I promise not to go on too much about my running and/or diet here.

However, I thought these photos told the story of Sunday’s Great Eastern Run half marathon rather well. I’m tempted to make one my new twitter profile pic.

I look so devilishly handsome and smooth in all of them, it’s hard to tell which one is best. (in case you were wondering, the race was great. Really enjoyed it, all pictoral evidence to the contrary aside)

Miles 2, 6, 11 and 13.1, I believe

Politics is all about plans at the moment. We have plan A, plan B, plan C, plan A plus,  and, today a plan for Jobs and Growth.

Politicians love plans. Perhaps we should remember that the one thing most people know about our carfeully laid plans is that they gang aft agley.

If they love poetry, or are Scottish, they might also remark that such plans entail nought but grief an’ pain,  for promis’d joy. 

I’m often surprised how rarely people grasp the dynamics of political tactics.

I don’t know why I am so surprised by this, because I can’t operate a drill with more than a fifteen per cent chance of success, and am currently baffled by challenge of using rinse-aid in a dishwasher, so why I assume that what is obvious to one is obvious to all, I don’t know.

However, it appears that people are often befuddled by the motivations of our leaders.  So I propose an occassional series to educate, inform and entertain. If anyone is baffled by a political development, especially one where a politician seems to acting in a way that cuts against their won self or party interest, they simply ask on twitter, using a hashtag of #howpoliticsworks.

I then venture to explain what motivations might be at play, and we can all chip in, with our various levels of cynicism and idealism. 

Only one rule will apply: Do not assume bad faith. All comments or explanations that rely on the politican being a bad egg will be ruled invalid, even if they are, or appear to be, a bad egg. Even bounders are rational. 

Sound good?

Let’s start off then, with a simple one. Why is David Cameron defending Liam Fox so carefully? (more…)

As we wait for the latest political scandal to play itself out, I thought it might be interesting to start a discussion, here in the shiny new digs.

The topic that occurs to me as being a useful one: What kills Labour governments? This was sparked for me by reading about Denis Macshane’s 31-51-81 conference, and his associated articles exploring why we were in opposition so long after our defeats. The debate sounded fascinating, but it left me wondering – was the answer to be found in our opposition, or in our government?

I have a sophisticated theory that says if you keep tripping up and falling flat on your face when going down a flight of stairs, the next time you essay a  journey to the Living Room, it is worth investigating any obstacle that may be causing you to plummet groundward, and on locating such, to endeavour to remove it from the escalatorial vicinity.

Or in other words, if you find you keep punching yourself in the face, your significant health issues are not your nosebleeds, but your mental state.

So, a question for debate. What kills Labour governments? (more…)

Damn you Liam Fox.  I know your surname is not your fault, but surely you could have had the decency to do an IDS and insert a user friendly middle name as pun-proof collateral.  Since your surname is stripped down to the bare bones, it is nigh impossible to write about you without finding yourself in a pun  or innuendo minefield. For Fox sake? Fox in a hole?  All impossible for the discerning writer with standards.

Nor does it help that your unpaid adviser, Mr Werrity, has a name that appears to have come straight from a Trollope novel. I keep expecting to hear that Mr Bonteen, MP, is outraged by these developments.

That’s what it comes to, being ruled by Tories. Always the same.

I find it hard to take Liam Fox seriously at his best, and he is certainly not at his best at the moment. So perhaps I am not treating the allegations against him with the import they deserve.

Also, if I’m frank, I’m so keen to avoind the slur of innuendo that I find myself being restrained, not by political correctness, but by a desire to be well mannered. If I were to describe Mr Fox as a prating coxcomb, which I’d do in a heartbeat for most politicians,  it wouldn’t feel quite right. There’s something ugly in the way a lingering emphasis  on the word “friend” hovers over much of the copy generated on this topic. (more…)

Hello again. It’s been a while.

