Bradford West is such a maverick constituency, and George Galloway such a maverick candidate, that I doubt if many nationally relevant lessons can be drawn from his extraordinary victory. However, I think there are two important lesons for Liberal Democrats.
First, Galloway apparently made great use of the odious but effective simile that if a backside could have three cheeks then Tories, Labour and Liberal Democrats are the three cheeks of the same backside. There is too much truth in this for Liberal Democrats to be comfortable, particularly in reference to the economy. Labour under Gordon Brown adopted the neo-con mantra of deregulation and unbridled market forces, with only modest attempts to curb inequality, the Tories have used the lie of the supposedly parlous state of Britain's public finances to implement their policy of rolling back the state and flogging off the profitable bits to their mates, and alas, those now in leadership positions in our party have signed up to the "inevitability" of public austerity, and without too many protests about the private affluence that goes with it.
To our shame the opportunity to be truly distinctive by sticking to the heritage of Beveridge and Keynes has been missed. No wonder fewer than four out of ten Bradford West voters opted for one of the three main parties.
(I must confess, however, having joined the party when we had only six MPs, to still getting a little thrill when we are lumped in with the "main" parties. Pity the blood sweat, toil and tears over half a century that have brought us from the fringes to the centre of power, albeit in a minor way, is being dissipated and our core beliefs obscured if not exactly abandoned.)
Back to the main theme.
The second lesson is that, in the high and far off times, Bradford West is one of those by-elections where it was Liberals who would have pulled of the miracle. Clearly those "Orpington moments" owed much to the protest vote and the "plague on both your houses" tendency. We have, quite rightly, forfeited the protest vote by becoming "mainstream", a process which preceded joining the coalition but which has obviously been exacerbated by it.
All the more reason why we must make greater and greater efforts to garner the committed and continuous support of that proportion of the electorate which actually shares our core beliefs:
* the greatest measure of individual freedom compatible with the freedom of others;
* a fairer distribution of income and wealth;
* concern for the poor and marginalised;
* enthusiasm for Europe;
* enjoying the diversity of a multicultural society;
* support for international law and institutions, especially the ECHR and UN;
* commitment to the preservation of civil liberties and the protection of human rights;
* determination to share some of our wealth to promote the development of the Third World;
* devolution of powers to the nations of Britain and the regions of England;
* refining our democratic processes, not least proportional representation by single transferable vote in multi-member consistences;
* industrial democracy and profit sharing;
* working for fair trade as well as free trade;
* and the use of the government's powers to maintain full employment, eliminate squalor, conquer ignorance, maintain health and remove want. (To those not steeped in our history, these are the Five Giants Beveridge set out to destroy.)
In the next four weeks households throughout the country will be flooded with Focus leaflets telling them that our Liberal Democrat councillors and candidates work hard "all the year round" and are "winning here." Great stuff, but we also need to tell them why, as well as caring for the quality of the pavements, we, at our core, are Liberal Democrats.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Monday, 2 April 2012
Sunday, 25 March 2012
The truth put brutally.
What has been striking about the coalition thus far is how wonderfully useful it has been for its dominant partner. The Lib Dems attract and absorb the bulk of any campaigning attention against unpopular bills, as they do the bulk of the hatred when the bills go through. They themselves bleat truthfully but cravenly that they negotiated some important concessions but rarely - never - create space to explain what an alternative, Lib-Dem formulated policy would actually look like. Deborah Orr, Guardian 24th March, 2012.
Brutal but, I regret, absolutely true. There is still far too much "ownership" of coalition policies, the latest being Nick Clegg's description of the budget as something of which Liberal Democrat can be proud - even when it is plainly illiberal, abandoning as it does the principles of both Beveridge and Keynes, and the supine acquiescence to the reduction of the 50p tax rate when only a few years ago we were proud to be the only party proposing it.
I suspect our "bleating," as Orr puts it, of the minor concessions we achieve, does not make much positive impact on the electorate in general, and our triumphalist claims that we are "punching above our weight" do not do much to promote the politics of cooperation rather than competition.
What is desperately needed, and I hope it does not take a slaughter of our councillors in May to prove it, is a change of tactics to include:
1.After repeating the fact that the Tories have 306 MPs to our 57, calm and non-point-scoring references to the modest moderations of policy our influence may have helped to achieve.
2. Robust declarations, from Simon Hughes, Tim Farron and others not in government if ministers aren't allowed to do it, of what Liberal Democrats would do if we were in government on our own.
3. Reversion to core Liberal Democrat values and policies. To give but two examples, why are we blethering about mansion taxes and the latest trendy tycoon tax when we have perfectly sound policies, honed over the years, on land value taxation? And why aren't we saying that we're keen Europeans and should be in there with our money to help the Euro to survive, rather than giving patronising lectures from the sidelines?
Brutal but, I regret, absolutely true. There is still far too much "ownership" of coalition policies, the latest being Nick Clegg's description of the budget as something of which Liberal Democrat can be proud - even when it is plainly illiberal, abandoning as it does the principles of both Beveridge and Keynes, and the supine acquiescence to the reduction of the 50p tax rate when only a few years ago we were proud to be the only party proposing it.
I suspect our "bleating," as Orr puts it, of the minor concessions we achieve, does not make much positive impact on the electorate in general, and our triumphalist claims that we are "punching above our weight" do not do much to promote the politics of cooperation rather than competition.
What is desperately needed, and I hope it does not take a slaughter of our councillors in May to prove it, is a change of tactics to include:
1.After repeating the fact that the Tories have 306 MPs to our 57, calm and non-point-scoring references to the modest moderations of policy our influence may have helped to achieve.
2. Robust declarations, from Simon Hughes, Tim Farron and others not in government if ministers aren't allowed to do it, of what Liberal Democrats would do if we were in government on our own.
3. Reversion to core Liberal Democrat values and policies. To give but two examples, why are we blethering about mansion taxes and the latest trendy tycoon tax when we have perfectly sound policies, honed over the years, on land value taxation? And why aren't we saying that we're keen Europeans and should be in there with our money to help the Euro to survive, rather than giving patronising lectures from the sidelines?
Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Do we need the "Liberal Left?"
There is much with which I agree in the "Founding Position Statement" of the Liberal Left.Our current leaders have indeed "taken the party's policy position to the right." We did claim before the election that plans to reduce the public deficit in a single parliament "would remove growth from the economy and their impact would fall disproportionately on those least able to afford them , increasing the gap between the rich and the poor and further dividing the country," and this is indeed "exactly what has happened." And much more.
However, I disagree with them on three important points.
First, they "oppose the party's membership of the coalition." We have to remember that the party overwhelmingly approved joining the coalition. Almost all of us agreed at the time that it was the most appropriate step to take. We have to live with the fact that the deal has turned out to be a bad one. (I argued at the time that there was no need to rush the thing through in a weekend. A ten day period of negotiation, consultation and reflection would have exposed the flaws, such as that an agreement to abstain on tuition fees was insufficient to honour the pledges we had made. The argument that a quick fix was necessary to placate the markets was false.) But that is what the party as a whole agreed to and we have to stick it out. There have been important gains, not least the fixed term parliament, the most important constitutional reform since 1911.
Secondly Liberal Left advocates a clear stance before the next, and presumably subsequent, elections, that in the event that no party has an overall majority we will form coalitions only with Labour, the Greens and other parties of the Left (if any.)This in my view is a nonsense, allowing Labour to argue that the electorate might just as well vote for "the real thing", them, rather than the monkey, us, and the Tories to claim that a Liberal Democrat vote is a vote for Labour. The stance taken at the last election, that the party with the majority of seats and votes should have first crack at forming a coalition, seems fair, right, proper and something the electorate can easily understand. It also guards against the very real possibility that the Labour party simply isn't interested in coalitions but, like spoilt kids in the playground, will take their bats home if the electorate doesn't give them the decision they want , as, if David Laws is to be believed, appears to have happened in 2010.
Finally Liberal Left appears to be set out to create a faction within the party to oppose the leadership. We have seen the damage that such factions have done to both Labour (Bevanites, Bennites, Militant) and the Tories (Eurosceptics). The Social Liberal Forum already exists to to work within the party's structures to steer us back into the paths of Keynesian and Beveridgian economic sense and social compassion. More power to the SLF elbow, rather than a factional grouping, is what is required.
However, I disagree with them on three important points.
First, they "oppose the party's membership of the coalition." We have to remember that the party overwhelmingly approved joining the coalition. Almost all of us agreed at the time that it was the most appropriate step to take. We have to live with the fact that the deal has turned out to be a bad one. (I argued at the time that there was no need to rush the thing through in a weekend. A ten day period of negotiation, consultation and reflection would have exposed the flaws, such as that an agreement to abstain on tuition fees was insufficient to honour the pledges we had made. The argument that a quick fix was necessary to placate the markets was false.) But that is what the party as a whole agreed to and we have to stick it out. There have been important gains, not least the fixed term parliament, the most important constitutional reform since 1911.
Secondly Liberal Left advocates a clear stance before the next, and presumably subsequent, elections, that in the event that no party has an overall majority we will form coalitions only with Labour, the Greens and other parties of the Left (if any.)This in my view is a nonsense, allowing Labour to argue that the electorate might just as well vote for "the real thing", them, rather than the monkey, us, and the Tories to claim that a Liberal Democrat vote is a vote for Labour. The stance taken at the last election, that the party with the majority of seats and votes should have first crack at forming a coalition, seems fair, right, proper and something the electorate can easily understand. It also guards against the very real possibility that the Labour party simply isn't interested in coalitions but, like spoilt kids in the playground, will take their bats home if the electorate doesn't give them the decision they want , as, if David Laws is to be believed, appears to have happened in 2010.
Finally Liberal Left appears to be set out to create a faction within the party to oppose the leadership. We have seen the damage that such factions have done to both Labour (Bevanites, Bennites, Militant) and the Tories (Eurosceptics). The Social Liberal Forum already exists to to work within the party's structures to steer us back into the paths of Keynesian and Beveridgian economic sense and social compassion. More power to the SLF elbow, rather than a factional grouping, is what is required.
Saturday, 4 February 2012
Usage and abusage in parliament
Apparently David Cameron called Ed Miliband a hypocrite in parliament this week, but had to withdraw because you're not allowed to be so rude. This incident brought forth in the press the usual list of archaic insults ( eg stool-pigeon, guttersnipe, cad)which are still on the taboo list.
In my view the most amusing incident with arose out of this convention occurred when Jeremy Thorpe was leader of the Liberals and was overheard to mutter "Stupid bastard" whilst the then Prime Minister, Edward Heath, was speaking. The interjection was loud enough to generate immediate demands that Thorpe withdraw , but the Speaker ruled that in the parliamentary lexicon "bastard" was in fact regarded as a term of endearment. At once Jeremy leaped to his feet and said that if he had inadvertently used a term of endearment in respect of the prime minister he unhesitatingly withdrew.
This slick repartee appeals to political anoraks like me, and presumably to MPs themselves and to those who make a living by writing about parliament. But I doubt if it makes much of an impression on the general public. If anything, I suspect it makes the political process seem irrelevant to their real situation.
I should dearly like to see the rules of parliamentary question time altered so that notice is given of real questions and real answers can be given which enlighten us on the consequences of what the government is trying to do. This is especially true when many are losing or in fear of losing their jobs, homes and comfortable lifestyles to which we believe we've become entitled.
Serious discussion rather than clever debating antics are what is need to restore respect for the democratic process.
In my view the most amusing incident with arose out of this convention occurred when Jeremy Thorpe was leader of the Liberals and was overheard to mutter "Stupid bastard" whilst the then Prime Minister, Edward Heath, was speaking. The interjection was loud enough to generate immediate demands that Thorpe withdraw , but the Speaker ruled that in the parliamentary lexicon "bastard" was in fact regarded as a term of endearment. At once Jeremy leaped to his feet and said that if he had inadvertently used a term of endearment in respect of the prime minister he unhesitatingly withdrew.
