Globalisation - WTF Have We Done ?

Most of us have heard of ‘Globalisation’. Its usually sold to us as a positive; they say that its an international market for companies and that for consumers there is a wider range of products to choose from. They also sell it on creating a greater level of investment in developing countries which can be used for economic reconstruction, and of course, all of that is true - but to what extent?

Both UKIP and Donald Trump made a big play on curbing globalisation’s influence in the EU referendum and US election but I bet the average man on the street doesn’t realise why it isn’t good and just how much control and influence the big corporations actually have over our lives these days.

And you can’t say we weren’t warned about globalisation. In 1938 President Roosevelt warned that “the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism.”

The subject of globalisation has many strands and is really too big for one blog so I just thought I'd give a flavour of what I think some of the issues are.

Who Are They?
These days the large companies like Starbucks, Amazon, Shell, Microsoft, McDonalds etc, reach right across the world. They have offices and factories in many different countries. They also have the financial resources to develop an underdeveloped country by introducing Western automation in production and advanced technology. This does change the lives of people in these underdeveloped countries, but not always in a good way.

Corporate globalisation has been around for a while; it’s crept into our lives almost stealth like, in reality it’s already taken over the world. Over half of the world's top 100 economies are not countries but corporations. Here’s a few examples:

• The oil people, Shell's revenues are greater than Venezuela's Gross National Product
• Asda/Walmart's revenues are bigger than Indonesia's
• General Motors revenues exceed the revenues of Ireland, New Zealand and Hungary -  combined !!

These multi-national corporations essentially own the world. It's a scary thought isn’t it? The world is in effect owned by these greedy corporations. Many are convinced that corporate globalisation is not only responsible for the economic mess we find ourselves in today but that it’s also responsible for the environmental mess we now find ourselves in. I must admit, it’s hard to disagree.

And don’t forgot, corporate globalisation has no conscience. The only thing these massive corporations truly recognise is profit. They have no other motive; no other reason to exist. Human, national and local values are all virtually non-existent in their corporate culture, and for me, that's why corporate globalisation is such a bad idea.

So What is There to Actually Like?
Not a lot really. Globalisation operates mostly in the interests of the richest countries, which continue to dominate world trade at the expense of developing countries. Today the role of the Third World in the world market is mostly to provide America and Europe with cheap labour and raw materials. There are no guarantees that the wealth from inward investment will benefit their local community. Generally all the profits are sent back to the developed countries where these Multi-National Companies are usually based. 

Multi-national companies with their massive economies of scale, may drive local companies out of business, (we’ve all seen our local shops disappear when a new Tesco comes to town). If it then becomes cheaper to operate in a different country, the Multi-National Company just closes down its factory and makes local people redundant, we’ve all seen it!

An absence of strictly enforced international laws means that Multi-National Companies may operate in the Third World countries in a way that would not be allowed in developed countries. They may pollute the environment, run risks with safety or impose poor working conditions and low wages on local workers – all in the name of reduced costs and increased profits.

Globalisation is also a threat to the world's cultural diversity. Quite simply it drowns out local economies, traditions and languages and simply re-casts the whole world in the mould of America and Europe. An example of this is that a Hollywood film is far more likely to be successful worldwide than one made in India or China, even though they both have thriving film industries.

Corporate globalisation and the environment
Corporate globalisation has no respect for the beautiful world we were given! We started with such a precious environment, a world so rich in resources, rich in water, in trees, in land! Rich in fish and animals, fertile soil and awe-inspiring forms of life.

What has globalisation done with the beautiful world we were given as a home? What are we doing with it?

We have polluted our water, our land, our air. Over and over we’ve polluted the ocean with oil (Remember the big BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico?). We've made deserts where there were once green meadows. We're reduced to bottom-trawling the ocean for fish, irrevocably destroying the ocean bed environment and irrevocably damaging the ocean eco-system. 

We've chopped down the rain forests, turning that awesome canopy of trees into charcoal to feed the factory furnaces in developing countries. We've irrevocably harmed the global environment in the process. As a result we've destroyed or seriously reduced whole populations of wild animals. All for the sake of corporate globalisation.

Who Benefits Really?
In reality, nobody benefits. The people are even poorer than before. The globalised corporations get a little richer - that's all !!

In 1950, the average income of the people living in the wealthiest countries was 20 times the income of people living in the poorest countries. Now, the average income of the wealthiest countries is 60 times that of the poorest countries. These people have not been aided in the least. They have been harmed, not helped, by Western industrialisation and corporate globalisation.

