Tuesday, 18 August 2015

Anxious Youth: Why freedom is the best answer to insecure jobs and low pay

This month thousands of young adults across the country received their hard earned A-level results, most of them going on to study at university. However, a recent survey showed that over 60% of young people about to enter the adult world are extremely anxious about being trapped in 'dead end jobs'- stuck with low wages and dim prospects. This anxiety has been met with dismissal by many ("well these kids have a lot more opportunity than I did at that age"!) but these students are right to be somewhat apprehensive about he stresses and strains of modern life, starting with their future job prospects. Following in the footsteps of the USA, Britain is becoming a more service based economy. Since the occupy movement materialised in America, there has been a spate of strikes by fast-food workers in several US cities. The same anger over low pay in New York and Seattle could well cross the Atlantic in the near future. 

If we look at the economics, youngsters should be very worried indeed, and as well as the rest of the country. Britain’s 'economic recovery' is being mostly driven by consumer spending and the expansion of the service sector. Britain already looks like it did in 2008 forcing even mainstream financial commentators to provide us with gloomy forecasts for the immediate future. Furthermore, the UK's manufacturing sector has seen only anaemic growth. This is mixed news for young people.



Yet arguably our message should also be a philosophical one, namely that the political certainties people may decide to hang their hopes on don't exist; it's clear that the ethical implications of 'Corbynomics' would be far more ruinous than loathed zero-hours contracts. But we must also be mindful that UKIP and the Traditional Britain Society offer an equally miserable brand of archaic certainty.

The issue of insecurity and getting on in life can best be addressed by adopting an individualist outlook. It's long been established that GDP isn't a very good guide to the overall quality of life in any given country. As the economist Richard Easterlin detected, happiness doesn’t rise with income. Adam Smith famously observed that in most cases material wealth is just a corporeal substitute for respect, admiration and glory. The mild status anxieties that we may feel when one of our friends on Facebook gets a prestigious promotion or divulges a voluminous photographic account of their expensive holiday, are mostly a result of us being constantly referred to as a collective. We are always being compared to others and encouraged to feel jealous of other's success; 'If my fellow citizen can have X, then why can’t I?'  


The ethos of voluntary interaction and freedom to pursue happiness (whatever the individual's concept of happiness may be) is one that is at ease with the modern world. First world problems are not something to be scoffed at; depression, stress and divorce are all very serious issues that deserve our attention. The size and scope of Britain's service economy is profound, and young adults are more likely to be in low-paid service work than other age groups (see figure 1). Truly, a great challenge for those who desire a minimal state is to deconstruct false certainties, whether utopian or traditional. The freedom to be, to exist as one desires is in itself a great virtue, yet very few people seem to be arguing this.

Figure 1: Age Group and Industry Sector by Wages
Source:  http://www.poverty.org.uk/


On the subject of happiness Mises wrote:



Wednesday, 29 July 2015

Can We Finally Be Realistic About Politicians?

'Oh, we could but do with some nice little young Asian lady I would've thought tonight but never mind. They sort of look innocent but you know they're whores.' LORD SEWEL

It’s been less than a week since Lord Sewel was publicly humiliated in The Sun. The famous video showing the now former chairman of committees unwinding with a load of cocaine and a prostitute has well and truly gone viral.

On the face of it, this is a good old-fashioned political scandal and there have been many over the past five years. The chances are that just like David Law’s ‘second home’, Liam Fox’s lobbyist friend Adam Werritty and ‘Plebgate’; it’s only a matter of time before we all forget about the cocaine snorting Lord Sewel and his delightfully debauched antics.  It should be obvious by now that taking an early slap on the wrist and returning after the water is clear is the de rigueur process for humiliated public figures. 

Just maybe, as a result of the seemingly endless conveyor belt of embarrassing political scandals we can start to be a bit more mature about how we view public figures. This isn’t of course, a plea for us to be nicer to our affectionately elected representatives in parliament (sarcasm by the way). But we really do need to start seeing politicians for what they are, people.