This slick repartee appeals to political anoraks like me, and presumably to MPs themselves and to those who make a living by writing about parliament. But I doubt if it makes much of an impression on the general public. If anything, I suspect it makes the political process seem irrelevant to their real situation.
I should dearly like to see the rules of parliamentary question time altered so that notice is given of real questions and real answers can be given which enlighten us on the consequences of what the government is trying to do. This is especially true when many are losing or in fear of losing their jobs, homes and comfortable lifestyles to which we believe we've become entitled.
Serious discussion rather than clever debating antics are what is need to restore respect for the democratic process.
Tuesday, 24 January 2012
Letting the side down?
Yesterday I received a letter from Diana Wallis, one of our Liberal Democrat MEPs for Yorkshire, saying that, after twelve and a half years she's decided to call it a day and resign from the parliament. I gather Liz lynne, MEP for the West Midlands, has made a similar decision.
I'm not sufficient of an anorak to have kept M/s Wallis's campaign material, whether for selection as a Liberal Democrat candidate or for the election itself, but I doubt that in either will she have made it clear that she was interested in serving us for only half the parliamentary term. On the contrary, I expect that there will have been details of successes achieved, plans for further projects and promises of dedicated service. I suspect much the same for Liz Lynne.
There are of course legitimate reasons for public representatives to stand down before their term is completed - a deterioration in health, substantially changed family circumstances - but there seems to be no such excuse in either of these cases (though M/s Wallis does refer to a long standing medical condition,but acknowledges that his is not her main reason for resigning.)
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that both MEPs are making cynical use of the system to give their successors time to "bed in" and thus have the advantage of incumbency come the next election. M/s Lynn has named her successor, a Phil Bennion, and, indeed, gives this explicit reason. M/s Wallis mentions that her number 2, Stewart Arnold, has not yet made up his mind mind. She now mentions that Mr Arnold is her husband, something that I don't remember being made very clear in the party's selection procedure.
It could be argued that, since we electors vote in this instance for a party list rather than an individual , it doesn't really matter to the voters which person on the list does the job. This, in my view, demonstrates the inadequacy of the list system, imposed by the Labour government, which gives maximum power to the parties and the minimum to the voters.
I deeply regret that these resignations make a further dent in our quest for more honest politics. They can only add to the cynicism of the electorate. Coming from Liberal Democrats they make it yet more difficult to challenge the popular, and I used to believe misguided, view that "you are all the same."
I'm not sufficient of an anorak to have kept M/s Wallis's campaign material, whether for selection as a Liberal Democrat candidate or for the election itself, but I doubt that in either will she have made it clear that she was interested in serving us for only half the parliamentary term. On the contrary, I expect that there will have been details of successes achieved, plans for further projects and promises of dedicated service. I suspect much the same for Liz Lynne.
There are of course legitimate reasons for public representatives to stand down before their term is completed - a deterioration in health, substantially changed family circumstances - but there seems to be no such excuse in either of these cases (though M/s Wallis does refer to a long standing medical condition,but acknowledges that his is not her main reason for resigning.)
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that both MEPs are making cynical use of the system to give their successors time to "bed in" and thus have the advantage of incumbency come the next election. M/s Lynn has named her successor, a Phil Bennion, and, indeed, gives this explicit reason. M/s Wallis mentions that her number 2, Stewart Arnold, has not yet made up his mind mind. She now mentions that Mr Arnold is her husband, something that I don't remember being made very clear in the party's selection procedure.
It could be argued that, since we electors vote in this instance for a party list rather than an individual , it doesn't really matter to the voters which person on the list does the job. This, in my view, demonstrates the inadequacy of the list system, imposed by the Labour government, which gives maximum power to the parties and the minimum to the voters.
I deeply regret that these resignations make a further dent in our quest for more honest politics. They can only add to the cynicism of the electorate. Coming from Liberal Democrats they make it yet more difficult to challenge the popular, and I used to believe misguided, view that "you are all the same."
Friday, 20 January 2012
The resuscitation of Nick Clegg
A commentator has noted that, whereas 2011 was the year of "get Nick Clegg" the media has now moved on and the 2012 target is to be Ed Miliband. The unjustified pillorying of any politician does little to enhance the quality of our political process and the attempts to undermine Ed Miliband are not to be welcomed (see previous post) but I am pleased that, for a while at least, Nick Clegg has moved out of the firing line.
This is well deserved. Already this year Nick has received a good press by articulating some well established Liberal Democrat policies and traditions. He was quick to deride the bizarre suggestion that public money should be spent on a new Royal Yacht, expressed promptly our opposition to another massive ariport, "Boris Island", in the south east, and has indicated that were Liberal Democrats the major partners in the coalition then the "Mansion Tax" would be implemented. Best of all, he has revived, to sympathetic hearing, the hallowed Liberal tradition of industrial democracy and profit sharing.
Both these last two ideas need refining. A "Mansion Tax" on homes valued at over £1m is clumsy. Additional higher council tax bands would be a better interim measure whilst plans for a land tax or site value rating were refined. (My letter to Vince Cable suggesting this has still received no reply.) The "John Lewis" model for industrial and commercial undertakings is certainly an improvement on the conventional limited company which, legally, is run solely in the interests of the shareholders (and in practice often in the interests of its managers) but there are better models for industrial partnerships, on which we Liberals made elaborate proposals in the 1960s. These should be dusted down and updated to adapt to modern conditions.
Still, it is good to see Nick flying the Liberal Democrat flag rather than acting as a junior apologist for the coalition. This is paying dividends, and long may it continue.
This is well deserved. Already this year Nick has received a good press by articulating some well established Liberal Democrat policies and traditions. He was quick to deride the bizarre suggestion that public money should be spent on a new Royal Yacht, expressed promptly our opposition to another massive ariport, "Boris Island", in the south east, and has indicated that were Liberal Democrats the major partners in the coalition then the "Mansion Tax" would be implemented. Best of all, he has revived, to sympathetic hearing, the hallowed Liberal tradition of industrial democracy and profit sharing.
