Friday, May 8, 2015

PM David Cameron Re-elected by Selling Fears

                                                    New Political Tool: Fear
It is not just in India that pollsters periodically fall flat. UK election, defying predictions of a hung parliament, the Conservative Party surged to an outright  majority in British elections. The result announced on May 9, 2015, It won 331 seats out of 650, more than the magic number of 326. What are the two most effective factors which proved most of the predictions false.
Fear is a fierce force in politics. In the end fear told. It was the basis of David Cameron's election campaign and he was entirely vindicated as he swept to a second term as British prime minister.
The fear Cameron instilled in voters was twofold.
 The first element consisted in saying that the substantial economic progress made by Britain over the past five years — gains that have turned it into the fastest-growing major advanced economy — would be reversed by a Labour victory.
The second was to suggest that if Ed Miliband, the Labour Party leader, did reach Downing Street he would be hostage to a surging Scottish National Party whose objective is to break up Britain.
Both proved effective. The British voted for economic consolidation. They shunned risk and they shunned Miliband, whom in the end they did not trust. Miliband, who gained the Labour leadership five years ago in a bitter fight with his brother David, resigned on Friday
PM David Cameron developed two political products in the form of Ideas Of Fear (IOF). He marketed it to voters. He also assessed the demand. Every voter wish to go up on economic trajectory. Its reversal would harm everyone. One this issue, he created a fear among voters and in turn sold his political product to them and took voters' mandate.
Nationalism is above everything for citizens. Cameron played this and hit emotional cards of voters. Division of the country affect all. Hence, it is a mass appealing issue. Cameron developed another political product  based on concept of fear generation. He convinced voters "If Labour party will get power, it may break up Britain under the pressure of surging Scottish National Party."
No gain without pain. The astonishing result is associated with big challenges ahead. The result could also lead for two referendums, with great existential import for Britain's future. The interests of Scottish and Britons are just opposite. Managing these opposite interests are formidable task for Cameron to fulfil his poll promises. Hopefully, he would manage, as politics is the art of managing contradictions, which he has proved by getting majority.
Cameron has promised a referendum, by 2017,on  whether UK should quit the European Union. If majority of Britons say yes, that result could influence the holding of another referendum.
The Scottish National Party, which stands for Scotland breaking away from the  UK, has swept 56 of Scotland's 59 seats. Since Scots favour staying in the EU a Brexit- or British exit from EU- could well trigger a Scottish exit from UK.
By selling simple IOF among voters, PM Cameron came out with flying colours. All forecasts of neck-to-neck fight predicted by most of the pollsters are negated.  He proved  best political acumen and it is an example for adoption to other political actors worldwide to win election.
Indian politicians  too abused and used  IOF to gain votes.  PM Modi's secular credentials are questioned by his critics, who accuse him of being divisive and of not doing enough to prevent the riots of 2002 in Gujarat, in which hundreds of Muslims were killed under his watch.
In 2014 Parliament Indian election, political parties tried to gain votes by showing fear of PM Modi. In its reaction, Maulana Mahmood Madani, who heads the Jamiat-Ulama-i-Hind, said in a TV interview , "In the next election, political parties should not try to seek our votes by showing fear of someone, on a negative plank." Parties, he said, must instead outline their plans to ensure "equal opportunity" for the community.
Same political products marketed brought different results. It give victory to Cameron in UK. While in India, it disappointed who applied this tactics. And Modi got landslide mandate like Cameron.
Heera Lal ( views are personal and based on different resources.)  


Wednesday, March 4, 2015

What is Personal Social Responsibility (PSR)?

Personal social responsibility may appear to be a new concept in relation to corporate social responsibility, but it is a concept as old as The Golden Rule -- do unto others as you would have done to you. PSR expands on this by promoting a proactive stance towards positively influencing and affecting the people and environments around you

How Does an Individual Become Socially Responsible

Being socially responsible in one's personal life everyday can be as difficult as sticking to a diet. To be a truly socially responsible individual not only requires participating in socially responsible activities like recycling, volunteering and mentoring, but to actually make it a lifestyle. Only through a commitment to embrace and embed social responsibility into your personal value and belief system can you truly become socially responsible in all you do.
Embracing PSR means doing your part to help the environment, volunteering your time to those in need, mentoring our youth, and being conscientious and courteous in all you do. Each of the speakers below is a champion for the one of these aspects of personal social responsibility.
Drawing from a unique set of experiences, each of APB's speakers on PSR are passionate about helping individuals realize the importance of living responsibly. Whether you need a speaker to inspire you to take the next step, or to help you motivate your community, we have a speaker who can provide you with the resources and tools you will need to have an open and honest discussion about what steps you need to take to be considered socially responsible.