Indoctrination and The Politics Of Globalisation
Until now our politicians have been unwavering in their support for corporate globalisation, why? Well for a start you only have to look at how many of them benefit personally from it when they’re in office or after they’ve left. How many sit on the Board’s of these corporations? How many have non-exec positions with these companies? How many have a pension gravy train with these companies? How many actively ‘work with’ lobbyists from these companies? Simple answer is – most of them ! 

I found this interesting quote from the late Tony Benn, a politician who refused to side with the corporations:-

“What's happened is big corporations have seized governments and taken them over, making the state much stronger in the interest of corporate finance. That's what has happened. The people who control market forces have taken over the state. I met an old governor of Ohio a year ago, and he said to me, "You'll never have democracy while big business buys both parties and expects a payoff from whichever one wins." We're not represented anymore. We're managed on behalf of global capitalism, and that's why in Seattle and Prague and everywhere else in the world, people are beginning to stir, because they realize they're being managed now. Nobody represents them”

And he was right. The fact that globalisation has never worked for the majority of poorer people is ignored by policy makers and business leaders. This is what people like Trump and Farage picked up on and played on with success.

Even the media (who are mostly large corporations) spin Globalisation as a positive as it suits their masters to do so. The description of globalisation on the BBC website reads :

“What is globalisation?
Globalisation is the process by which the world is becoming increasingly interconnected as a result of massively increased trade and cultural exchange. Globalisation has increased the production of goods and services. The biggest companies are no longer national firms but multinational corporations with subsidiaries in many countries.” 
No negatives there then, big is beautiful !!


So How Do These Corporations Extort the Governments
Multi-national corporations use their global reach to extort governments. Want to force Google to pay their taxes? No thanks, they'll save money by moving operations to another country, and thus they're given tax breaks instead, and the rest of us have to pick up the tab.

A simple analysis says the global corporations want the gift of low taxation. To get that they say, to a government, "We'll build a factory in your country. That will employ people and will get you votes. Now, where are those low taxes and tariffs you promised us?". That, if you like is the Nissan model. It's importance to our Brexit-beleaguered government was only too evident last year, as was Google announcing a UK HQ.

And what of the "Google Model"?
Google is, without doubt, a huge global player. They clearly twist governments' arms all over the world to get what they want. But what is it that they offer in return?

They don't employ that many people. Their local workforce in the UK is a few thousand high-earners (average Google salary in the UK is £160,000 a year). They are hardly an important player as far as most of us are concerned. They don't create a supply-chain regional economy in the way that manufacturing does. So no trickle-down effect.

So why are Google and their like so important to the UK government? I can only think it's because, like Murdoch and his brethren, they are being relied on to drive the consumer dream which keeps the masses nicely sedated. I am probably being too simplistic - or maybe I'm just plain thick?

Western Health
Public health disasters contribute to the sense of rupture. After falling for decades, for instance, death rates among middle-aged white people are now rising. Among the likely causes are obesity and diabetes, pain killer addiction and liver failure, diseases whose carriers are corporations. This then leads to more corporations producing pharmaceutical products to help treat this poor health thus creating more wealth - you getting the picture? 

What’s The Answer?
The solution is simple. respect the earth and all living things. Don't exploit either for personal or financial benefit. Break the traditions that have put us in this mess and live according to the problem we all face, not according to where profit is to be found. But it isn’t that simple in a world dominated by the economy.

Corporate Globalisation is the bane of our world. Any world based around monetary governments is bound to breed corruption and tyranny. I must admit, I really don't know what the answer is. I don't think grassroots lobbies work anymore, I don't think the voice of the people is heard anymore, because the governments are pretty much run by large corporate interests. The biggest crime I feel is the death of the human innovative spirit - Do you honestly believe someone would be permitted to build a substitute for oil in this globalised corporate environment?

Where companies pay local taxes in the local markets they operate in it increases democracy, freedom and choice rather than reduces it.  Mega-corporations don't pay tax. At the very best they pay a 10th to a 20th of the tax that would have been paid if all businesses were SMEs.

The greed and the hidden agenda of the huge corporations are not very different from the exploitation of the underdeveloped nations by the more developed ones. Slavery and exploitation have different names in different times and settings. The rich are becoming richer and the poor poorer. The corrupt, corrupter!

One thing we could do about it, would be to move to a more regulated form of capitalism. The following are all ‘quick-wins;.

• The minimum wage should be increased by a third to make it more like a true living wage.
• All financial transactions to tax havens should be taxed
• There should be workers representatives on company boards
• We should have a national investment bank like the German KFW bank.
• The railways should be nationalised or run on a ‘not-for-profit’ basis 
• There should be a national energy company to compete with the current private companies.
• The Government should give money to Local Authorities and Housing Associations to build affordable houses.