Both these last two ideas need refining. A "Mansion Tax" on homes valued at over £1m is clumsy. Additional higher council tax bands would be a better interim measure whilst plans for a land tax or site value rating were refined. (My letter to Vince Cable suggesting this has still received no reply.) The "John Lewis" model for industrial and commercial undertakings is certainly an improvement on the conventional limited company which, legally, is run solely in the interests of the shareholders (and in practice often in the interests of its managers) but there are better models for industrial partnerships, on which we Liberals made elaborate proposals in the 1960s. These should be dusted down and updated to adapt to modern conditions.
Still, it is good to see Nick flying the Liberal Democrat flag rather than acting as a junior apologist for the coalition. This is paying dividends, and long may it continue.
Thursday, 19 January 2012
In defence of Ed Miliband
One of the problems I've experienced of being a dedicated Liberal/Liberal Democrat supporter is that I've spent a lot of time defending the Labour party from unjust accusations from the Tories and unfair distortions from the overwhelmingly right-wing press. Such is the situation at the moment. The trouble is that it is then difficult to explain that you are not actually a Labour supporter because there is a "more excellent way," Liberalism.
Such is the situation at the moment. I've tried to enumerate some of the many faults of the last Labour government in a previous post but gross economic mismanagement and a casual disregard of the viability of the public finances is not one of them. In fact many of us believed at the time that Gordon Brown, in his early years as Chancellor of the Exchequer, was too "prudent" in sticking to Tory spending plans and this paying off chunks of the National Debt. Yet the Tory PR machine has managed to convince the nation, and even parts of the Labour party itself, that Labour financial irresponsibility is the cause of our present economic woes.
Although not prepared to apologise for Labours economic errors (and why should he?) Ed Balls has now cravenly agreed to the absolute necessity of cuts in the public services (when in his campaign for the Labour leadership he issued an impeccable Keynesian manifesto) and his leader Ed Miliband is pilloried for ineffective leadership. Unfortunately for the latter Ed, much of the criticism comes not just from the Tories and the right wing press, but from his own party, some sections of which seem to have a suicide wish.
To paraphrase R A Butler's famous remark about his leader Harold Macmillan, Ed Milliband is "the best leader they've got." He is slightly ahead in the opinion polls, the election is three years away and what he needs to do is craft a series of policies to create a fairer, greener economic system and a fairer and more participatory constitution, on which he can fight an election in 2015. In the meantime, rather than making predictions about what he can and can't promise for the public service in 2015, he should concentrate on hammering away at the truth that the best way of repairing the public finances now is not by cutting government expenditure but by growth which will revive the tax take and thus the government's income.
Such is the situation at the moment. I've tried to enumerate some of the many faults of the last Labour government in a previous post but gross economic mismanagement and a casual disregard of the viability of the public finances is not one of them. In fact many of us believed at the time that Gordon Brown, in his early years as Chancellor of the Exchequer, was too "prudent" in sticking to Tory spending plans and this paying off chunks of the National Debt. Yet the Tory PR machine has managed to convince the nation, and even parts of the Labour party itself, that Labour financial irresponsibility is the cause of our present economic woes.
Although not prepared to apologise for Labours economic errors (and why should he?) Ed Balls has now cravenly agreed to the absolute necessity of cuts in the public services (when in his campaign for the Labour leadership he issued an impeccable Keynesian manifesto) and his leader Ed Miliband is pilloried for ineffective leadership. Unfortunately for the latter Ed, much of the criticism comes not just from the Tories and the right wing press, but from his own party, some sections of which seem to have a suicide wish.
To paraphrase R A Butler's famous remark about his leader Harold Macmillan, Ed Milliband is "the best leader they've got." He is slightly ahead in the opinion polls, the election is three years away and what he needs to do is craft a series of policies to create a fairer, greener economic system and a fairer and more participatory constitution, on which he can fight an election in 2015. In the meantime, rather than making predictions about what he can and can't promise for the public service in 2015, he should concentrate on hammering away at the truth that the best way of repairing the public finances now is not by cutting government expenditure but by growth which will revive the tax take and thus the government's income.
Friday, 13 January 2012
Our disunited kingdom.
There is an insurance company which advertises that it won't make a drama out of a crisis (or maybe the other way round - I'm not sure which they regards as the more traumatic.) Unfortunately our politicians seem adept at doing exactly that. The constitutional future of Scotland could easily be settled by "quiet calm deliberation" but instead the various options bombard each other with half-truths and predictions of disaster.
Alex Salmond wants to delay the referendum because he observes that support for independence, at present well below 50%, increases with time, so pretends that it will take a long time to make the preparations. David Cameron wants the referendum sooner for the same reason, so pretends that any delay will be bad for business confidence and growth. Others chip in with varied legal obfuscations as to who has a constitutional right to call a referendum.
To me the obvious and best solution is that Scotland should have "home rule": authority over all domestic matters and sharing defence, foreign policy and odd bits and pieces such as the meteorological office and parts of the BBC with the United Kingdom. Liberals have campaigned for something on these lines ever since I've been a member of the party, and, indeed had a similar devolution of power been granted to Ireland, as proposed in Gladstone's First Home Rule Bill in 1886, over a century of strife and bloodshed could have been avoided.
The sensible thing to do is to have the referendum, let Salmond have his two questions (more if he likes) and I'm fairly certain the Scots will vote for home rule, which is now called "Devolution Max", and we can then move on to make similar arrangement for the Regions of England.
Instead our politicians shriek "crisis," their bandy half-truths, deny their real motives and bring the democratic process into disrepute.
Alex Salmond wants to delay the referendum because he observes that support for independence, at present well below 50%, increases with time, so pretends that it will take a long time to make the preparations. David Cameron wants the referendum sooner for the same reason, so pretends that any delay will be bad for business confidence and growth. Others chip in with varied legal obfuscations as to who has a constitutional right to call a referendum.
