The futility of hope

Barack Obama's election victory is probably historic. But voters are likely to end up being disappointed.

Barack Obama's election victory has rightly been hailed as an important step forward in US history, particularly for the Africa-American community. But I feel strongly that people are getting ahead of themselves about what the election victory will mean. Reality may frustrate our current hope.

There are a few issues I have with the excessive jubilation which has met Obama's victory:

Firstly, his election is the stuff of Hollywood movies. And like all good Hollywood movies, finer details are often overlooked. Of all those US voters I saw interviewed in the run up to election day and on the day itself, few (if any) gave solid policy-based reasons as to why they would vote for Obama. Most referred simply to 'a need for change'. It remains unclear in what ways Obama's policies will bring that change (these still need a lot of work - especially his economic policies), or if he will be able to at all.

Related to that point: a President should be judged on his actions, not his rhetoric or his skin colour. It is widely accepted that Obama's victory has been helped in part by a tough two terms under George W. Bush. But it is the current President who serves to show that mistakes in office can reflect very badly on entire political career. Obama promises change. He now has to deliver it. And supporters should recognise the inherent difficulties of putting promises into action, instead of putting the cart before the horse and assuming change has occurred simply by virtue of Obama's election victory - he has the potential to be a transformational figure, but whether or not he is remains to be seen.

Thirdly, the election of a black President does not necessarily mean that the civil rights issue is over, or even ameliorating. At the end of his (possible) eight years in office, the black community in America will need to assess whether or not Obama has improved their life chances. It is still entirely feasible that he will fail to do so. Or, indeed, that Obama proves less capable as a President than he does at the lecturn. A bad stint in office from Obama could set back the cause of civil rights campaigners further than his election as President progresses it.

Finally, Obama's election victory isn't necessarily as historic as some people suggest. It is clear the mainstream media were hoping for an Obama victory because it would make the better story, and he got a fair wind as a result. But Obama raised close to $1bn for his campaign, and outspent McCain by more than double. Obama's breaking of a commitment to accept public funding allowed him to raise significantly more than McCain, and to spend more in key states. It was therefore hardly a level playing field. Given this, and the unpopularity of the incumbent, is a Democrat win really that exceptional? Perhaps the real question is why Obama didn't do even better, given these other contextual factors.

Obama has a lot going for him - youth, intelligence, oratory, the ability to surround himself with the right people and so on. However, he has made the mistake of raising expectations too high and can now only fail to deliver.

We hope that the promised change will come. But, knowing politics, that hope is likely to be futile.

UPDATE: A friend last night reminded me of a line Tony Blair once used, reflecting on his own experience: "You campaign in poetry, and govern in prose."

Say what you 'C'

Ben Brogan suggests Labour have "found the interweb" on his blog this morning, embedding video proof of the new line of e-attack from the party (reproduced below).

I think it's a little too early to make such bold proclamations - the video trots out the usual list of well-worn attacks on the Conservative party and all without the wit that viral videos require to be fully effective.

If Labour have found the interweb, then they obviously don't know how to use it properly. 

A case of "a lot done, a lot still to do"..!?

Old Mother Hubbard

"The Government’s deficit is so big that the cupboard is now bare."

David Cameron, Oct 17 2008

Apparently it is a la mode to patronise the electorate by reducing the complexities of modern fiscal policy to children's nursery rhymes.

Perhaps here is what we can expect from the Conservative Party policy commissions in the run up to the election:

• The Baa Baa Black Sheep Agricultural Policy
  
• The Humpty Dumpty Defence Plan
  
• The Simple Simon Vision for Small Businesses
  
• The Pat-A-Cake Pat-A-Cake Child Poverty Action Plan
  
• The Owl and the Pussycat Civil Partnership Bill
  
• The Ride a Cock-Horse Transport Plan
  

Spoilt ballot

The decision by Labour's National Policy Forum to support reducing the voting age to 16 is confused, is unlikely to achieve its intended aim, and doesn't address the problem of low political activism amongst younger voters.

Apparently this fisking business is in vogue in the "blogosphere", so I've decided to fisk this post at Labourhome titled "Labour takes the final leap".

The time has come to give 16 year olds the right to vote

Left-wing commentator Ellie Levenson outlines good reasons why this is not the case in her 2004 Independent article. I will not repeat them here for reasons of brevity.

Many politicians and party activists decry the fact that 18-25 year olds are the least engaged voting demographic. However, what many fail to realise is that 16-18 year olds are considerably more interested in politics, and by disenfranchising young adults, we isolate them and many lose interest by the time they are old enough to vote.