I refuse to believe that any adult is genuinely offended by Lord Sewel’s behaviour, with the exception perhaps of his family.  Even the Prime Minister couldn’t hide his tedium when asked to address the scandal whilst in Singapore earlier this week. 

The idea that public figures, especially politicians should be knights in shining armour and conveyors of the highest moral standards is ridiculous. There is a powerful dialogue in modern politics that suggests that MPs should be more like social workers than law-makers. People, who run charity events, make cups of tea for the elderly and spend 95% of their time working in their constituencies. This view is a utopian fantasy of the worst kind. If the public continues to demand glistening MPs we will be condemned to disappointment. Such an emphasis on having a spotless record may explain why so many high ranking members of the cabinet had shadowy careers in the civil service, and not on the back benches.

Perhaps there is a case for outrage if a councillor or politician receives a wildly excessive salary or reliably attends to their public duties under the influence of drugs or alcohol. But it must be one of the dreariest spectacles of modern politics, to listen to MPs gleefully explaining why they don’t deserve a pay rise.  Lord Sewel’s rise to viraldom is certainly embarrassing, but really not that surprising…or shocking. 

Sunday, 19 July 2015

Is Auntie Really On Her Death Bed?

There are few institutions in British society so loved as the BBC. It is surprising then, that culture secretary John Whittingdale has had the audacity to present to parliament a green paper outlining potential changes in the future scale and scope of the BBC. The organisation is undoubtedly the relic of a bygone era, especially the archaic and arbitrary way that it is funded. Yet, having a debate about this large and successful media giant, presents a world of possibilities about the future relationship between Britain’s public institutions and an impatient  cash-strapped public.  

I have a confession to make,  I actually quite like the BBC. I don’t often watch much telly, but when I do it is usually a BBC programme. I think that some of the documentaries on BBC4 are great. Furthermore, my Thursday nights wouldn’t be the same without the ritual of sitting back and being reliably outraged about what various politicians are saying on Question Time. My morning drive to work is usually accompanied by the Today Show and my journey home allows me to catch up on the day’s news with PM. I must also admit that I often rely on the BBC NEWS app on my phone to deliver my ‘breaking news’ if not the analysis. I love the RADIO 1 Rock Show and the Punk Show and genuinely got very into the Bake-Off this year. If the license fee was abolished tomorrow, the chances are that I would be one of the millions of people subscribing to a newly privatised BBC. 

It already looks like the BBC approving public have taken up defensive positions. The Conservative’s insistence that the license fee be scrapped for over 75s has been a sudden and intrusive act of vandalism in the eyes of aunties’ most ardent supporters. On RADIO 4’s Moral Maze this week, Giles Fraser vociferously lamented the delinquency of ’conservatives who don’t want to conserve anything’, ripping the heart out the British community and accused the IEA’s Ryan Bourne of ‘free market fundamentalism’.

In the eyes of many free-market folk, the new challenge to the broadcasting behemoth is a welcome one. Yet, a closer look at the facts about Whittingdale’s green paper reveals that it is much less radical than many of us expected. It would appear the panel tasked with assessing the BBC is made up of representatives from private broadcasting organisations and industry experts, surely a clear statement of intent that the BBC is going to be carved up?  Not quite, what strikes me about the green paper is how cautious it is. I think it’s reasonable to suggest that in true Cameronesque style, the Tories are talking tough but won’t end up delivering anything remotely radical. I predict that as soon as Whittingdale’s pals in the broadcasting industry are appeased, he will renew the royal charter with little alteration. 

This is unfortunate, however with any luck this could be a much needed watershed moment. It is quite clear that the modern BBC goes well beyond the remit for a ‘public service’ broadcaster. Something about news readers having celebrity status and managers with sky-high salaries should make license fee payers wince as they cough up a mandatory £145 every year. It’s quite clear that the BBC wants to be a slick global broadcasting empire, like CNN or Al Jazeera, and  I am quite happy to let that happen…but not with taxpayers’ money. 