To me the obvious and best solution is that Scotland should have "home rule": authority over all domestic matters and sharing defence, foreign policy and odd bits and pieces such as the meteorological office and parts of the BBC with the United Kingdom. Liberals have campaigned for something on these lines ever since I've been a member of the party, and, indeed had a similar devolution of power been granted to Ireland, as proposed in Gladstone's First Home Rule Bill in 1886, over a century of strife and bloodshed could have been avoided.
The sensible thing to do is to have the referendum, let Salmond have his two questions (more if he likes) and I'm fairly certain the Scots will vote for home rule, which is now called "Devolution Max", and we can then move on to make similar arrangement for the Regions of England.
Instead our politicians shriek "crisis," their bandy half-truths, deny their real motives and bring the democratic process into disrepute.
Tuesday, 10 January 2012
The truth about the failures of the Labour governemt.
I am an admirer of the BBC, believe it to be reasonable, impartial and objective, and that it should be defended at all costs against the assaults of the Murdoch empire.
Having said that, I believe that the interview on this morning's "Today" programme between John Humphries and Ed Miliband was grossly unfair. Again and again Humphries attributed our present economic woes to the profligacy of the previous Labour government, and challenged Miliband to accept responsibility. Alas Miliband made no attempt to deny the accusation, but tried to divert the conversation from a discussion of the past to his views (one can hardly call it a vision) of the future.
It is shameful that in our highly educated and sophisticated democracy the convenient Tory lie that the primary responsibility for out present economic situation lies with Labour has become accepted truth.
It needs to be said loudly and clearly, that, in this country, in order of culpability, our present woes are the responsibility of:
1. Irresponsible capitalism made possible by the neo-liberal economic policies of market sovereignty and deregulation, introduced by the Thatcher-Major governments.
2. The Blair-Brown Labour government which went along with the prevailing philosophy. In this acquiescence they were egged along by the Tories, who urged even more deregulation.
3. The Liberal Democrats,who, having moved to the "Orange Book" right in economic affairs, failed to provide sufficiently vigorous opposition, although Vince Cable did fire a few warning shots.
I am not now nor ever have been a Labour party supporter (nor a Communist either for that matter.) The Labour government did fail, and instead of condoning the current convenient misrepresentation of their economic culpability Liberal Democrats and the responsible media should be exposing the real failings in the "13 wasted years" (an interesting echo of the 1960s), which, in my view are:
in Foreign Policy
+ Iraq war, collapse of ethic foreign policy project and general toadying to the US on foreign policy.
+ failure to engage positively with the EU
in Economic and Social Policy
+ failure to reform taxation and tax rich effectively
+ failure to close tax loop-holes, close tax havens, tax companies effectively
+ continuance of expensive and ineffective PFI projects
+ further privatisations (Air Traffic control, attempt at the Post Office)
+ no attempt to reform company law in the interests of all “stakeholders.”
+ failure to re-link pensions to earnings or prices, whichever is the higher
+ hence a growing gap between rich and poor
+vilification of claimants and those on welfare benefits
+ in summary, a continuance of the Thatcher-Major neo-liberal mixture as before.
in Constitutional affairs
+ breaking of manifesto promise on electoral reform
+ half hearted devolution to Scotland and Wales.
+ quarter-hearted attempt at devolution the English regions
+ further reductions in autonomy of local government
+ incomplete reform of the second chamber
+ failure to reform party funding
+ continued obeisance to powerful interests (Ecclestone, Murdoch press)
on Civil Rights
+ attempt to introduce ID cards
+ attempt to reduce right to trial by jury
+ extension of permitted period of detention without trial .
in Style
+ “sofa” rather than cabinet government
+ attempts to micromanage NHS, Education, and even devolved governments.
If Ed Miliband wishes to demonstrate that his party has changed then it is these issues he needs to address.
Having said that, I believe that the interview on this morning's "Today" programme between John Humphries and Ed Miliband was grossly unfair. Again and again Humphries attributed our present economic woes to the profligacy of the previous Labour government, and challenged Miliband to accept responsibility. Alas Miliband made no attempt to deny the accusation, but tried to divert the conversation from a discussion of the past to his views (one can hardly call it a vision) of the future.
It is shameful that in our highly educated and sophisticated democracy the convenient Tory lie that the primary responsibility for out present economic situation lies with Labour has become accepted truth.
It needs to be said loudly and clearly, that, in this country, in order of culpability, our present woes are the responsibility of:
1. Irresponsible capitalism made possible by the neo-liberal economic policies of market sovereignty and deregulation, introduced by the Thatcher-Major governments.
2. The Blair-Brown Labour government which went along with the prevailing philosophy. In this acquiescence they were egged along by the Tories, who urged even more deregulation.
3. The Liberal Democrats,who, having moved to the "Orange Book" right in economic affairs, failed to provide sufficiently vigorous opposition, although Vince Cable did fire a few warning shots.
I am not now nor ever have been a Labour party supporter (nor a Communist either for that matter.) The Labour government did fail, and instead of condoning the current convenient misrepresentation of their economic culpability Liberal Democrats and the responsible media should be exposing the real failings in the "13 wasted years" (an interesting echo of the 1960s), which, in my view are:
in Foreign Policy
+ Iraq war, collapse of ethic foreign policy project and general toadying to the US on foreign policy.
+ failure to engage positively with the EU
in Economic and Social Policy
+ failure to reform taxation and tax rich effectively
+ failure to close tax loop-holes, close tax havens, tax companies effectively
+ continuance of expensive and ineffective PFI projects
+ further privatisations (Air Traffic control, attempt at the Post Office)
+ no attempt to reform company law in the interests of all “stakeholders.”
+ failure to re-link pensions to earnings or prices, whichever is the higher
+ hence a growing gap between rich and poor
+vilification of claimants and those on welfare benefits
+ in summary, a continuance of the Thatcher-Major neo-liberal mixture as before.
in Constitutional affairs
+ breaking of manifesto promise on electoral reform
+ half hearted devolution to Scotland and Wales.
