Cameron's speech: a message to his critics or British or EU leaders?

The long awaited and long-trailed speech by David Cameron to map out Britain's future relationship with the European Union has taken place. It can be interpreted in two ways. Firstly as a call for reform of the political settlement that binds EU member states. Secondly as a mechanism for silencing opponents of Britain's membership in his own party and the UK Independence Party who threaten to take votes from the Conservatives at next year's European Parliamentary Election. So what was this all about fundamentally?

Cameron started on the attack but finished defending the European Union, but it is the role of the EU in maintaining our, and its other member's, prosperity that he focused on defending. He argued that EU membership is a means to an end: prosperity. The EU is not a means in itself. He argued that the EU is facing three crises:

1. a Eurozone crisis which needs governance 
2. low competitiveness due to failing to allow full access to a single market and while it produces 25% of global GDP, it also is responsible for 50% of social spending
3. democratic accountability and the gap between citizens and EU institutions

But, he argued the greatest danger facing the EU is the rejection of new thinking. More of the same is not tenable. This was not purely about highlighting the deficit in governance, economic competitiveness and accountability. Cameron also presented a vision around five principles:

1. Competitiveness
2. Flexibility - celebrating diversity as a single market not a single currency and polity
3. Power flowing to member states not away - repatriation of power
4. Democratic accountability and a stronger role for national parliaments
5. Fairness for all nations in and out of the Eurozone

He made sweeping claims about British people being disillusioned with the EU, wanting a common market not a political union, over which they have had no say; this a direct attack on predecessors who shrank away from a referendum. Cameron wants to confront the issue, but not now.

Cameron argued that what is needed is a new settlement for the EU, and that this may be inevitable when the EU emerges from the Eurozone crisis. He wants to negotiate for a new settlement based on his principles, and in that he is not alone as an EU leader. Following those negotiations and redrafting an image of the future of the Union will be presented to the British people at which point an simple in or out choice will be given in a referendum.

So does it matter. Some European leaders will agree and may well work with Cameron to support his five principles. There is much truth in his critique of the workings of the EU, and many agree that reform may be needed and may now be inevitable. But these are only principles, broad brush statements about the future, there is no detail on how these would be instituted. So could this shape the EU, probably not, it will be down to future negotiations among all the leaders of the EU member states. But, Conservative MPs seem favourable and that maybe the more important aspect of the speech. He promised a referendum, delivered a very conservative and neo-liberal critique of the EU, he called for a return to economic not political union: he wore the clothes of the Eurosceptic throughout. But he seems also to have assuaged calls for a referendum now. His defence of the union, and plausible case for why not now may have won the day. So perhaps the internal and domestic political ramifications are more important than the more global impact.

But there is now uncertainty. Sometime, possibly in the next five years there could be a referendum. Possibly Cameron will push for a yes to staying a member but, if the negotiations fail, he may push for a no. How will that uncertainty impact upon our relations within the EU, the relations for pan-European business partnerships? The wider implications are as uncertain as Cameron's proposals and the future relationship between Britain and the European Union

Can Cameron's speech pull the Tories from the Euro swamp?

As David Cameron prepares to make what may be the most important speech of his political career it looks like the Conservative Party are marching back into the fetid political swamp that is Europe all over again. Margaret Thatcher, the Tories greatest twentieth century star (after Winston Churchill) was swallowed by this swamp as was her unlucky successor John Major. 

Now it seems David Cameron is being dragged under as Europhiles and Europhobes within his party have allowed their self-destructive impulses to resurface. This is hardly surprising given the dreadful state of the Euro and the European project generally in the post-2007 financial crisis era. Voters are increasingly wary of further involvement in a European Union that is prepared to beggar the people of Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland to save the ill-conceived vanity project that is the Euro. The rise and rise of UKIP in recent years  is a clear sign that a large section of the public want as little as possible to do with the continent, its open borders, austerity plans and loss of sovereignty. With UKIP actually ahead of the Tories in one recent ComRes poll  http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/6829 for European elections old divisions within the Conservative Party have widened dramatically as members worry that UKIP will do to the party what the SDP did to Labour in the 1980s. 

Nigel Farage toasts the Euro quagmire

The prospect of splitting the Tory vote has actually increased splits within the party as those for and against Europe begin a fight to the death. In the meantime Labour and UKIP are quietly chuckling on the sidelines as Cameron tries to navigate a middle way between the warring factions in his party that will keep both sides happy. Whatever the speech contains it is most likely to spell the beginning of the end for the increasingly fragile ConDem alliance.



David McQueen
Programme Leader: Politics and Media
http://courses.bournemouth.ac.uk/courses/undergraduate-degree/politics-media/none/3123/

Post-Leveson Conference 8th February, Bournemouth University:
http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/futurestudents/microsites/post-leveson-conference/index.html

Why electing PCCs is a bad idea

I have lots of reasons for opposing these but the two main points of opposition for me are as follows.

Firstly, we do not want the police to be under party influence, so setting out policies that follow or oppose governments for political reasons as opposed to what is right for the area. 

The second is that in elections like this turn out is low and some people are more likely to turn out an vote than others. If PCCs view these elections strategically and seek to be re-elected then they may choose to ensure that the areas where voting is highest, or those with the greatest likelihood of voting, have a much greater influence on policy. We would not want highly visible policing in some areas but invisible elsewhere for the purposes of winning votes. They are my major criticisms, both are dismissed by the candidates I have spoken to but I still feel the dangers exist.