In fact, I would argue that the BBC could have the potential to be a commercialised miracle. Part of the reason why privatisation has such a bad name in Britain is because it has been done so badly. However, with a globally recognised and prestigious brand, a privatised BBC doesn’t have to be a ‘fire sale’; it could be a grand unleashing. Furthermore, as Allister Heath and Ryan Bourne have suggested, in the short term the government could easily provide funding for   ‘public service’ programming on a case by case basis. But a blanket license fee in the digital age is clearly unjust.

Another aspect of what will inevitably become a game of political football is the snobbery shown by some supporters of the BBC. I am referring to the idea that without public funding, programmes about philosophy, classical music or obscure melodramas simply couldn’t exist. I would ask people who hold such views to visit their nearest corner shop, and stare at the magazine rack. Despite printed media being one of the most competitive industries in the country, there is no shortage of highbrow reading. For every copy of Nuts, The Daily Star and Closer; there is National Geographic, The Guardian and Private Eye. I believe that this view held by many;  is snobbish nihilism of the worst kind, that the masses requires rivers of freely flowing taxpayers money to have enlightening material rammed down their throats, it is truly absurd. 

The real losers of the BBC’s review will be the people who want to see the organisation crushed and humiliated. The Murdoch press, Guido Fawkes fans and anyone who has ever said ‘The British Bolshevik Corporation’ will be disappointed by John Whittingdale’s assessment. I would also like to add here that we shouldn’t be overly enthusiastic about the Culture Secretary giving the BBC a bloody nose, reducing one part of government whilst expanding another couldn’t be described as much of a victory.

Saturday, 27 June 2015

Incomprehensible Savagery

The murder of nine black church goers by Dylan Roof was an act of incomprehensible savagery. Since the event, there has been much discussion, the removal of the Confederate flag from South Carolina Statehouse and the President has broken out in song. I often feel averse to thinking about events such as these in any sort of context. Whether in Paris, Tunis or an American high-school; the blood-curdling insanity of those that murder innocent people warrants little explanation beyond the mental health of the perpetrator. Just as worrying, are the policy makers that would use such events to justify the introduction of a new legislation… as if murder wasn’t illegal in the first place. Politicians must learn that what transpired in Charleston June 19th doesn’t require an action of any kind, only sombre reflection alongside the swift incarceration of the culprit. 

Activist Bree Newsome removes the confederate flag from South Carolina Statehouse

Many will assume that Dylan Roof’s actions are representative of a broad recent trend in American politics, that of a ‘race crisis’; linking Ferguson, Baltimore, New York, Sanford and now Charleston. In a sense these events are connected, race in the USA is in many ways like class here in the UK; always pervasive, and at times palpable. For better or worse, rightly or wrongly the narrative of racial conflict is a powerful force in American society. 

Dylan Roof’s ideology, outlined in his manifesto is identity politics pushed to its fullest  most aggressive and dogmatic extent. A criticism of white supremacist thinking isn’t necessary here, the concept that we are in the midst of a ‘race war’ is ridiculous enough. Roof’s supposed obsession with the Japanese film Himzu, and the need for the violent purification of society reeks of Julius Evola. Furthermore, his infamous manifesto reads like a desperate plea for help, a painful and frustrated incomprehension of the modern world. I find it hard to believe that the man who wrote it had ever discussed his ideas openly; the short document presented me with one of the bleakest understandings of society I have ever seen.  Existing far-right groups online and the KKK have been keen to distance themselves from the murders in Charleston. Although I find it hard to believe that the members of such organisations universally condemn Roof’s actions.