+ quarter-hearted attempt at devolution the English regions
+ further reductions in autonomy of local government
+ incomplete reform of the second chamber
+ failure to reform party funding
+ continued obeisance to powerful interests (Ecclestone, Murdoch press)
on Civil Rights
+ attempt to introduce ID cards
+ attempt to reduce right to trial by jury
+ extension of permitted period of detention without trial .
in Style
+ “sofa” rather than cabinet government
+ attempts to micromanage NHS, Education, and even devolved governments.
If Ed Miliband wishes to demonstrate that his party has changed then it is these issues he needs to address.
Monday, 12 December 2011
Ishues
As Tony Benn was so fond of pointing out years ago, the British media, and, indeed, many politicians themselves, prefer discussing personalities to what he pronounced as the "ishues" at stake. Things have now changed for the worse, in that the future of the coalition now joins the mix of who is up, who is down and who is out.
To take personalities first, after last month's Autumn Statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he was forced to announce the many indications of the failure of his economic policy, true there was some discussion of alternatives to the policy, but also much speculation of how the statement affected George Osborne's chances of becoming Tory leader in, say ten years' time. At a time when the economic débâcle is seriously affecting the well-being of about a quarter of our population, and the future of probably the majority of our young people, it is astonishing that intelligent people, and expensive media, can waste time on such a frippery.
Like most Liberals and Euro-enthusiasts I regard David Cameron's use of the veto last week as a further and foolish step which will place Britain more firmly in the EU second division. As Paddy Ashdown put it in Sunday's Observer: "We have tipped 38 years of British foreign policy down the drain in one night." Again, true, there is discussion of the economic and real long-term political consequences of Britain's being "outside the room" where serious decisions are made, but, again much of the discussion centres around the personalities and future of the coalition.
Not only is this discussion superfluous at this stage: much of the reportage seems designed to maximise differences rather than report the facts calmly. The BBC's website over the weekend reported that Nick Clegg had issued a devastating attack (or words to that effect: I did copy them and print them out but the printer malfunctioned so I have to rely on an inadequate memory) when closer inspection of the story revealed that Clegg has not said anything publicly a all, but "sources close to him" revealed that he was "disappointed."
Now that Clegg has spoken publicly I admire his measured tones, and the fact that he and senior colleagues are making attempts to contact other European leaders and trying to ameliorate some of the damage. Yet even the formerly friendly Guardian has the front-page headline: "Clegg lashes out at Cameron..."
How on earth can we have responsible political discussion, concentrating on the real issues, with friends like these?
To take personalities first, after last month's Autumn Statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he was forced to announce the many indications of the failure of his economic policy, true there was some discussion of alternatives to the policy, but also much speculation of how the statement affected George Osborne's chances of becoming Tory leader in, say ten years' time. At a time when the economic débâcle is seriously affecting the well-being of about a quarter of our population, and the future of probably the majority of our young people, it is astonishing that intelligent people, and expensive media, can waste time on such a frippery.
Like most Liberals and Euro-enthusiasts I regard David Cameron's use of the veto last week as a further and foolish step which will place Britain more firmly in the EU second division. As Paddy Ashdown put it in Sunday's Observer: "We have tipped 38 years of British foreign policy down the drain in one night." Again, true, there is discussion of the economic and real long-term political consequences of Britain's being "outside the room" where serious decisions are made, but, again much of the discussion centres around the personalities and future of the coalition.
Not only is this discussion superfluous at this stage: much of the reportage seems designed to maximise differences rather than report the facts calmly. The BBC's website over the weekend reported that Nick Clegg had issued a devastating attack (or words to that effect: I did copy them and print them out but the printer malfunctioned so I have to rely on an inadequate memory) when closer inspection of the story revealed that Clegg has not said anything publicly a all, but "sources close to him" revealed that he was "disappointed."
Now that Clegg has spoken publicly I admire his measured tones, and the fact that he and senior colleagues are making attempts to contact other European leaders and trying to ameliorate some of the damage. Yet even the formerly friendly Guardian has the front-page headline: "Clegg lashes out at Cameron..."
How on earth can we have responsible political discussion, concentrating on the real issues, with friends like these?
Wednesday, 30 November 2011
St Andrew's Day Strike.
I have sympathy with some but by no means all of the three million or so public service workers who are expected to strike today. As I understand it the strike is to protest against three things: the increases in pension contributions, the postponement of the age of retirement and the switch from final salary to career average as the basis for assessing the size of the pension.
My sympathies are with the lower paid: the dinner ladies, care workers and those at the bottom of the pile, and especially those under threat of privatisation, with pension rights greatly reduced. I find it hard, however, to have much sympathy for the professionals, and am dismayed to see that my own old union, now called the NASUWT, is joining the strike. I've read somewhere that the average teacher now earns £34 000 a year, and head teachers' scales rise to over £100 000 a year. No one needs a pension based on half of salaries like that in order to fend off penury in old age.
It seems to me to be common sense that, as life expectancy increases, then contributions need to increase to fund the extra years of retirement. I'm less sure about the postponement of the age of retirement. Given the number of people, especially young people, who would like employment but can't get it, there is a strong case for enabling people to retire earlier (which, I can assure them, is a very pleasant option to take). This clearly implies a combination of both higher contritions and lower pensions in order to produce the necessary funding.
The switch to career average rather than final salary as the basis for calculating pensions seems to me to eminently sensible. It has the advantage of providing perfectly adequate pensions and at the same time unclogging the top echelons of various organisations (certainly some schools) where the people in charge are burned out but hanging on ineffectively in order to qualify for a higher pension.
If we accept that the purpose of a pension is to provide an adequate standard of living when one's earning life is over, then a pension equal to half the median wage, currently about £21 000 per year in the UK, should be quite adequate. In my view there should be no tax relief on any pension contritions designed to provide a "pension pot" which would generate a pension above the median wage rate.
One of our problems is that, in pensions as in so much else, we are not "all in this together." Fat cats in the private sector can award themselves pensions in the millions, funded perfectly legally by tax avoidance, and former ministers and MPs feather their nests. Until the government has the courage to tackle these abuses it will be difficult to have a rational discussion about pensions.