These things might not be a revolution, but they would change life for the better. I know I sound like Jeremy Corbyn with some of this but hey, my views are broad, I do accept some left wing stuff makes sense.

The best many of us can do on a day-to-day basis is to divert our capital from the corporations to small, local, independent shops that keep communities alive, that employ more people in better jobs, and which are likely to give better deals to producers. Not perfect - but a step in the right direction. There again, a lot of small companies survive only because they have access to Amazon's marketplace so whichever way, it's not black & white.

Going off the last twelve months and looking forward, the main argument in politics will no longer be right versus left (which is mainly used as a means to demonise anti establishment politics) but ‘Globalisation versus Localisation’

Manchester Skyscrapers - Heritage v Modernisation

You may have seen on the news recently Gary Neville and Ryan Giggs's £200m plans to redevelop part of central Manchester. Their scheme, which includes two skyscrapers, a five-star hotel, flats and restaurants is in the Bootle Street area between Albert Square and Deansgate. 

This is development is a good thing you may think, regenerating an area of the city that badly needs it. Everybody doesn’t agree though. Opinion among Mancunians is split. Some have described the towers as “two massive turds pointing to the sky.” yet those in favour simply say the critics “just don’t like change”.

The Scheme

The scheme itself is known as the St Michael's development and is close to the historic Manchester Town Hall. Two tall buildings dominate the development, one being 31 Storey, the other 21. They contain a 200-bed five-star hotel, 153 apartments, 135,000 sq ft of Grade A offices, retail and leisure space oh, and a synagogue. 

To allow the development to happen Bootle Street's former 1930s police station goes as does the historic Sir Ralph Abercromby pub which dates back to the Peterloo Massacre. So you can see the argument already developing – heritage versus modern.

Historic England 

Historic England have said they’re "deeply concerned" about the project, and that "It would have an impact on people's appreciation and experience of the stunning town hall and library but it would also erase different layers of this area's history, irreparably damaging the special character of the surrounding conservation area," they reckon "A dynamic city like ours needs to fully embrace development but this scheme is not good enough to justify the damage it would cause to the streets around the site and to the setting of the city's most important buildings and spaces." They also added it "threatened Manchester" with the loss of buildings "that have soul and tell important stories about our city's past".

Hmmm, fairly damning comments there, but do they have a point? – Possibly!!

Pro’s 

Manchester is and always has been a progressive city with an increasing population and it needs to cater for all needs, I'm sure if it was on offer there would be plenty of other cities which would jump at this sort of investment. 

There is a view amongst many that all this heritage stuff is nonsense. The area has been largely forgotten and this development will breathe new life into it. The pub is very quiet and rarely visited these days. The police station was closed a number of years ago and the current synagogue is in serious disrepair, so the time is right to get rid and replace the whole area with a fit for purpose, modern facility akin to that in Spinningfields.  

Con’s

Just because it is big doesn’t mean it’s good. The buildings proposed are an appalling eyesore. Many think the location is not appropriate for towers of this size. The spoiled views across the city skyline are also cited as an issue.

The towers proposed have zero architectural merit, they're just the usual metal/glass box with no particular merit much like a lot of the crap that's been thrown up in the City of London. If they had the architectural merit of say the Shard there might be an argument to be made but they don't. 

There are also fears the design, height and awful colour of the 31 and 21-storey towers will dominate the Deansgate/Peter Street conservation area and dwarf the nationally important Grade II listed Central Library and Grade I-listed Town Hall. There is also the loss of the 18th century pub which is believed to be the only nearby building with a direct link to the 1819 Peterloo Massacre.

There’s also an argument, not strictly relevant, that neither Giggs or Neville need to make any more money, if they want to build, then why not build affordable homes? That way they’re giving something back to the city that enabled them to become millionaires.

So where do I stand?

I'm all in favour of regeneration but come on, this development looks awful. Albert Square is one is the very few places in Manchester with pretty clear views due to the relatively low level of buildings surrounding it. Those two towers would just dominate and overpower the area.

I don’t think anyone is against developing this area of the city, however, for me, the proposal is wrong for this location. The problem with developments in historic areas of most major cities is one of scale. Why does it have to dwarf the surrounding buildings? A development smaller in size and appropriate to the area wouldn't be a problem (if these towers were half or a third of the height it would be acceptable) but they totally overwhelm that part of the city centre.

Its surprising that there aren’t more development options to the site put forward for consideration. These could have explored what key heritage buildings could have been utilised. Could the stone-fronted front section of the former police station, the pub and the former synagogue be integrated somehow? Surely there must be ways of inserting a reasonably large development between these buildings. Incorporating and giving the heritage buildings new uses would still revitalise the area. 