The outrageous assault reminds us in Europe of the Anders Behring Breivik shootings in Norway 2011. Again, a deranged right-wing madman killed scores of innocent people, in the name of a sickening Fascist ideology. Yet, in light of these events I think it is appropriate to make a point about the nature of politics in our modern and complex societies. Arguably once political discourse becomes about identity and not ideas, we head down a dangerous path. Some may find that statement hard to stomach. There are those for whom, ethnicity, class, place of birth or skin colour is the foundation of their ideology. ‘Identity Politics’ has been with us for centuries; it is what happens when genuine politics and social philosophies have failed.

When I heard about the news and the controversy surrounding the confederate flag, my partner (not a Libertarian) exclaimed: “I don’t understand how people can think that the confederate flag isn’t offensive to black people!” She then turned to me and said “I bet you don’t think it should be banned”, to which I replied “No I don’t… but I still think its offensive. I certainly wouldn’t hang the confederate flag outside my own  house.” However, there are undoubtedly many people in the USA who don’t think that the famous ‘Stars & Bars’ is a symbol of racial oppression, merely an obstinate allusion to the cultural, linguistic and culinary tradition of the American Deep South. Yet I think we can all agree that the confederate flag has become a divisive issue and a powerful symbol, as to what it represents, I will leave you to decide. 

It goes without saying that my deepest sympathies go to the families of those killed in Charleston. I also feel obliged to add here that at times I have been made to feel dreadfully uncomfortable when I read things some ‘Libertarians’ have said about race and ethnicity. Unfortunately, there can’t be any inspirational message behind this article, but as I alluded to earlier, in the wake of the events in South Carolina, a moment of reflection might be appropriate.

A copy of Dylan Roof’s manifesto can be found here: http://lastrhodesian.com/data/documents/rtf88.txt

Monday, 25 May 2015

Viva Liberland?

Early last month, Vit Jedlicka became the president of the new micronation of Liberland on a small disputed area of forest in between Croatia and Serbia. Here I will discuss the idea of independent communities in Libertarian theory and their practical implications. The notion that smaller, more independent nations can be the first major step on the road to a free society has considerable traction in the USA. It has become a significant concept of the circle of academics associated with the Mises Institute. The enthusiastic emphasis on secession by some American Libertarians ensures that it is worthy of commentary. But is it true? Is the best path to Liberty paved with cobbles of smaller, more independent nations?

Whether it’s the Free State Project, Galt’s Gulch, Liberland or the Condominium of Neutral Moresnet. Small separatist idealists clearly have a place in the complex milieu of ideas that make up modern Libertarianism. However, I will suggest here that for several reasons, the idea of ‘mass secession’ in itself can only ever be a limited solution for engineering freedom en masse, but micronations like Liberland have much potential.
It is obvious that Murray Rothbard has had an instrumental role in shaping modern Libertarianism, he was an animated writer, imaginative political thinker and respected economist. However, Rothbard wasn't much of a historian. The historical question of secession seems to have led the otherwise insightful thinker to some strange conclusions. His take on the American civil war is part of a long and petulant tradition of Civil War revisionism amongst American academics. The folks at the Mises Institute unfortunately adopt the same pro-confederate cause. If you are at all interested in sadomasochism, you might try reading Tom Wood's politically incorrect guide to American history. My point here isn't to discredit Rothbard or the Mises Institute out of hand. My goal is to draw attention to a particular strain of reasoning; concerning secession, that sees Libertarians at their least academically credible.

When discussing micronations and independent polities, it's usually not long before someone mentions Switzerland. I will leave a thorough description of Switzerland to one side at this time. For now let's just accept that it is small, relatively prosperous and has a renowned federal style of government. Much vaunted by right-wingers, if only Britain could be more like Switzerland! As an Anarchist, I find it strange to think that somehow being part of a smaller country means democracy will be more intense. Surely in a tiny nation of only 1 million, a lone voice is effectively just as meaningless as in a big nation of 100 million? If the answer is no, then how many people specifically represent the right size of country for democracy to function? Surely the cultural norms, history and democratic structures matter more than population size. It stands to reason then that a big nation can potentially respect individual rights more than a much smaller country.