My sympathies are with the lower paid: the dinner ladies, care workers and those at the bottom of the pile, and especially those under threat of privatisation, with pension rights greatly reduced. I find it hard, however, to have much sympathy for the professionals, and am dismayed to see that my own old union, now called the NASUWT, is joining the strike. I've read somewhere that the average teacher now earns £34 000 a year, and head teachers' scales rise to over £100 000 a year. No one needs a pension based on half of salaries like that in order to fend off penury in old age.
It seems to me to be common sense that, as life expectancy increases, then contributions need to increase to fund the extra years of retirement. I'm less sure about the postponement of the age of retirement. Given the number of people, especially young people, who would like employment but can't get it, there is a strong case for enabling people to retire earlier (which, I can assure them, is a very pleasant option to take). This clearly implies a combination of both higher contritions and lower pensions in order to produce the necessary funding.
The switch to career average rather than final salary as the basis for calculating pensions seems to me to eminently sensible. It has the advantage of providing perfectly adequate pensions and at the same time unclogging the top echelons of various organisations (certainly some schools) where the people in charge are burned out but hanging on ineffectively in order to qualify for a higher pension.
If we accept that the purpose of a pension is to provide an adequate standard of living when one's earning life is over, then a pension equal to half the median wage, currently about £21 000 per year in the UK, should be quite adequate. In my view there should be no tax relief on any pension contritions designed to provide a "pension pot" which would generate a pension above the median wage rate.
One of our problems is that, in pensions as in so much else, we are not "all in this together." Fat cats in the private sector can award themselves pensions in the millions, funded perfectly legally by tax avoidance, and former ministers and MPs feather their nests. Until the government has the courage to tackle these abuses it will be difficult to have a rational discussion about pensions.
Tuesday, 25 October 2011
Parliament
In the Epilogue to his one-volume gallop through English history Simon Jenkins, having discussed "game changers" such as Cromwell, Walpole, Chatham, Peel, Disraeli, Gladstone and Lloyd George, concludes (p354): "If there is one hero in this book, at least until the twentieth century, it is parliament."
His conclusion could doubtless be debated by historians, but there is no doubt that Parliament has played a crucial role in creating our present society. If we are to continue to develop our society on liberal and tolerant lines, parliament, rather than allow itself to be sidelined, should continue to be refreshed, reformed and made relevant to contemporary conditions.
An important first step has been made in this direction by the long-overdue achievement of a fixed term for parliaments. Further reforms are needed to:
*further enhance the power and importance of committees;
*reduce the number of MPs committed to supporting the government because they are on the "payroll";
*turn question time, for ministers as well as the prime-minister, into genuine question and answer sessions instead of a bear-pit exchanges of insults;
*and, of course, electoral reform, choosing members by single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies rather than the present largest minority system.
Jenkins takes the view that England has thrived in the past because, essentially, we have developed through representative democracy, however imperfect, rather than populism or charismatic leadership.
Modern communications technology makes populism superficially attractive, and moves to have directly elected mayors and police commissioners place the emphasis on personalities and encourage the promulgation of simplistic and normally erroneous solutions to complex problems. There is already far too much emphasis on the personality of the prime-minister and too little on other ministers, their policies and collective government.
I hope at least one MP in yesterday's debate had the sense to argue that we should not be having any referendums at all, on Europe or any other issue. Referendums have been correctly described as devices used in less democratic countries to obtain spurious legitimacy. They should have no part in our representative parliamentary democracy.
His conclusion could doubtless be debated by historians, but there is no doubt that Parliament has played a crucial role in creating our present society. If we are to continue to develop our society on liberal and tolerant lines, parliament, rather than allow itself to be sidelined, should continue to be refreshed, reformed and made relevant to contemporary conditions.
An important first step has been made in this direction by the long-overdue achievement of a fixed term for parliaments. Further reforms are needed to:
*further enhance the power and importance of committees;
*reduce the number of MPs committed to supporting the government because they are on the "payroll";
*turn question time, for ministers as well as the prime-minister, into genuine question and answer sessions instead of a bear-pit exchanges of insults;
*and, of course, electoral reform, choosing members by single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies rather than the present largest minority system.
Jenkins takes the view that England has thrived in the past because, essentially, we have developed through representative democracy, however imperfect, rather than populism or charismatic leadership.
Modern communications technology makes populism superficially attractive, and moves to have directly elected mayors and police commissioners place the emphasis on personalities and encourage the promulgation of simplistic and normally erroneous solutions to complex problems. There is already far too much emphasis on the personality of the prime-minister and too little on other ministers, their policies and collective government.
I hope at least one MP in yesterday's debate had the sense to argue that we should not be having any referendums at all, on Europe or any other issue. Referendums have been correctly described as devices used in less democratic countries to obtain spurious legitimacy. They should have no part in our representative parliamentary democracy.
Monday, 24 October 2011
Happy United Nations Day
Today is United Nations Day, though no-one seems to be taking much notice. During the first 20 minutes of the Six O'clock News on Radio 4 this morning it wasn't mentioned, nor in the review of the daily papers.
The 24th October marks the anniversary of the signing of the Charter of the United Nations, and in 1971 the UN requested that it should be observed as a public holiday by all United Nations member states. I'm not aware that any country does, so here is an opportunity for those so desperately anxious for Britain to give a lead actually to give one. Much more sensible, forward looking and constructive than the Neanderthal proposal to transfer one of our May bank holidays to Trafalgar Day.
The UN is imperfect and desperately in need of reform but it is our main hope for a replacing the force of arms with a worldwide rule of law. Measure to focus on its aims and to try to re-create the vision with which it was created would be a constructive contribution to the building of a more civilised world.
The 24th October marks the anniversary of the signing of the Charter of the United Nations, and in 1971 the UN requested that it should be observed as a public holiday by all United Nations member states. I'm not aware that any country does, so here is an opportunity for those so desperately anxious for Britain to give a lead actually to give one. Much more sensible, forward looking and constructive than the Neanderthal proposal to transfer one of our May bank holidays to Trafalgar Day.
The UN is imperfect and desperately in need of reform but it is our main hope for a replacing the force of arms with a worldwide rule of law. Measure to focus on its aims and to try to re-create the vision with which it was created would be a constructive contribution to the building of a more civilised world.
