Delusions of the Party Conference

Where do you find cheap slogans, poor merchandise and sleazy men in expensive suits? Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this years' party conference season.

bbc.co.uk

As the Lib Dems kick off the season (The Greens started before, admittedly) I'm wondering: what's the point of it all?

The data first; to put it bluntly, membership rates across the three largest parties is in terminal decline.  The graphs below show the declining trend in political party membership, sourced from polling figures held in the House of Commons library:

  Unfortunately, comprehensive data was only available until 2008, but according to the most recent available figures compiled by the government (pdf)  Tory party revenue from subscriptions has decline by over 70% since Cameron became leader, Labour's coffers have risen by around 6% on average since the last election and the Lib Dems- as expected, have seen a phenomenal 90% decline in subscription revenues since 2010. As a proportion, all the major political parties, even during 'peak seasons' lack the same political attraction as they once did just a few decades ago.

That's what makes the conference season interesting- in my opinion, it's no longer a way to refresh party spirits, or even a forum to exchange ideas. Rather, it seems to be a time in which political parties can assure themselves they're still relevant and necessary. It's very much like any trade show or team-building weekend away : surround yourself with enough people who believe in the franchise, and you'll easily be convinced it will succeed.

No doubt that politicians (and especially student politicians) won't think the same, but I think it might be worth looking at this blog written by LSE's Ingrid Van Biezen, which attempts to display trends in Political party membership across Europe.

Biezen's data presents some interesting findings. First, that regardless of how new, or 'established' a democracy is, subscriptions to party models are still in decline - so low that they fail to actually indicate the "organisational capacity" of such political entities- by extension, that makes it quite difficult to make election predictions in the long run, or asess electoral moods.
Using Electoral Commission data, the website Unlock Democracy have shown how donations to political parties have changed since 2001.  You can read the paper here, and I've shown the graph of total donations below:



 Sourced at unlockdemocracy.co.uk : unlockdemocracy.co.uk

 

 

 

 

The graph shows a break down of donors for the major political parties, based on recorded data available. Interestingly, which most of the graph is relatively consistent in terms of breaking down donors, the real dip in individual donations to political parties across the spectrum comes between 2011-12, where the latter figure barely reaches £5,000, 000.

What explains the sudden drop?  For starters, its a lack of faith in party leaders, shown in YouGov's leadership approval poll. The poll shows that party leaders across the spectrum have been consistently polling at negative figures with David Cameron leading both Labour and the Liberal Democrats, probably indicating wider public dissaproval about the main 3 parties as a whole.


Second- and more important, is the means in which people see themselves adequately represented. Professor Tony Wright argues that the decline is representative of the new ways people are identified and represenented. Further, he suggests that social media, particularly in relation to elections and conferences, provide a better platform for participation that is taking the place of party membership and traditional politicking.

Regardless, Political Parties are likely to continue being strapped for cash in the years to come until the system begins 'working for them'. An empty phrase I know, but if one of the party leaders can coherently define that term, they might be in a good chance of succeeding sooner than they think. 

 

On The Syria Vote and its Post Mortem

Haaretz.com

Last night, Members of Parliament rejected the Prime Minister's proposal for British involvement in Syria. It's important to note that this wasn't a proposal to directly intervene in Syria (as there was a general consensus that an official UN report had to first be published), but rather a vote on the principle of military intervention. In any case, the proposal was defeated by Labour and a handful of Lib Dems/Conservatives, with the final tally at 272-285. A replay of the debate itself can be found here.

During the debate, a BBC Panorama team in Syria reported a napalm-like attack launched by a fighter plane in Allepo, Northern Syria. The gruesome images and video make for very disturbing viewing, and is probably the reason why we're hearing a lot of voices stating how 'disgraceful' members of Parliament have been. This morning on Radio 4's Today Programme (link up soon), former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown said:

"our country is a hugely diminished country - I've never felt more depressed or ashamed"


In the aftermath of the vote, I think there are several things that should be clarified;

1. Does David Cameron need to resign before the next election?

No Prime Minister has been defeating in the commons on an issue relating to war and peace since 1782. Further, various government sources also suggested that while a number of Conservative MPs were willing to support the PM on the motion as a principle, they would be less inclined to vote in favour of intervention at the second vote- which had been due on Tuesday.

I find it hard to believe that any leader- regardless of oratory skill- would have been able to convince the HoC to support intervention. Especially considering that less than 10% of Britons would support full military intervention according to the polling site, YouGov. The shadow of disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan still loom, while the supposed successes of British intervention in 'Libya' are certainly questionable. The history of military intervention in the Middle East is filled with failure, which no MP could deny; which is why little has been written about concerning the technicalities of intervention and its aftermath compared to emotionally-driven polemic, not least today by Telegraph columnist (and former Labour man) Dan Hodges.