So what's the point of secession? Is Mr Jedlicka wrong to walk onto a volatile border and declare a new nation? History shows quite clearly that Serbian nationalists are not a group of people you would want to upset. Yet, there is something extremely alluring about breaking off from society, with its injustices and frustrations, and being part of a new polity of like-minded compatriots. Nor are Libertarians unique in wanting to put their ideas into practice.  Independent communities are a long established part of the communist tradition, from the Paris Commune in 1871 to contemporary Anarcho-Syndicalist squats in London. 

Ultimately, unlike the times of the Paris commune just about every square mile of land on this planet belongs to one country or another. Furthermore, a hope of mass abandonment of entire nations doesn’t seem to be a realistic prospect anytime soon. Most separatist movements in Europe whether in Catalonia, Scotland, Northern Italy or Transnistria hardly demonstrate a triumph of Liberalism. However, I will argue that micro-nations and secession movements can and will succeed. As long as these places represent an idea they stand a good chance of flourishing. What separates a successful project like Freetown Christiania from a disaster like Fordlandia, is that they stand for something, they show that a certain vision of society can indeed prosper. It also helps a lot if these movements don't antagonise any of their larger neighbours. As is becoming the case with Liberland. 

The most widely known examples of micro- nations are undoubtedly the cities of Hong Kong and Singapore. I will resist the temptation to state that they are examples of ‘pure free market' economies because their histories are much more nuanced than that. However, they have been governed much more on capitalist lines than their neighbours, which is why they stand out. Importantly, Hong Kong and Singapore show that with the right policies in place, a tiny patch of land can become a prosperous metropolis. On a positive note the future looks bright for micronations. Sea Steads are already a distinct possibility and the government of Honduras is thinking about establishing ZEDEs (Zones for Employment and Economic Development). If the ZEDE system works well, some cities in Honduras will be effectively independent and free to govern themselves. Of course, there is the prospect that these schemes won’t happen or will go horribly wrong but they are promising nonetheless. If run properly, the ZEDE could provide a useful model for the developing world.

Fundamentally, Liberland can work. In a recent interview on Anarchast Jedlicka outlined that both the Croatian and Serbian police have made it difficult to enter the area. But despite resistance Liberland has garnered a huge amount of media interest as well as thousands of applications for citizenship. Hopefully in the not too distant future we will see more Libertarians putting their ideas effectively into practice; illuminating the way for larger nations in the process.

Sunday, 26 April 2015

The Libertarian Vote



Selected Constituencies: 
  • Putney
  • Hammersmith
  • Wimbledon
  • Bristol West
  • Surrey Heath
  • Warwick and Leamington
  • Northampton North
  • Worcester
  • Guildford
  • Canterbury
  • North Cornwall
  • Kingston and Surbiton







Thursday, 2 April 2015

TV Election Misery







Saturday, 7 March 2015

BRICS and Mortar: Building a Movement Fit for the Developing World

The primary concern of this article is how Libertarian theory could ever possibly be applied successfully to what is often referred to as the 'Developing World'. But before I begin, I will make a few remarks. Firstly I fully appreciate the scope and diversity of the 'Developing World', therefore accepting the inadequacies of catch-all terms like the 'Global South', 'Third World' and 'Developing World'. A lifetime could be spent addressing such a massive section of the humanity, and still not be adequately detailed. Not to mention that such broad-brush approaches to the social sciences are completely outside of the contemporary academic tradition. Secondly I will mention that I am by no means an established expert on the issues on which this article addresses, merely a passionate and humble observer. Lastly I will say that far from trying to solve the myriad of issues that most of the countries in the Developing World face, by prescribing some sort of uniquely 'Libertarian solution' this article will aim to be a collection of pertinent inferences and observations about Libertarian discourse and ideas, and how they might relate to countries outside of the 'Western World'. By paying more attention to what's happening outside the remits of our own countries, we can only strengthen our movement, enrich our intellectual discourse and build the foundations of a truly global project.