Another thought. Can the pub be moved to another location as happened with Sinclairs and The Old Wellington when the area they sat in was redeveloped? There again Tommy Ducks was pulled down overnight by Greenalls the day before the council was to award it listed status, history could repeat itself here I fear.

What I’m saying can be done. On the other side of the Town Hall, in St Peter's Square there is not one but three buildings which reflect the Town Hall and Central library. One built in the 60's and two just built. All respect the historic context of the site they're in. This development doesn’t.

It certainly seems to me that this is an ‘all or nothing’ comprehensive redevelopment similar in nature to that of the 50s and 60s where it is all cleared and then started again. 

Spinningfields was a major success but even there incorporation of heritage buildings isn’t good, the density of glass and steel around Rylands Library (possibly the grandest building in the city) are hardly complimentary to it! Also, directly opposite the Town Hall in Albert square we've got some (albeit low rise) unappealing 70s buildings - but that shouldn’t mean to say there's crap there so let's build some more crap!

So for me, drop the towers to a more palatable height and incorporate the historic buildings (even if it’s just the pub and frontage of the Police Station) into the scheme and bingo, we have a scheme I’d wholeheartedly back. I’m not naive though, I know this won’t happen because Neville and Giggs (and their backers) won’t get the return they need from their investment on a reduced scheme so like I said above, it’s all or nothing!

Game-Changer

The project is a game-changer for Manchester, it’s exactly the sort of project that will force other areas of the city to up their game (such as Piccadilly), however it’s got to be done right! What Manchester needs is the right investment in the right project, not trashing a load of excellent older buildings in a vanity project.

I know from experience, Heritage England can be difficult at the best of times but if they describe an application which could "erase" the area's history then the Planning Officer has a serious problem. There is a section in the National Planning Policy Framework that can override the decision based on heritage impact alone and disregard the positive benefits such as economics from the application so getting it right is essential.

As a city, Manchester must grow and it must evolve. This is the price of progress, however the best cities value progress, and think properly about their growth. Building anything, anywhere isn't progress. Neither is building nothing!

Unlikely I know, but I just hope that the developers look at it again and do right by Manchester. I want the city to get a development which will truly benefit its city centre, its residents and it’s visitors.

Poetry and the Soul of Politics (Alternative Title: – David Cameron – TWAT)

People who know me may be surprised to know that I love poetry. There you go I’ve said it now ! I have a particular liking for real life gritty poetry, poetry that I can identify with; poetry that has a sense of humour or irony. I can just about recite one or two of my favourite poems. I can quote chunks of others. Not for me Wordsworth and the like, for me it’s more WB Yeats or John Cooper Clarke.

Still very very relevant to today’s world, some of Yeats’ sound bites are bang on the truth :

“People who lean on logic and philosophy and rational exposition end by starving the best part of the mind”

“Life is a long preparation for something that never happens.” 

“Think like a wise man but communicate in the language of the people.”

And one of my all time favourites, which applies to many of our political commentators today :- “All empty souls tend towards extreme opinions”

The use of poetry can be quite powerful. I often use a poetic quotation in a presentation or document to support a point. I think I have sufficient knowledge of poetry to enable me to find appropriate quotes.

I don’t agree that poetry should be forced down kid’s necks at school as part of the National Curriculum that would just be counterproductive and put kids off poetry for life. Let them discover it for themselves, poems discovered and learned in context can be a lifelong pleasure.

Politicians do they have poetry in their soul?

Just before he was gunned down, John F Kennedy gave a remarkable speech in memory of the poet Robert Frost who had died earlier that year. It included the following amazing lines:

“When power leads men towards arrogance, poetry reminds him of his limitations. When power narrows the areas of man’s concern, poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of his existence. When power corrupts, poetry cleanses. For art establishes the basic human truth which must serve as the touchstone of our judgment.”

Just how close to the truth is that? It shows poetry has an intrinsic connection to politics. Both seek the truth in a given situation; both must be honest to be effective; both engage the mind and emotions in equal parts; both can lift the spirits and inspire you to look at the stars instead of the gutter; both can wind you up; both can send you down.

A few years ago, Gordon Brown came up with ‘Invictus’ by WE Henley as his favourite poem. Invictus is all about the poet’s belief that he is the ‘I am the master of my soul/I am the captain of my fate’. It’s one of those poems, like ‘If’ by Kipling (said to be Mrs Thatcher’s favourite poem) or ‘The Lays of Ancient Rome by Macaulay’ (which Winston Churchill knew off by heart) which sound stirring, but don’t bear much close examination. Another one is GK Chesterton’s ‘The Secret People’ which Martin Bell quoted on his election as an independent in 1997:

“Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget/For we are the people of England, that never have spoken yet.”