Saturday, February 28, 2015

Tracking BlacK Money Systematically

            In its first decision after taking charge, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government on announced the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe black money, mostly stashed abroad. The decision was taken in the first meeting of the Union Cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Modi. Addressing a media conference after the Cabinet meeting law and telecom minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said the SIT will have retired Supreme Court judge MB Shah as its head. 

          The government is working on a plan to provide a one-time opportunity to those who have black money abroad to pay taxes and repatriate their stash even as finance minister Arun Jaitley unveiled a raft of stringent measures in the Budget to crack down on offenders. He is likely to announce this facility when he introduces a comprehensive legislation to curb black money in this session of Parliament. The severity of punishments proposed may prompt those with unaccounted money to come clean. Inadequate disclosure or evasion related to foreign assets will be punishable by jail terms up to 10 years.

          Violation of the Foreign Exchange Management Act may result in imprisonment up to five years. In addition to jail time, penalty will be levied at 300% of the tax due for concealing income and assets. Black money in foreign accounts will be non-compoundable and offenders will not be permitted to approach the Settlement Commission.
              "Tracking down and bringing back the wealth which legitimately belongs to the country is our abiding commitment," Jaitley said. His tough talk will give help blunt criticism that the government has been dragging its feet on the issue of black money. A separate bill will be brought to deal with domestic black money, primarily through benami transactions in real estate. It will allow for confiscation of benami property and provide for prosecution, blocking a major avenue for generation of black money. The Finance Bill also includes a proposal to prohibit payment or receipt of cash advances of Rs 20,000 or more for purchase of immovable property.
             Formation of SIT at the very outset and budget proposals for curbing national and international black money is indicating the intentions of the government. Government is committed and adhering to fight blackmoney issue as promised in Loksabha election. This is a good sign for our country. This proved our country is moving in right direction to treat this cancereous diseases as expected.


Friday, February 13, 2015

Delhi Assembly Election 2015: All Won

              Delhi Elecetion Result 67 out of 70 made AAP ruling party in Delhi assembly. In this election, three main parties contested- Congress, BJP and AAP. First two are national parties while third is two and and half year old.
Now all are saying that AAP has won. And Congress and BJP have lost. No, this is not true at all. In this all three contestants have won in some ways. This election has a result of Win-Win situation for all three.

              AAP has won, we all know. How Congress won? We need to understand it. Actually Congress was confused after the consecutive defeat after Lok Sabha what to do. BJP's continuous win blocked the way of congress- and forced it to stop. After  Delhi election result, BJP's speed will decelerate and congress will move from standstill.
              Congress being a national party, this change in situation is a big win. Delhi defeat has converted the stopped party into a moving one all over the conuntry. This boosted morale of party nationwide. Hence, loosing a small state election has boosted the party nationwide. We can compare the outcome of a national party with a local party. Loss and gain, the net result is gain.

                 Now question is how BJP has won. Yes,it is. Delhi is not a full state. It is basically a super elevated Municipal corporation. AAP contested and won this election focusing on Urban Good Governance.
                The 3 seats out of 70 has sent a shocking ripple to  BJP all over the country. Now they are bound to correct and rectify for next coming elections of Bhiar etc.
                 By loosing Delhi, BJP will take all coorective measure in Bihar and others. This means by lossing Delhi it has improved the future prospect in Bihar and others. In net this defeat will remove many mistakes done after Loksabha election. Particularly arrogance and overconfidence will evaporate. This loss will heavily compensate in future. This defeat is positive for BJP taken in right spirit. Every crisis is an opportunity. 

Moreover we can not compare a local party with a national party on one indication of winning seats.