Those who agree and wish to voice this opposition can sign a petition http://t.co/uMZugFqJ

Too many tweets... do not a news item make

Which is the brave move made by David Cameron. From stating that 'too many tweets make a twat', three years later Cameron has joined Twitter and been given quite the welcome. Of course it was unsolicited but it was a weekend, it was a fun story at the beginning of the Conservative Party Conference and it seemed someone thought it a good idea to submit question via Twitter. The #askdave went berserk, trending in hours. If anyone out there wants to find some witty critiques of Cameron, his cabinet, his government, his policies they are there. He made no attempt to crowdsource but the crowd appeared anyway. 

What is interesting is that there are no news items to be found in the mainstream UK media for #askdave, only the New York Times makes a wry comment. So despite the number of responses (though many are from John Prescott), the fact that it seems infamous in politico circles, it is simply a phenomenon within a bubble that encloses the politically-interested Twitter community. So, how democratizing is Twitter, does it shape the agenda; perhaps only when people say something that interests journalists, that shapes an existing story, but it is not a way to capture the attention of journalists with a story they do not want to report. A surprise in this case!

The Right Message?

After two and a half years in government there are many messages that perhaps should be communicated. Backed by an email campaign and webpage, foreshadowing the Conservative's conference, this is the message they seem to want to get out to voters. Of course it will go down well with their supporters, research shows that attacks always do (see for example the work of Stephen Ansolabehere). But surely the target of the message is the floating voter, or more likely the person who voted Conservative in 2010 but may have become disillusioned with the party (or indeed the coalition government) and may be reconsidering their choice following what was regarded as a 'spectacular' performance by Ed Miliband at Labour's Conference.

But will it work. Will it make those wavering Conservative supporters reconsider? Creating a little bit of cognitive dissonance to juxtapose the post conference euphoria? Or will it make the Conservatives seem a little desperate? Having nothing positive to say about their own record they go into attack mode. It is a question of perceptions but it could be a risky strategy for a government that have never fully won the approval of the voters. 

Open Source Democracy

While I do not always agree with Clay Shirky I find his ideas and arguments highly engaging and find myself thinking wouldn't it be great if he was right. In a recent TED talk he talks about the potential for open source democracy and crowd-powered social change (a feature of much of his writing). His idea is that governments would be willing to provide a social, communal space where political decisions can be developed and taken by the combined thinking of politicians (possibly civil servants) but importantly also the ordinary citizen - that the space becomes co-created and reliant on the sum of all parts to reach sensible solutions. It works on the same principle as open source software - co-operation without co-ordination. The formation of communities that come together to reach common goals. Watch his video, think about his argument, but also think about the ramifications.

The advantages are clear; what we are talking about here is electronically-enabled, non-representative direct, democracy. But what of disadvantages? One of the major problems with direct democracy is how to gain the right representative composition of participation - in other words will direct democracy create better laws, laws which are the benefit of all or just a small, non-representative minority. Where would be the checks and balances to prevent racist, homophobic, sexist and prejudiced voices predominating. Of course there can be checks and balances but is it possible, organically, to get a sufficient number of average people to participate in direct democracy initiatives even when the initiative has a direct link to a legislature. Even if you can gain a critical mass to participate at one point, can such a critical mass be maintained? Will that critical mass both be deliberative as well as anarchic or just plain satirical? (Downing Street petitions in the UK have gained signatures against mandatory car tracking but also for electing Jeremy Clarkson as prime minister). So there are challenges. But could it work, is there real potential or is this just a cyber optimist's pipe dream? 

Will taxation save the 'quality' press

From the various comments online the answer is no, and that it is a stupid idea. But this is not an off the wall idea from someone who knows nothing about our media industry. Guardian executive investigations editor David Leigh has suggested a £2 a month broadband levy should be imposed on all households to save newspapers from the effect of falling print circulations, so basically as the television licence protects the BBC, this tax would protect print journalism. His argument is that as consumers will not pay for content, an argument that was lost some time ago, the only option is to collect the tax via broadband providers (stand by for a price rise and administration cost to coincide with this if ever enacted). 

The question, however, is will it save print journalism; or rather can print journalism be saved? Print has a problem. It cannot compete with rolling news but tries to through online rolling news, so undermining its own product. The print version is more portable (though iPad or kindle versions make some media more portable than others), but is is convenient? Print can deliver a greater level of analysis than is often the case with straight news bulletins and most news programmes outside to the BBC stable, a point Ivor Gaber noted during analysis of the coverage of the leader's debates during the 2010 UK General Election, but does it? Basically is print journalism providing a product that is desired by the 21st Century consumer, or are they thinking from within a bubble where they are worthy, the fourth estate, and so needing protection? 

I personally can see both sides of the argument but would be interested in the views of readers. 

Engaging the Public

On July 6th we organised an event which attracted around 35 people. The premise was that politics should be about engaging the public, informing them, interesting them, exciting them and involving them. Yet there is widespread disinterest, disengagement and distrust in our political system. This one-day event is designed for sharing ideas about why the public show disinterest and distrust and how we might consider re-engaging the public, encouraging people to get involved in politics. Our research focuses at the local and national level of politics. We will introduce ideas ranging from understanding the political consumer to how to engage and mobilise members of the public using the latest technologies and how to audit communication. This is how the day went:

The Promise and Problems of Online Deliberation

There is a fascinating report by Laura Black available free here which assesses the deliberative prospects offered by different forum design choices. The report includes a great schematic which gives an accessible overview of the implications design choices have for designing and hosting spaces that facilitate deliberative decision making. The question that is perhaps not answered is how to make people want to have a conversation in the first place, and then how to start that conversation - but for those with an audience that want to talk this gives some invaluable insights.

Research shows government departments do not use social media properly

Mark Pack highlights that government departments are in broadcast mode only and have reasonably few followers. See this video from PR Week. My own work (presented at the ECPR and currently being revised for publication) suggests there is a correlation here, that the more interactive you are, and the more personalised, the more people engage with your message.