The reasons why we should address the issues faced by the Developing World are self-evident and compelling. Ultimately in terms of how the early 21st century will be looked at by historians and analysts, we are losing the debate. In his book 'How Asia Works', Joe Studwell provides a compelling case that the Asian 'Tiger Economies' owe their success not to free-market liberalism, but to centralised; state-led economic projects, whereby strong and determined governments turn their nations into exporting superpowers. Despite Libertarians having a voice on many issues in the Western World, globally speaking we are going through a period of 'Big-Statism'. The so-called BRICS are all large countries that command massive quantities of internal resources: land, population, mineral wealth and energy. Despite the fact that the future of the BRICS is far from certain, it remains true that their pre-eminence among the developing countries is perceived as having little to do with free-market ideas. On the contrary, it would appear that these select nations owe their position to their lack of reliance on 'free-trade' and ability to develop their domestic economies. Furthermore, not only do we see the rise of big nations, but smaller nations are increasingly clumping together: ASEAN, The African Union, Mercosur, ALBA etc. show that any dreams of the world turning into a patchwork quilt of small independent entities is just that...a dream. Hayek would be horrified. Importantly 'Big-Statism' is a trend that extends beyond the territorial definitions of a nation. The role of the state in the BRICS countries is significant. The nature of the government in China needs no elaboration, yet even in Brazil and Russia almost all of the largest companies are at least in part, state-owned. Additionally, even in supposedly Capitalist India, large swathes of the country are governed at a regional level by Marxist local authorities.






The second main difficulty the Libertarian movement faces when concerning the Developing World is linguistic. The world 'Capitalism' is universally controversial, particularly when people begin to attribute characteristics or a certain 'nature' to it. Either rightly or wrongly, for most of the world’s population outside of the West, Capitalism is synonymous with violence and oppression. And perhaps rightly so, a brief look at the history of most of Latin America, Africa or Asia reveals countless atrocities unleashed in the name of 'Capitalism' and 'Westernisation'. Importantly, often the policies that Developing World leaders implement are far removed from the Libertarian conception of Capitalism and truly free markets. Furthermore, as is the case in Pinochet's Chile or Zia Ul Haq's Pakistan, the most supposedly 'Capitalistic ' rulers tend to be awfully bloodthirsty. Therefore, it is evident that the word Capitalism is ambiguous when concerning the Developing World. I would argue that the Libertarian movement has been guilty of throwing its support behind morally bankrupt regimes only because they have labelled themselves as Capitalists. I believe that by taking more notice of the Developing World might help free-market activists avoid errors such as these.

Yet I believe that there is no reason that this should be the case. Essentially the political history of the Developing World is a scrap yard, littered with the rustic relics of failed collectivist experiments. Weather in Nasser's Egypt, Suharto's Indonesia and (on the extreme end of the scale) Mao's China; a significant proportion of the world’s nations have suffered horrendously at the hands of irresponsible and violent strongmen, spurred on by deluded Leninist fantasies. Clearly, Collectivism has left as much a mark on the developing world as what is called 'Capitalism' has ever done. This important ideological quandary brings me on to another, perhaps more salient issue.