Does this indicate the PM's weakness? In the short term, yes- but that all depends on how successful any other intervention might actually be. Writing in The Telegraph, Fraser Nelson says:

"But he [Cameron] has spent the last few days talking as if Britain’s identity and place in the world were at stake – and last night, Parliament rejected his vision of the country, and where its interests lie."

So while this was a remarkable "Foreign Policy flop" for Cameron, I'd be hesitant in suggesting we'd see a resignation soon. In fact, depending on how effective any type of intervention might be, he might find himself handsomely rewarded- particularly if post-intervention scenarios make the situation worse, as is the most probable outcome.


2. This wasn't a Miliband Win

While Miliband didn't rule out intervention (a point he repeated on a number of occasions throughout the debate), Labour did present some last minute amendments. The general changes called for a greater role played by the United Nations, referred to ambiguously as the "roadmap". But as a whole, it didn't differ that much from the government's position- only emphasizing higher burdens of proof (something difficult to attain in practice) and authorisation by the UN security council- a move that would be considerably difficult considering the positions held by Russia and China. Regardless this amendment was also defeated in the Commons.

Beyond practical measures, Labour didn't argue their position through any principled route- poor, considering that the party still haven't defined themselves coming up to the election.


3.This was the right call

Some have seen the will of Parliament not as a measured response, but rather shameless politicking- letting Syrians die in order to retain votes. This argument is particularly potent when we see the horrific images coming out of Syria, especially of children.

It's a hard call, but staying out militarily is the best option as a whole; that's because Syria definitely isn't Iraq, and in this current state, there are too many rebel faction groups in opposition to "Assad forces" and their affiliates. Providing military support to 'rebels' isn't clear cut, especially as such groups are also receiving support from Arab states within the region. Being directly involved in Syria isn't a matter of fighting Assad and providing grounds for peace- it's being embroiled in a war whereby the mastery of the region is effectively being determined. Britain doesn't need to be involved in another Middle Eastern war, especially if it's effectively being used as a proxy.

Second, as Slate's Matthew Yglesias shows, military intervention often leads to more civilian casualties than lives saved. :







The authors of the paper (Wood et al.) Conclude their study by stating:

"Supporting a faction’s quest to vanquish its adversary may have the unintended consequence of inciting the adversary to more intense violence against the population. Thus, third parties with interests in stability should bear in mind the potential for the costly consequences of countering murderous groups."

Considering how ruthless we've seen Assad be towards rebel uprising, a proposal arguing intervention on the grounds of 'saving lives' should take this into account- regardless of how well meaning such actions might be.

The Jamie Oliver School of Economics

The habit of reducing complicated economic problems into simple- and unfortunately, rather venemous- observational analysis, is something most people have found themselves doing at least once in their lifetime.

TV chef Jamie Oliver found himself in the firing line, after claiming that many people from poor/ low-income families often turn to 'convenience' foods over healthy, natural options. But to quote his statement in the Radio Times;

"I’m not judgmental but I’ve spent a lot of time in poor communities and I find it quite hard to talk about modern-day poverty,’ the 38-year-old said.

‘You might remember that scene in Ministry Of Food [his television show], with the mum and kid eating chips and cheese out of Styrofoam containers and behind them is a massive f***ing TV. It just didn’t weigh up."


The gist of the statement actually poses an economic problem, regarding income and expenditure:

why do people on low incomes spend higher % of weekly earning on prepared, or convenience foods with high premiums?

Jamie Oliver is right in his general argument- healthy diet options do work out cheaper in the long term compared to convenience diets in real terms. This paper presents quite an interesting model that accounts value in terms of cost per calorie, estimating that the cost of convenience food diets are 52% higher than healthy options.

But as a whole, this isn't too different from aggregate consumption patterns. The government's own statistics via the Family Food Survey 2012 indicate that while families had increased their food consumption by 1.5%, this didn't necessarily translate into buying more food, than it did the price of basic ingredients rising. But as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation noted- the rise in expenditure for low income families went from 15.2- 16.6%; some of which went to 'trading down' ; ie. Spending more on lower quality, prepared foods over higher priced fruits and vegetables.

The second point- something which many commentators often forget, is that the means in which people purchase and consume food isn't black and white. Statements such as "if you're poor, then why buy expensive foods?", while being convenient to ask, don't hold a lot of weight in the real world because it ignores the reason why people eat in the first place. It sounds pretty obvious, but when eating, we make choices before, during and after- and much of that is rooted in ideas beyond models of economic rationality.