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Internet Impacting Indian farmers


Monday, February 9, 2015

People Are Supreme

In a democracy the people are supreme and all authorities, whether President or Prime Minister of India, other ministers, judges, legislators, bureaucrats, police, army and so on are servants of the people. Since the people are the masters and judges their servants, the people have a right to criticise judges just as a master has the right to criticise his servant.


Thursday, February 5, 2015

Political Marketing: Political Funding A Big Issue To Clean Politics

 Political Reform: When we are sick, we want an uncommon doctor....and when we are at war  we want an uncommon general. Only in politics we are satisfied with common man.

The controversy over donations by dubious entities to the Aam Aadmi Party shows up both the murkiness of election financing in India as well as the double standards of the major political parties.
The facts of the case are probably too well known by now to bear repetition. What has been established is that four companies, which donated a combined Rs 2 crore to AAP, apparently gave fictitious addresses and have little to show by way of revenue.
We would not have known of these donations in the first place if AAP had not put a list of all its donors — even those who donate a sum of Re 1 — on its party website. This radical move by AAP has made the party’s funding transparent, but it has not been replicated by anyone else.
Obviously, in this instance, the move to greater transparency has boomeranged on AAP since it had not done adequate checks on its big donors, something expected of a party that purports to be an example of probity. But more than that, this incident shows the lacunae in election financing regulation in India and the duplicity of all major parties, particularly Bharatiya Janata Party and Congress.
A brief history of election financing regulation in India would show that it’s been largely ineffective. The link between black money, about which the BJP government seems so vexed, and political funding had been noted very early on by both the Santhanam Committee (1964) and the Wanchoo Committee (1971). In between these two reports, PM Indira Gandhi banned corporate donations to political parties which, according to her detractors, was aimed more at her political rivals than a cleanup of the system.
Subsequent government panels, such as the Dinesh Goswami Committee and Indrajit Gupta Committee, recommended partial state funding of elections and the establishment of a separate election fund. While the latter has remained a non-starter, limited state funding in the form of allocation of free airtime on state-owned television and radio networks was put in place in 1998.
The two most significant developments in election financing occurred via a court judgment in 1996 and a legislative amendment in 2003. In 1996, the Supreme Court in the Common Cause judgment ordered all political parties to file income tax returns. This would not have happened without a court order since, prior to the ruling, no political party had ever submitted their accounts.
The other development was a legislation passed by the National Democratic Alliance government making corporate and individual contributions to a political party fully tax deductible under relevant sections of the Income Tax Act. It also made it compulsory for parties to submit to the Election Commission a list of donations of Rs 20,000 and above.
While these measures introduced some accountability to election financing, there are far too many escape routes for parties. One of the most important gaps in the law is that, unlike countries such as the US, parties do not have to report small contributions. This potentially means that a contributor can remain anonymous by donating any number of times an amount below Rs 20,000. Indeed, till the 2009 general elections, the trend was that the bulk of donations to BJP and Congress was below Rs 20,000, meaning that a host of donors remained anonymous. This trend, has, however changed.
According to figures compiled by the Association for Democratic Reforms, for the 2013-14 financial year, 90% of donations to national parties were from business houses. These numbers did not include BJP because it had not submitted its list of donors to EC by the prescribed deadline. This has led to worries about the hold of corporate groups on political parties.
The Bahujan Samaj Party is the only exception since it claims to have got no donations over Rs 20,000. This means that we are in the dark about the identity of BSP’s donors.
While election financing remains a grey area, campaign spending is even murkier. Though the cap on campaign expenditure has over the years been raised substantially, it is accepted that most election candidates spend well over the limit. Loopholes in the Representation of the People Act allow a political party and its supporters to spend on election campaigns without it contributing to a candidate’s spending limit. Besides, even candidates admit privately that they under-report their spending.
Revelations about dubious donations to AAP have rightfully ignited a debate about election financing. But that should not detract from AAP’s efforts to make its finances open to the public. All other parties still have much to hide despite having been forced by the courts and civil society groups to reveal their accounts.
It is no accident that BJP, which is locked in a tight contest with AAP in the Delhi polls, has had the most to say about the illegality of the donations to AAP. At the same time it has had very little to say about the myriad problems afflicting election financing. That the common voter is on the side of transparency is evident from the fact that there has been a spike in contributions to AAP, much of it in small amounts, despite the donation controversy.