Tribune

The financial woes of stalwart Labour mag Tribune have finally been exposed to the public via yesterday's Evening Standard article. Or have they? On several occasions, the piece portrays Tribune as a thriving small business, which had managed to claw its way back from the brink of bankruptcy after being bought out by the ASLEF union in 2005. Did the author do any research? Or was he/she bound by the same loyalty to the mag that prevents me from revealing just how bad things really are at Tribune, especially for its journalists.

Not again.

Canadians will be heading to the polls on October 14th to elect a new government. Of course, it's only been two years since they last went to the polls to elect a new government, and what a joy that turned out to be. The Tories have been in power since 2006, in a minority administration, and surprise surprise, Stephen Harper hasn't been able to pass any laws because parliament is so split between the main parties that the three others (centre-left to varying degrees) keep uniting against him to block new legislation.

From what's been written, it doesn't look like the political fault lines are set to change to any great extent in October. Even Harper has resigned himself to expecting another minority government. Which begs the question, why the hell hold an election to change things when change is exactly what isn't going to happen?

Following the story on the CBC website, you can read comments that people have left. Most are nonsense. But one of them pretty much sums up the lunacy of the situation for me.

I am an Immigrant to Canada and currently I cannot vote until I got my canadian Citizenship. I live in the country since 1994 and I realy wonder if canadian parties have nothing better to do that call for elections.

Since I am in Canada there were elections in 6/97, 11/00, 6/04, and 1/06

Now if I look at the time wasted between desolving the goverment, having an election, forming a new government and have this government actually start working it is probbably 4 month or so. Multiply this by well now 5 elections, that mean that this country had no working government for almost 2 years since I live in Canada. I am also wondering at the cost of those elections. I believe I read somewhere that an election cost around $200 million that times 5 equals $1 billion just for elections. Do these governments not have
anything better to spend that money on?

-71gonzo71

Don't slouch, Darling

The feeling of dread is familiar to anyone who has returned to work from a summer holiday only to be confronted by an inbox bulging with hundreds of unopened items. For Alistair Darling, however, it’s a feeling that’s probably amplified tenfold right now. The past few days have not been the greatest for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who managed to jolt us out of our silly season stupor with just a few words said off the cuff during an interview with The Guardian’s Decca Aitkenhead on Saturday. The British economy, he said, is in the worst shape it has been in for 60 years. He also acknowledged that the public were “pissed off” with Labour and that the party needed to do better.

On reading the interview in full (here), Darling comes across as less of a schemer and more of a doer than many of his contemporaries in the Labour party. He answers questions straightforwardly, doesn’t hide his biases or intentions, and seems more honest than most politicians when it comes to the media. Yet none of this seems to matter now, for in the days since that interview went to press, the value of the pound and the FTSE have plummeted to new lows, and both downturns are being attributed directly to Darling’s gloomy view of the economy.

The obligatory Newsnight interview was aired last night, and it made for uncomfortable viewing. Darling was rigidly on the defensive, but looked acutely uncomfortable as Gavin Esler laid into him for not being careful enough in his choice of words when he must have known they would have wider repercussions.

For all the usual voter complaints that politicians aren’t open and honest enough, ironically it seems that the economy is one area in which the government needs to maintain a certain propaganda threshold at all times, but particularly when the country’s finances are looking a bit rough. In the economic uncertainty we are now living with, any statement that betrays a feeling of failure or a loss of control on the government's part will be interpreted by the myriad forces that govern the financial markets as a sign that the country is uninvestable. Result, as Dickens would say: misery. Stockbrokers, with their notoriously busy workloads, are hardly going to trouble themselves reading the full-length article and pondering the deeper meaning of Darling's words or appreciate his honesty. All that they--and many others besides-- will see is a swirl of media headlines screeching about Darling's latest "gaffe" and how the "bumbling Chancellor" has plunged Britain into even more uncertainty with his doom and gloom.

It's a depressing state of affairs, but not one that can be blamed uniquely on media hysterics. The stock market is a volatile creature, and never more so than when there's a recession around the corner. Darling's Guardian interview and the ensuing fracas will, I feel, fade away relatively quickly, but--following the temporary reprieve of the Beijing Olympics--it does mark the opening salvo in what will likely be a sustained media attack on the Labour government for the rest of the year. Darling should take away from this the fact that his words and actions no longer represent just him, they represent the future of the country's wealth. A tall order? You bet.