David Cameron takes the easy way out with his favourite poem, he chooses ‘Dulce et Decorum Est’ by Wilfred Owen, the famous war poem which most of us learned at school. For me however, I will always associate David Cameron with this John Cooper Clarke poem :

TWAT

Like a Night Club in the morning, you're the bitter end

Like a recently disinfected shit-house, you're clean round the bend.

You give me the horrors

too bad to be true

All of my tomorrow's

are lousy coz of you.

You put the Shat in Shatter

Put the Pain in Spain

Your germs are splattered about

Your face is just a stain

You're certainly no raver, commonly known as a drag.

Do us all a favour, here... wear this polythene bag.

You're like a dose of scabies,

I’ve got you under my skin.

You make life a fairy tale... Grimm!

People mention murder, the moment you arrive.

I’d consider killing you if I thought you were alive.

You've got this slippery quality,

it makes me think of phlegm,

and a dual personality

I hate both of them.

Your bad breath, vamps disease, destruction, and decay.

Please, please, please, please, take yourself away.

Like a death in a birthday party,

you ruin all the fun.

Like a sucked and spat our Smartie,

you're no use to anyone.

like the shadow of the guillotine

on a dead consumptive's face.

Speaking as an outsider,

what do you think of the human race

You went to a progressive psychiatrist.

He recommended suicide...

before scratching your bad name off his list,

and pointing the way outside.

You hear laughter breaking through, it makes you want to fart.

You’re heading for a breakdown,

better pull yourself apart.

Your dirty name gets passed about when something goes amiss.

Your attitudes are platitudes,

just make me wanna piss.

What kind of creature bore you

Was is some kind of bat

They can’t find a good word for you,

but I can...

TWAT

40 Years of #Labour Leaders – and only 1 can win a General Election

After Ed Miliband’s and Labour's shocking performance in the recent General Election, the Labour Party find themselves in the position of finding another leader. Will the next one click with the general public and actually be electable? History suggests - probably not !

In the last 40 years, only one Labour Leader has actually managed to win a General Election, that was Tony Bliar, and of course if we knew then what we know about him now he might not have been elected either.

But there’s been three Labour Prime Minister’s in that time you might say. Maybe so, but two of them ‘inherited’ the leadership from their predecessors and when it came to fighting an election – they lost ! The Tories meanwhile have also had three Prime Ministers in that time, the difference being that they all won their elections outright.

So who lost them for Labour? Is there a common theme?

Jim Callaghan

Prior to Blair, the last Labour Leader to win a General Election was Harold Wilson way back in 1974. Like Blair, he knew when to jump ship and in 1976 handed the Prime Ministerial reins to Jim Callaghan.

Callaghan’s name will be forever associated with the grim days of the late 1970s, when Britain was paralysed by industrial chaos, strikes and the “winter of discontent”. Jim Callaghan was the unlucky Labour prime minister who presided over unprecedented national decline as our country became “the sick man of Europe”. Even Callaghan himself once admitted that he would not be “the slightest bit surprised” if people “come to the conclusion that I was the worst prime minister since Sir Robert Walpole”.

I would however argue that, for all the miseries of the Winter of Discontent, Jim caused far less long-term damage to Britain than his two Labour successors, Blair and Brown. In the notorious words of one of his advisers, Blair was desperate to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity.” Our border controls were abolished, visas were dished out like confetti, and the enforcement of the dogma of multiculturalism became the central ethos of the UK. All this would have been unthinkable to Callaghan. In fact, as home secretary in 1968 he pushed through legislation that restricted the right of Asians from East Africa to settle in Britain, even if they had British passports. Justifying his tough stance, Callaghan warned that “immigration and settlement largely by coloured persons into a relatively small number of concentrated areas” would “aggravate” social problems.

Being a child at the time, I do actually remember him. To me he spoke like a patronising, fussy Headmaster who really got under your skin! He was soundly beat in the 1979 election by Mrs Thatcher. I don’t think he was the worse PM we ever had, he just allowed the unions to rule the roost whilst failing to modernise the country. So it was actually his record in office that ultimately made him unelectable.

Michael Foot

Callaghan was followed by his deputy, Michael Foot. A complete odd-ball whose scruffy donkey jacket wearing image was enough to put people off before they’d even heard his policies. A more un-statesman like potential Prime Minister we had never seen before. Adding to this image was an extreme Left wing attitude which divided his own party - so much so than some more liberal members broke awake forming the Social Democratic Party.

One of his most notable policies in the 1983 manifesto was a call for Britain to take unilateral action to scrap its nuclear weapons, this was when the USSR was particularly strong and the Cold War at it’s peak.