Two things: Firstly, the logic of this argument points to lowering the voting age beyond merely 16 (for instance - we wouldn't to disenfranchise 14 year olds, say, who may be interested in politics but unlikely to vote by the time they're 16 and so on ad infinitum) which is plainly absurd. Secondly, it is just stupid to suggest that the best way to get 18-25 year olds to vote is to give 16 and 17 year olds the vote. This doesn't address the root cause of apathy at all, and will just add to the stock of people who abstain from voting.

The Labour Party has made many positive steps towards engaging young people; the introduction of Citizenship education in schools, the appointment of a Labour Party Vice Chair Youth, currently Dawn Butler MP, and even the amount of money being ploughed into youth services speaks volumes in itself. However, the National Policy Forum, with overwhelming support from both CLPs and Trade Unions, has now taken the final leap, and elected to reduce the voting age to 16.

If Labour's "positive steps" have been so successful, you would expect voter turnout amongst younger groups to have increased since 1997. But they haven't. It is voter turnout amongst the under-25s which is taking the final leap (off a cliff):

• Under 25 turnout 1997 General Election - 59.7%
• Under 25 turnout 2001 General Election - 49.4%
• Under 25 turnout 2005 General Election - 44.3%

Oh dear. And giving a whole additional tranche of (largely) uninformed people a chance not to vote is supposed to ameliorate the situation? Give me a break.

In doing so, the party has responded to a wealth of national campaigns on the issue, being run by numerous organisations, from the National Union of Students to the British Youth Council. Not only do these organisations put forward their own compelling cases, but the very fact that teenagers are prepared to run campaigns on this issue should be proof in itself that there is the desire out there amongst young people to have the right to vote.

Read: Labour's NPF has succumbed to a well-organised lobby group with a vested interest in the outcome and who evidently don't represent the constituency they claim to (because most young people don't vote). Just because there exist a handful of political hacks aged 16 and 17 does not mean all 16 and 17 year olds are interested in politics, nor does it mean all 16 and 17 year olds deserve the vote. And the NPF should do better than just accepting any argument put forward to it by a pressure group.

However, if all of this seems too theoretical, there is an even simpler argument for allowing young people to vote. That old adage “no taxation without representation” pretty much sums it up. If young people are working and paying income tax, then they have the right to vote for who they pay those taxes too. Furthermore, if 16 year olds can get married, pay adult fares on transport, and die for their country, they quite simply should have the right to vote.

16 and 17 years olds for the large part don't pay tax, and given Labour has proposed to keep all children in school until 18, this would preclude them earning a sufficient amount to pay income tax. It is confused to argue that we should keep 16 and 17 year olds in school and simultaneously argue that 16 year olds need the vote because they pay income tax.

Moreover, the unemployed don't pay tax either, but I haven't seen a legion of progressives marching on the NPF to demand Labour revoke suffrage from those without a job. Ellie Levenson takes apart other well used fallacies often trotted out in support of lowering the voting age.

Thus, I am hopeful that Annual Conference will respond positively to these arguments and ratify the decision made by the National Policy Forum. The time has come for 16 year olds to be given the right to vote. There is wide ranging support both within the youth movement and outside of it. Young people are more informed about politics than ever before. Please let’s give them a chance to express their interest, before we lose it for ever.

I am hopeful that Labour's annual conference doesn't have a collective brain failure and support this barmy policy suggestion. Giving 16 year olds the vote won't cement their interest in politics (and let's not forget that the vast majority of 16 year olds aren't even politically aware, let alone active). Extending suffrage to 16 year olds is an easy way for politicians to appear like they are doing something about young voter apathy. But the reason 18-25 year olds don't vote isn't because they didn't have the vote when they were 16. It's because politicians don't work hard enough or offer enough to that group to make it worth their while to vote.

The problem with voter apathy lies not with our electoral system, but with our politicians. Let's fix them - the problem - to encourage more young people to vote.

I'm not personally opposed to extending suffrage given legitimate reasons to do so. But I have not seen any compelling arguments on the issue of giving 16 year olds the vote.

So maybe all these 16 years who are so politically aware can come up with better reasons for extending suffrage to them, instead of the lazy and ill-considered argumentation that appears to be on offer.

Countdown

The electorate is now clear: they do not want Gordon Brown, nor the Labour party to remain in Government beyond this Parliament. Glasgow East has started the countdown to the end of the latest incarnation of the Labour party.