The health economists Drewnowski and Specter (2004) posit a hypothesis arguing that health inequalities are directly linked to disparities in terms of both education and income. they argue that in purchasing food there is:

"an inverse relation between energy density (MJ/kg) and energy cost (US dollars/MJ), such that energy-dense foods composed of refined grains, added sugars, or fats may represent the lowest-cost option to the consumer"

While no such study seems to be available in Britain, it's not unfeasible that we'd probably see a similar pattern; ie. fully broken down, junk foods with high energy do work out to be more cost-effective in the long term. In families with few resources, making these types of consumption decisions might be more likely on the basis that high-energy foods (such as ready meals) market themselves as instant sources of good nourishment- making the additional costs added onto the meals appear more valuable. 

Dr.Burns' hypothesis of 'food anxiety' is also important here- consuming food isn't just an economic process- it's a visual one too. So when we ask ourselves about the relationship between obesity and low income, the idea of 'food anxiety' is quite a powerful concept- not least because it conveys psychological states. One part of the argument suggests that ready meal/fast food options also give off the image that longer-lasting produce such as vegetables, fruits and staple foods can be saved for later, presenting the idea that this arrangement is more cost-effective in the long term.

The literature review attached to Burns' paper indicates that obesity does have a link to poverty through decisions made while in a state of 'food anxiety'. So while Oliver might be right in a numerically, the fact that most consumers don't purchase their groceries with only efficiency in mind makes the argument a bit disingenuous, especially when branding a section of the population.

In that sense, I do believe that Oliver's efforts- to show that good food can be made easily, at a low cost, are commendable. It's just a shame he had to fire crass generalisations beforehand.

Data, David Miranda and What We Should Be Asking

There are three questions I think all journalists should ask when looking at the ongoing case between David Miranda, The Guardian and the various intelligence agencies in both the UK and US;

1. In the digital age, what 'defines' a journalist- who can be classified as a journalist?
2. Does the work of journalists threaten national security?
3.What is the role of journalists today?

The questions come in light of continuing controversy over the arrest of David Miranda, the partner of Glenn Greenwald.

Greenwald initially argued that his partner had gone to visit their mutual friend, and therefore was an ordinary civilian; the detainment of Mr.Miranda- and the questioning he received by UK security services in regard to future leaks by his partner were therefore uncalled for, and potentially illegal.

Yet reluctantly, I think Louise Mensch (the former Tory MP turned....something in the US) actually makes some good observations in her blog. Of course, while there is a bit too much praise of UK security services, she has a point that Mr.Miranda was meeting Laura Poitras- the film maker assisting Greenwald. Further, Miranda's flights were paid for by The Guardian, and the flash drives he held are said to have encrypted data on them- presumably related to his husband's continuing work.

In that case- does that make him a journalist?

On the one hand, yes- after all, he's carrying data with the intent of publication, and depending on how you 'define' journalism, carrying data can be seen as part of the gathering process (much like the process of gathering photos/interviews and then process of  physically taking it back to a newsroom). The question that remains in this case, is whether Miranda actually knew what was on the flash drives; if they were encrypted, and he's not involved in the journalistic side of the NSA files, then perhaps he should be considered a courier?

Professor Richard Sambrook of Cardiff University's school of Journalism likens this to a proxy- whereby Miranda was being used as a means of transferring data offline- essentially part of the journalistic practice. Those who are defending UK security services argue that much like drug mules, holding Miranda can be justified on this basis- especially if the data he's carrying could be used by terrorist organisations or individuals with other vested interests.

Here's the real problem at hand; The law hasn't actually accommodated a coherent legal framework for the management and distribution of data.

This isn't just important for investigative journalists, but for all of us as what we engage in more digital mediums. Consider the problems that occur via peer-to-peer networks, often accused of causing media companies to lose money due to copyright infringement. The Digital Economy Act 2010 adresses this problem (ineffectively) through encouraging ISPs to block transmissions of data to a particular computer.

But surely this is different for public data concerning the state, particularly in light of open government license? - so what about the means of transmission? I'd hesitate in arguing that the data Mr.Miranda was carrying was subject to any form of private ownership or subject to a form of copyright that would fit into the model posited by the DEA 2010. Regardless of what capacity Miranda was working in, carrying the data on flash drives didn't overtly breach any existing laws, and while elaborate, is a staple component of investigative journalism, particularly with information we are unable to gain under the existing Freedom of Information act. The only plausible defence the security services might have, would be if there was a significant threat to the U.K- a fact of which there is little evidence to back up.

This isn't to say the security services were totally in the wrong- I'd just argue that it was focused in the wrong place. How was this data actually found? Who are the other sources that leaked the information- and what is the process by which Greenwald and the Guardian are selecting and editing cables?

I think these are far more interesting questions, which are much more relevant to journalism and public accountability.