Interestingly, his 1983 Labour manifesto called for a withdrawal from the European Economic Community (what is now the EU). Specifically it said: "On taking office we will open preliminary negotiations with the other EEC member states to establish a timetable for withdrawal.” So maybe he wasn’t all that bad.

Foot’s overall image and the ambitious Marxist scale of the manifesto backfired though, with the far left nature of many of the policies - combined with Margaret Thatcher’s popularity in the wake of the 1982 Falklands War - contributing to a Tory landslide in 1983's election.

Neil Kinnock

Next up was Welshman, Kinnock. Kinnock and his deputy, Roy Hattersley inherited a divided party split between the centre and far left. There was also extremists like the Militant Tendency.

As Labour leader, Kinnock’s main achievement was to halt the leftward drift of the party, driving out the Trotskyites of the Militant Tendency. His humiliation of them at the 1985 party conference was one of the great moments of political theatre.

Kinnock's image, like Foot before him suffered from a lack of a credibility. He is the only Welsh leader in Labour’s history and although his working- class Valleys credentials helped him to Westminster, in the eyes of the London media they were a liability.

He was dubbed the “Welsh windbag” by the media and was never taken to the hearts of Middle England where the marginal seats that Labour needed in order to take power were concentrated. His image of incompetence on satirical TV programme, Spitting Image also re-enforced his unelectability.

In 1992 however his premature triumphalism at a rally in Sheffield was seen as costing Labour another election, one it had been widely expected to win. The Sun amplifying his ‘useless’ tag on election day with the headline "If Kinnock wins today will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights." He didn’t and It spelt the end of his career in front line British politics. Kinnock may not have won an election, but he turned the Labour party round and without him Tony Blair wouldn't have won.

Kinnock was followed as Labour Leader by John Smith, who sadly died in office. The only election winner in 40 years, Tony Blair followed with his “New Labour” brand winning three elections on the bounce before handing what had become a poison chalice over to Gordon Brown

Gordon Brown

Firstly, let me say Gordon Brown didn’t lose the 2010 General Election, he just didn’t win it – but neither did any single party!

Brown is one of the great tragic figures of contemporary British politics. He yearned and schemed for the ultimate prize for so long, that when he finally secured it he had no idea what to do with it. And that tragedy is compounded by the fact that though there is a suitably proud political epitaph that could be written for him, he refuses to allow anyone to write it.

Brown, even more than Blair, was the true architect of New Labour. It was Brown who recognised, long before any of his contemporaries, just how much Labour would have to change in order to survive. It was Brown, not Blair, who built the machine to force through that change. It was Brown, not Blair, who imposed iron fiscal discipline. It was Brown, not Blair, who wooed business, and sacrificed the sacred Labour cows of tax and spend.

But history is written by the victors. So after New Labour had become toxic, and Brown had successfully moved against his bitter rival, he ensured his role within the grand modernising project was expunged from the record books.

Gordon Brown eventually lost due to his last two years record in office. The country (indeed the World) was in a period of severe recession and he was seen by the country as a major contributor to us being there. He was also tarred with some of Blair’s failures such as the immigration shambles and an illegal war in Iraq – so he had to go. And along came Ed!

Ed Miliband

I’m not going to say much about Ed that the result of last week’s General Election didn’t say. Suffice to say image and policies came to the fore again. Similar to Foot and Kinnock he didn’t ‘look like a Prime Minister’ and his economic policies appeared to be being made up on the spot. He was also extremely scathing of private sector business showing utter contempt for it, considering the proportion of voters that worked there - that was a seriously bad move.

Dig deeper into the polls over the last twelve months and the unelectability of Ed is there for all to see. In the polls that asked who people saw as a good leader, Ed failed everytime. Similarly in those that asked who voters trusted with the economy, Labour consistently failed. The fact that his proposed Chancellor of the Exchequer, Ed Balls lost his seat says all you need to know about how much voters trusted Labour’s economic policies.

So Who Next?

Well so far the following have declared they are running:

Liz Kendall

Liz is the standard bearer of the right. She is said to be picking up support from some, but not all Blairites, as well as a number of the new intake, who appear universally to desire a candidate untarnished by the Blair / Brown era. Going off her performance on Newsnight last week I’d say she’s not got a cat in Hell’s chance of leading Labour.

Yvette Cooper

Mrs Balls was educated at Comprehensive School then Oxford University. She has managed two years working outside of politics as Chief economic correspondent of The Independent.