The SNP are probably right to describe the result in Glasgow East as "off the richter scale". And it goes to show that the traditional campaigning methods that served Labour so well in the 1990s - the "Tories are bad" strategy - need to be dramatically revised if the party is to avoid decimation at the next general election.

As I've said before, telling the electorate that things were bad under the Tories in the 1980s doesn't wash anymore - people want to hear a vision for the country and for their communities, not a history lesson. It is embarrassing that the Labour party stick steadfastly to this antiquated mantra.

Punters at PoliticalBetting.com are currently suggesting that Gordon Brown will still be in charge on the 1st January 2009. I think this is optimistic, and would certainly be a mistake on the part of Labour MPs - many of whom now look certain to lose their jobs at the next national poll.

It is difficult to see how the Labour party will 'renew' itself from here.

• I was upset to hear the news that Carol Vorderman is leaving Countdown. Without either Vorderman or the late Richard Whiteley on the show, and given the current trend of having an almost Have I Got News For You-style of presenter changes, it is difficult to see what future the programme has.
  

About time

The 35-hour working week - introduced by Lionel Jospin in France almost ten years ago - is dead. And about time too.

The policy was originally designed to help reduce historically high levels of unemployment. However, despite recent improvements in the French unemployment rate, they have remained stubbornly high - and well above the Eurozone average.

The 35 hour working week was an ill-conceived attempt to assist the French labour market. Since its inception it has repeatedly been watered down. Its failure today demonstrates that excessive regulation is not the path to rising economic growth, and does not readily help those outside the labour market.

The balance between workers' rights and the ability for employers to respond to prevailing economic factors is difficult to strike. Despite running counter to popular French opinion, the scrapping of the 35 hour working week will redress the current imbalance and should help France recover from years of sluggish growth.

Plane Stupid

Forget gluing yourself to the Prime Minister in order to get the government to act to stem growth in airport demand, why not simply use some basic economic arguments?

Photo credit: 2747.com

I was reading an op-ed piece in the New York Times yesterday written by the US Secretary of Transportation, Mary E. Peters, which highlighted her attempts to change the way landing slots are allocated at the busiest airports in the US - the three in the New York area (JFK, La Guardia and Newark).

It also outlined the rationale for landing slot auctions - that demand should determine the price (cost) of acquiring a slot. The most lucrative departure/arrival slots would have a premium over those less popular slots, in contrast to the current allocation mechanism which sees a flat charge applied irrespective of demand (based on aircraft weight, instead).

She writes:

After all, the airlines themselves lower ticket prices to attract passengers when demand is low and then raise prices to maximize revenues when demand is high. What would happen if airlines were required by the government to charge the same ticket price for travel on Dec. 24 as they charge in the middle of September? There would either be rationing of extremely scarce seats on Dec. 24 or exorbitantly high prices for widely available seats in the middle of September. In either case, this inefficient outcome would damage the economy broadly and the aviation sector specifically.

Yet that is exactly how airports charge airlines for the use of their terminals and runways.

I was surprised to learn that landing slots were not already allocated by auction in the US. Further investigation revealed that a similar flat pricing structure is used at BAA's airports as well, determined by the Civil Aviation Authority - the industry regulator, with landing slots allocated by ACL.

Price caps are a ludicrous way to manage increasing air travel demand. Passengers and airlines alike should face the full cost of their use of airport services - after all, there exist opportunity costs of allocating scare resources.

The main benefit of auctioning landing slots is that market forces will dictate demand for slots, with prices dictated by the value of the slots to bidders.

There could be many benefits to this, which could address many of the concerns of groups such as Plane Stupid. Auctions are likely to moderate demand for slots, which could ease the need for airport expansion. Furthermore, existing slots are likely to yield greater revenue - thereby providing much needed funds for further capital investment in existing infrastructure, which could ease the need for airport expansion.

At the same time, auctions would allow the removal of 'use-it-or-lose-it' conditions, as the impact of this could be factored into pricing decisions by airlines at the point of auction. This would mean they wouldn't have to fly ghost flights in order to maintain slots.

Gluing yourself to the Prime Minister is a decent stunt. But environmental lobbyists miss the point - it is price caps, not airport expansion per se, that are plane stupid.

• Rising oil prices are already putting strains on airline business models. Increasing input costs could naturally moderate demand assuming the mechanisms to consumer fares work appropriately. Nonetheless, auctions, not price caps, are a better way of regulating use of the UK's airport services.