I paused this blog in mid-March, just as the Libyan conflict was beginning. My last post, in fact, was a full-throated endorsement of the government’s strategy in Libya. In a way, it felt appropriate to sign off with something definitively non-partisan, from someone who  is more than usually tribal. It is good to discover that evens have not conspired to make a mockery of that endorsement. (though of course, this could yet change).

Mind you, I have not been entirely absent from the Internet in the six months since I shuttered this blog.

So, just in order to have them collected together, here are some of the things I’ve written since then, in all sorts of places

A review of Steve Richards’ “Whatever it takes”: in Renewal

On a similar topic, but more lightheartedly, I had a comments thread debate with Neal Lawson here.

Johann Hari and the article for Speigel: in Liberal Conspiracy. I wanted to explain why I, as a progressive, felt strongly that Johann Hari’s failures as a journalist were worth highlighting. I don’t take any pleasure in saying his, but his repeated slip-shod writing, distortions, and ventures into smearing and fabrication disqualify him from being considered a worthy or serious journalist. More pleasingly, I’ve developed a solid respect to the people at the Orwell Prize, who took the allegations seriously.

We need to talk about Gordon: A discussion of the failures of a Prime Minister I supported. The long version for Renewal and a shorter, more Conference focused version in the Independent. This was the first time I have ever written for a National Newspaper, and it was rather a revelation to be edited professionally, perhaps especially in light of the above. Thanks to Ben Jackson at Renewal and Katherine Butler at the Independent, who not only improved my argument, but ensured I have now written articles not strewn with errors, both logical and syntactical.

A short series reflecting on Labour’s 2011 conference, on Labourlist: here, here and here. Notably downbeat, but still, an honest reflection of my current state of mind about the party I love.  If I were to write again, I’d try o be more positive about the future opportunities, but more trenchant about the past and constructive about the present. Hopefully that sentiment will carry over to this blog.

As to why I’ve started up again, it’s simple really. Six months ago, I knew what I wanted to say, but as a Labour loyalist didn’t really know quite how to say it constructively and helpfully.

Today I know the flaws and mistakes in what I think are still there, but feel I know enough to be sure that if I am wrong, or irritating, I can at lest be wrong and irritating in a way that is constructive, loyal and honest. The missing ingredient there, is of course, being interesting. If , then, well, I need to keep working at it!

So anyway, welcome to the Blog. My name’s Hopi Sen and I’m a Labour Loyalist and a fiscal conservative.

Let’s see how it goes, eh?

Hurrah for the end of conference season. It’s not been the most impressive, or most motivating Conference season for any of the three main parties. For each, Conference was a chance to wrap themselves in a comfort blanket of re-assurance, a brief occlusion from scepticism and doubt, a place where secret fears could be ignored, at least for a little while.

For the Lib Dems, there was the cheering belief that the Public would soon come to recognise the great self sacrifice they had made in forming a government that ran counter to what they had stood for when asking for support.

That there seemed to be little or no evidence to support this belief failed to prevent it being presented as a near-inevitable development.

The Lib Dems seemed to hold fast to the belief that their reward would surely come in the electoral hereafter, even though the voters who they need to attract show almost no sign at all of being impressed by the comeback narrative they crafted.

There is an electoral strategy available for the Lib Dems to attract new support. But it involves confirming and passionately advocating their real position as Britain’s second centre-right party and attracting the voters that David Cameron’s suprising irresolution prevents him from sweeping up. I doubt that this would be attractive to a majority of their party.

For Labour, there were two comforting delusions. The first was that the British people would soon surely recognise that we had been right all along on the economy and come to trust us again with its handling, just so long as we kept repeating that this was the case. The second, which emerged mostly after the conference, was that asserting general platitudes and moral verities as somehow especially Labour values was “setting the political agenda” rather than issuing banalities that almost anyone could assent to (and promptly did).