Yvette is a relic of the Blair-Brown era and comes with plenty of baggage from 2010 and before, as a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Secretary for Work and Pensions. She's begun the race badly, forced on to the back foot after repeating Ed Miliband’s toxic claim that Labour had not overspent whilst in government.

The fact Yvette chose to marry the odious Ed Balls bring questions over her judgement and possibly her sanity.

Andy Burnham

Mr Burnham was educated at a Comprehensive School then at Cambridge University. He has never had a job outside of politics being a researcher to Tessa Jowell from 1994 until after the 1997 General Election. In 1998 he became a special advisor to the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport, Chris Smith, where he remained until his election to parliament.

Burnham carries a considerable amount of baggage from his time as Health Secretary, not least, the Stafford Hospital scandal, the new GP Contacts and starting the privatisation process of the NHS putting the likes of Hinchingbrook Hospital out to tender to be run by the private sector. Since then Andy has publically moved from being a Blairite to the left of the party.

The brothers and sisters of the trade unions are backing Mr Burnham, and will be hoping he performs better than in 2010, when he staggered home in a lacklustre fourth place having irritated his supporters by barely bothering to campaign. To some on the Blairite wing of the party, the shadow health secretary’s journey towards the left of the spectrum has a whiff of opportunism, whilst the Left is also suspicious of him.

Mary Creagh

The outsider in the race, Mary was educated at a Comprehensive School then at Oxford University. She spent 4 years working in Brussels first at the European Parliament, and then the European Youth Forum. She then worked at the London Enterprise Agency, a London-wide regeneration body so she has good a good level of ‘real world’ and business experience.

In general Mary Creah has kept her nose clean, has very little baggage, she has also done a proper job outside of politics and is probably closer to the voters than any of her competitors. Ironic then that she’s the outsider.

Tristram Hunt

Not thrown his hat in the ring yet but I’m sorry, Labour cannot have a leader called “Tristram” – end of!

So Have Any Of Them Got A Chance Of Being The Next PM?

The consistent factors of failure of Labour leaders has been image - they didn't look or behave like a Prime Minister and credibility - their policies were too narrow, not thought out, or weren't what voters wanted from a Labour Government. 

So going off lessons learned from the last 40 years, the only thing that seems to get a Labour leader elected is the likeable, smooth talking, stage managed smarm charm that Tony Blair had. On that basis, if he pulls his finger out and manages the unions properly then Burnham has the best chance.

Are Labour really ready for a female leader? Its members talk the talk but I’m not sure they would walk the walk. Mary Creagh and Liz Kendall have the least baggage and are far more likeable than Mrs Balls but they’re not as high profile and won’t get through the first round.

For me, Labour’s best candidate, Chuka Umunna ticked the most boxes to be a successful leader however he bottled it and withdrew. So unless Burnham turns into Blair2 then I'm afraid we probably won’t see another Labour Prime Minister until at least 2025.

I Used To Love BBC Question Time – But Not Anymore

Anyone who has followed me on Twitter for some time will have noticed that I've stopped watching BBC Question Time on a Thursday night; my tweets throughout the programme are now virtually nil. I’m sure some people miss my irreverent comments – but I don’t!

I've watched the programme since the 80s when Sir Robin Day was the host and must admit its decline has been very gradual but mirrors the changes in the political world from ‘real’ politicians who actually had their own opinions to today’s career politicians who constantly trot out the party line and nothing else. It was always a good, fairly honest political debate. Nowadays if you think Question Time is excellent then I’d say you've got pretty low standards.

I stopped watching Question Time a while ago when I realised one depressing night that I was only really watching it for entertainment and tweeting purposes having once believed that I was watching a bit of political debate and maybe actually being informed. To be fair, I did always look on Question Time as a bit of a luvvie-lefty kangaroo court where anyone who doesn't go along with the twee view of the world the BBC embraces is set up to be booed and jeered, and generally presented as ‘Beyond The Pale’ before being summarily dismissed.

When Did It Start Going Wrong?

For me there are a number of things that has lead to its decline, Dimbleby being one, five panel members instead of four, comedians and journo’s on the panel, that audience, I could go on – and will.

The problem with Dimbleby is his hijacking the format to put endless sub-questions of his own which he thinks are smarter than the ones asked by the audience. He hasn’t got it into his head that it’s about the audience’s questions and the panel’s answers – not his.

I always used to find myself shouting at the telly when I watched Question Time, more often than not at the audience than the panel. There is no way on earth the audience is representative of people in the UK, nobody I talk to about politics has the same views as these people. It makes Question Time unwatchable because rational arguments by the panel are drowned out by indignant, reason-free protests on behalf of this or that disadvantaged group.

