy is either a 'conservative' policy or 'liberal' policy.

Strangely enough, in Britain we do have a Conservative and a Liberal Party! But, to me, those words don't mean the same things they do in America. My impression in America was that a person's entire political mindset could be extrapolated from any one issue. If you admitted to being anti-abortion, this automatically means that you are also anti-gay rights, anti-taxation, pro-Iraq war and countless other things I know nothing about. But here in Britain, I thought, that doesn't happen. I could quite happily have a discussion with a stranger about abortion while giving him no clues about my political leanings.

Last night, I tested this theory on a French and an English friend. To my surprise, the English friend disagreed. She said that moral, social and economic issues were just as polarised here as in America; that being anti-abortion was inextricably linked to adherence to the Conservative Party, pro-abortion with the Liberals or Labour, and so on. Perhaps she is right; perhaps I have just wilfully ignored the political landscape. Or perhaps British politics is polarised, but just not to such a great degree as American politics. However, the real surprise for me was hearing about politics in France.

The political situation in America and Britain is caused by the electoral "first past-the-post" system, in which only the top candidate in each region is represented in congress/parliament. This stops minority parties getting any power and forces a two-party system (Britain is unusual in that a third party, the Liberals, consistently attracts a sizeable portion of votes, but on the whole it is still a two-party nation).

In France, on the other hand, there is proportional representation. The number of votes equals the number of representatives. This has one significant consequence: minority parties are worth voting for. There are about ten parties in France that get over 5% of the vote: the biggest party only gets about 20%! The problem is that they have to form coalitions before they can govern the country, but think of the advantages! In France, if you care about the environment you don't have to vote Democrats, you can vote Greens. If you are patriotic, you don't have to vote Republican, you can vote Rally for the Republic. If you are socialist, you can vote Socialist or even Communist, and so on. And your vote will count.

Bipolar politics is bad politics. It averages out countless viewpoints into two groups. No-one can vote for the issues they care about without supporting numerous others they don't. Some people say at least it keeps extremism out of politics. On the contrary, the best thing you can do with extremism is keep it in the open. In France, the National Front polls about 12% of votes, but at least everyone knows they'll never actually get in power and they'll never contaminate the moderate parties. In Britain and America, extremism seethes under the surface. Conservatives and Republicans are forced to court right-wing nationalists. It makes me reluctant to vote for the parties I really like. That's not good enough. When will our governments realise the best democracy is genuine, proportional representation?