Perhaps even more significantly, Labour decided that it would be best to downplay what we would do if elected (Reduce Deficit, Pay down debt, Not Put up Taxes) in favour of stressing again the great things we would have done if we had not been wholly rejected at the last election, while emphasising the, bold, dashing (and vague) change we would offer in the future.

For the Conservatives, and for my money worst of all, there was a retreat from the reality of what they were doing, in favour of the assertion of what they want to be thought of as doing.

The Prime Minister and Chancellor told us that they want growth now, when in fact they seek a purging. They asserted optimism, and enthusiasm, and energy, as if the act of saying these things made them a policy.

It would, I felt, have been better if the Conservatives had embraced the misery and gloom of the economy. If they had said “Yes, we are hurting you. Yes, we are turning down the easy path to growth. We are doing this because we believe it will work, not this year, not even next, but if five, or ten, or twenty years. You may resent us now. We know many do and we understand. We may not win the next election. But we hope to have done a great service by the time you next decide on us.”

At least this would have had the benefit of being true to their governing strategy, if not optimistic, energetic and diffused with sunlight.

All three parties felt like they chose to hide from the realities of their electoral or governing predicaments this month. I don’t like the idea of a “disconnect” between politicians and the country, because politicians are always and everywhere disconnected from the country, and this is not a huge problem. This time, however, I expect that many will look at all three Parties, and wonder if this is the extent of their economic and political response to the various crises facing Britain.

This was a season of platitudes and rhetorical banalities. I fear that perhaps this was because the answers for all the parties are dark and difficult and in their own ways, unpopular.

We live in hard times. Perhaps we should address that, not hide from them among our own certainties and securities?

If you’ve found yourself here, this is because either

a) I told you to come and take a look

or

b) You’re a really enthusiatic googler of me.

Either way, let me know what you think of the new digs.

Also, as a test, here’s an embedded clip from the beeb

Ahh. The perils of being a junior minister

Just wanted to say that there will soon be more blogging action here.

I want to redesign and self host the site, and migrate it to my own url, so will be a little while yet. But since the site is still getting a couple of hundred visits a day, thought I should mention the place isn’t dead, merely awaiting resuscitation.

I’m thinking of making it the first group blog by a single author.

After what feels like an age of indecision, yet is in fact less than a month, the UN resolution on Libya feels like a moment of hope. That hope is qualified, uncertain and unsure, of course, but real.

Like many more qualified, I worry that the progress that Gadaffi has made in the last fortnight has been enough to secure his regime, and isolate the rebellion. the UN resolution allows the protection of civilians, but that task will be hard to enforce from the air alone, especially in areas under the control of the regime. The knock at the door, the midnight kidnappings, torture and death squads will continue. The regime must surely fall, but it may yet hurt many as it collapses.

For the moment, it looks like Benghazi is safe, but many other parts of Libya are now under the control of a vindictive, oppressive regime. Thank God that at least the Libyan government no longer have the means to deploy chemical weapons, so the fate of Halabja and Marsh Arabs will be avoided. As the New York Times said

“Today, with father and son preparing for a siege of Tripoli, the success of a joint American-British effort to eliminate Libya’s capability to make nuclear and chemical weapons has never, in retrospect, looked more important”

That said, however uncertain the future, or dangerous for those behind Libyan lines, this is still a moment of hope. The United Nations has set out clear language, with little of the complexity of the resolutions that so hampered the UN in Bosnia. Although this is only a beginning, and there are many horrors to avoid, this is the right thing to do.

So a word of praise for the Prime Minister. In his own government he was perhaps the clearest, earliest voice for a no fly zone. He has firmly cast aside his early rhetoric about the purpose of British foreign policy. A choice has been made, and it is the right one.

The consequences of that choice, which surely requires the protection of civilians in the West as well as the East and the manner of the eventual ending of the Libyan regime, may throw up many more challenges. The road ahead will be tough, and there will be challenges to our resolve both in Libya and far beyond. But the right road has been chosen. The Prime Minister deserves support and congratulation for that decision, both now and when far harder times come.