The quality of politicians has gone down too. During the Robin Day years senior politicians and cabinet members often appeared on the panel. Party leaders, Home Secretary, Chancellor, they all appeared regularly, not anymore though. Labour still put up the odd senior politician like Mr and Mrs Balls or the odious Harriet Harmen but the most senior Tory you see is Grant Shapps who’s only the party chairman. So you end up listening to junior ministers who just trot out the party line and seem incapable of holding an opinion of their own.

Another thing I've noticed is the number of questions taken from the audience which now appear to be ridiculously low, it’s not unusual for only 3 or 4 questions to be answered – it used to be a lot more and made for better viewing.

I think the biggest indictment of today’s Question Time is that you can get far more insightful political commentary from watching Have I Got News For You, despite there being near total overlap in the guests on each show.

That Audience

Today’s Question Time audience is mostly quite mad, a law unto itself! I'm pretty sure that if the Question Time audience was representative of the UK electorate then Neil Kinnock would currently be serving his sixth term as Prime Minister! The modern day audience seems to be entirely composed of weirdos and party activists posing as disinterested voters.

I applied a few years ago when the programme was coming from Warrington and didn't get a look in. I often wonder what qualifications are required to be in the audience of Question Time. Apart from having undergone a full frontal lobotomy, eating your chips out of The Daily Worker or have completed twenty uninterrupted years on benefits.

One thing is certain: if you find yourself disagreeing with the yelping, hooting, maniacally applauding audience, you are probably an astute intellectual who long ago left behind the unrealistic, mushy, pious world of sixth form enthusiasm.

Panel

A good honest debating chamber is how Question Time has been billed. In fact it’s an unseemly gold-rush for applause. The panellists these days are a set of needy egos with semi-fictionalised hairdos. You get political activist in the audience asking leary questions to clueless panellists who then use the old staple of having a go at bankers to rousing applause as they have nothing better to say.

Unfortunately Question Time is based too much on politicians who toe the party line and usually contribute little in terms of information value or novel perspective to the debate. The same can be said for newspaper editors and journalists who also toe the party line determined by their owners. Scientists and representatives of charities often enrich the debate by their ability to be honest.

And as for those politicians, most are lightweight and carry no weight in Parliament, they never answer the question that’s being asked, choosing instead to answer the question that they wanted to be asked. Most are proven liars who cannot speak directly or honestly with integrity, so it stands to reason that most of them shouldn't be given such a prominent position on our national broadcasters flagship debating show.

Question Time is, in short, a pretty miserable failure when it comes to informed debate. The bulk of panellists are drawn from the same upper-middle-class, upper-middle-aged pot of journalists, lawyers and politicians, and are often profoundly ignorant on topics outside of that narrow culture. Science, sex, the internet … attempts to tackle anything outside their world result in bewildering exchanges that confuse more often than they inform. 

Back To Basics

Question-Time probably still has much to offer in its current format, but only if you are not expecting politicians to be held to account. None will hold their hands up, most know little about the public's feeling and few will have a sleepless night after their stint on the panel. The added-value guests, even if you think it dumbs down the content are the meat and potatoes of the show, chunkier even than the audience who seem to have something slipped in their pre-recording drinks. It may not be your idea of democracy in action, but at least having over-privileged, over-exposed rent-a-gobs on the show leads to some squirming on the seats of the political panellists, and that alone can be worth the price of admission.

There is, I think, a simple test for evaluating any platform for debate: has anyone ever changed their mind on a serious issue? The purpose of a genuine discussion ought to be to utilise facts and evidence to reach some mutually agreed upon rational conclusion, and though it may take months rather than hours, this should involve people altering their opinions. Question Time, on the contrary, is a megaphone for publicising party political views and uninformed ideology. It has the potential to achieve a lot more, but it consistently aims low.

So when was Question Time an honest debating chamber? I think you have to go back to Robin Day's time, don't you? And that’s where it needs to go back to now. Take it back to four panellists, stop vetting the audience, get audience members to ask more questions, insist that if political parties want to be represented they need to put up senior politicians who have some gravitas. Sack David Dimbleby - After sixteen years chairing the panel Dimbleby has become past his prime in both the political and fashion stakes (have you seen those ties?)

Why not have people on the panel who actually know about things? With the current range of guests it doesn't make any sense, it's pointless watching really. You can read who's on the panel and pretty much predict what they will all say. I never learn anything interesting or worthwhile anymore.

A couple of minor things too, Dimbleby’s chair - there seems no need for it to be larger than the other chairs position close to the panel desk? Lastly the constant reiteration of the twitter address - we know the show is on twitter, it stains the shows delicate fabric when it’s constantly uttered every week.

So there we have it, refresh the show and maybe just maybe the telly audience may start to grow.