This is the popular assertion that somehow so-called 'western' ideas are fundamentally unsuitable for the Developing World. On a certain level, this is true, but it is mostly false. If the ideas of freedom and prosperity continue to be referred to as uniquely 'Western values' then indeed they will probably be seen (quite rightly) as fitting into a long history of European and American imposition on Non-Western societies. However; on another level this binary separation of 'Western' and 'Eastern' ideas about social organisation is inadequate.  For example, I believe that when the claim is made that a more individualistic approach to politics is fundamentally unsuited to Chinese society (for example) it is wrong. Even Joe Studwell, who spends most of his book praising authoritarian regimes, admits;

‘On its present trajectory, China is set to be a middle-income per capita, but profoundly institutionally retarded state. At an economic level, this gives leading nations nothing to fear.' Joe Studwell, How Asia Works


Monday, 5 January 2015

It's Going To Be A Dismal Election

As the politicians seem to have recovered from their new years eve hangovers and begun an ideological mud slinging match in front of a feverish and restless media circus. Either a senior minister has done something deeply embarrassing, or there is a general election fast approaching. In this case the latter. 
Importantly a brief overview of 2014 would indicate that this general election is really going to be spectacular! It has been mentioned over and over again how senior pollsters simply don't have a clue as to who will win- with Labour and the Tory's stuck in a seemingly endless conflict over a couple of percentage points. It is likely that no party will win an over all majority, with some sort of coalition being the predicted outcome. Nick Clegg (yes he still exists!) is openly stating that voting for the LibDems ensures another coalition.Yet there have been tight elections before, the ascendance of UKIP this year has been staggering, with a massive boost in popularity to about 15% of the electorate and two high profile defections from the dark environs of the Conservative back benches- with probably more to come. It has been discussed ad infinitum how UKIP will drag the Tories to the right, displacing their hard won middle ground supporters. 

Additionally, on the Left there has been impressive gains from the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) winning 3 local government seats last year and are apparently fielding 1000 candidates in GE2015- a modest number, but impressive considering the party only formed in 2010. As well as a media furore surrounding the exclusion of the Green Party from any of the official TV debates this year. Add into the mix, a barely defeated SNP whose support has reportedly increased since the referendum in November and surely we are in for an interesting election this year!

Well sadly, the answer is no...as far as i'm concerned anyway. Unfortunately what we have witnessed over the past week is a signal that GE2015 is going to be a traditional back to basics election. The battle lines are already drawn, Labour supposedly championing the NHS and 'hard working families' and the Tories pretending to know what they are doing about the economy. 

A recent article in The Guardian by Andrew Rawnsley entitled 'There's a vacuum now in British politics. And it's Blair-shaped' I believe, is rather accurate. Although I generally don't agree with much of what Rawnsley says in his article, I do acknowledge  his assertion that ultimately politicians will be inclined to go for an elusive middle ground in order to get elected with a respectable  result. As opposed to appealing to their party's vocal fringes. Evidently this is going to be a massive anti-climax for many. Listening to Ed Milliband's election speech  was as dull as dishwater; enough to make me forget that he was ever branded as 'Red Ed'- a dangerous revolutionary firebrand. Frankly my kitchen sink has more proletarian zeal than the current Labour leader. Arguably the dreary soundbites and lackluster applause was a cynical appeal to what Ed Milliband calls the 'squeezed middle'. Virtually no policy was mentioned in the speech.

But what about the Conservatives? I assumed that with the threat of Nigel Farage's purple clad acolytes would be enough to put the brakes on 'Compassionate Conservatism'?Yet it would appear that the Tories are going back to basics as well focusing on the economy. Not wholly surprising given that after rounds of police force cuts, they can hardly play the law & order card. Furthermore, media hype aside, there is no certainty around how UKIP will perform in GE2015. David Cameron's delightfully ambiguous 'road to nowhere' is essentially a promise for more of the same from the Conservatives. This wouldn't be such a problem if the Tories weren't so hopelessly divided, don't ask David Cameron where his 'road to nowhere' is going because I'm not sure he knows himself.  

In conclusion; despite Nick Robinson's assertion that new economic data means that GE2015 will actually be very exiting, my prediction is that the journey towards May will be a predictable ideological trudge with both parties abandoning their fringes to win over a divided middle ground. Not that I would ever have considered voting for any of them, but it would be nice to watch an interesting debate. It's going to be a dismal election...