Monday, 5 September 2011
With firends like these...
The "revelations" in Alistair Darling's memoirs do nothing to enhance the British public's respect for politicians and the political process. Darling was allegedly a principal supporter of Gordon Brown over a long period, and a senior partner in government, but shows no hesitation in "slagging him off." What has happened to decency and loyalty? Clearly they take second place to self justification and the desire to make a fast buck.
On a slightly different plain, but equally demeaning and off-putting, the editorial in this week's Liberal Democrat News repeats yet again the tired and misleading mantra of "the economic mess this country had been left in by the previous Labour government." Yes, there is an economic mess, and it was created principally by the collapse of the unregulated capitalist banking system. Trying to pretend that the blame lies with Labour and its profligacy is an an unworthy distortion of the truth from a party that offered a more honest form of politics.
Cleaning up politics is a much larger task than cutting down on MPs' unjustified expenses. Loyalty, decency and honesty are all required.
I shall not be buying the Darling memoires. However, I have just received the third volume of those of Chris Mullin. I look forward to a good read which, if like the earlier volumes, will be "funny, fascinating - and free of malice."
On a slightly different plain, but equally demeaning and off-putting, the editorial in this week's Liberal Democrat News repeats yet again the tired and misleading mantra of "the economic mess this country had been left in by the previous Labour government." Yes, there is an economic mess, and it was created principally by the collapse of the unregulated capitalist banking system. Trying to pretend that the blame lies with Labour and its profligacy is an an unworthy distortion of the truth from a party that offered a more honest form of politics.
Cleaning up politics is a much larger task than cutting down on MPs' unjustified expenses. Loyalty, decency and honesty are all required.
I shall not be buying the Darling memoires. However, I have just received the third volume of those of Chris Mullin. I look forward to a good read which, if like the earlier volumes, will be "funny, fascinating - and free of malice."
Thursday, 1 September 2011
Liberal Democrat Pride .
Statements in the past few days have caused me to feel a surge of pride in our Liberal Democrats in government.
First Vince Cable is proclaiming loudly and clearly that the the gambling and retail activities of the banks should be separated and that this should happen now and not "after the next election." Most people wonder why the banks were allowed to gamble with our money in the first place (and then come to us as taxpayers for a bail-out when they got things wrong), why it has taken three or four years to bring forward proposals to put a stop to it, and why in the meantime bankers have been able to pay themselves outrageous bonuses. Well done, Dr Cable, please stick to your guns and do all you can to prevent this essential and overdue reform form being kicked into touch by the bankers' friends, the Tories.
Secondly Liberal Democrats in government are making it chttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.giflear that in our view the 50% tax rate is right and just and should be here to stay. Critics claim, without much evidence as far as I can see, that it doesn't raise much money and discourages the enterprising, who may go somewhere else. The answer to the first criticism is to clamp down more vigorously on tax evasion and avoidance. The answer to the second is to call their bluff and let them go.
Thirdly and perhaps most importantly Nick Clegg has spoken out boldly in favour of the Human Rights Act. Part of his article in the Guardian last week (26/08/11) is worth quoting in full:
The Labour government that passed the Human Rights Act then spent years trashing it, allowing a myth to take root that human rights are a foreign invention , unwanted here, a charter for greedy lawyers and meddlesome bureaucrats....
The reality is that those who need to make use of human rights laws to challenge the decisions of the authorities are nearly always people who are in the care of the state: children's homes , mental hospitals, immigration detention. They are often vulnerable, powerless or outsiders,and are sometimes people for whom the public feels little sympathy. But they are human beings, and our common humanity dictates that we treat them as such.
As Shami Chakrabati put it at the Liberty AGM earlier this year (04/06/11), "Unpopular people have human rights too." Great to see the Liberal Democrat leader standing out from the populism which has became such a feature of our politics and sticking his neck out on an unpopular issue, because it is right.
First Vince Cable is proclaiming loudly and clearly that the the gambling and retail activities of the banks should be separated and that this should happen now and not "after the next election." Most people wonder why the banks were allowed to gamble with our money in the first place (and then come to us as taxpayers for a bail-out when they got things wrong), why it has taken three or four years to bring forward proposals to put a stop to it, and why in the meantime bankers have been able to pay themselves outrageous bonuses. Well done, Dr Cable, please stick to your guns and do all you can to prevent this essential and overdue reform form being kicked into touch by the bankers' friends, the Tories.
Secondly Liberal Democrats in government are making it chttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.giflear that in our view the 50% tax rate is right and just and should be here to stay. Critics claim, without much evidence as far as I can see, that it doesn't raise much money and discourages the enterprising, who may go somewhere else. The answer to the first criticism is to clamp down more vigorously on tax evasion and avoidance. The answer to the second is to call their bluff and let them go.
Thirdly and perhaps most importantly Nick Clegg has spoken out boldly in favour of the Human Rights Act. Part of his article in the Guardian last week (26/08/11) is worth quoting in full:
The Labour government that passed the Human Rights Act then spent years trashing it, allowing a myth to take root that human rights are a foreign invention , unwanted here, a charter for greedy lawyers and meddlesome bureaucrats....
The reality is that those who need to make use of human rights laws to challenge the decisions of the authorities are nearly always people who are in the care of the state: children's homes , mental hospitals, immigration detention. They are often vulnerable, powerless or outsiders,and are sometimes people for whom the public feels little sympathy. But they are human beings, and our common humanity dictates that we treat them as such.
As Shami Chakrabati put it at the Liberty AGM earlier this year (04/06/11), "Unpopular people have human rights too." Great to see the Liberal Democrat leader standing out from the populism which has became such a feature of our politics and sticking his neck out on an unpopular issue, because it is right.
Sunday, 10 July 2011
Democracy gives way to Management
Ed Miliband has a achieved a minor "clause four" moment by persuading the Labour Parliamentary Party to let him rather than them choose the members of the Shadow Cabinet. True the Shadow Cabinet elections were messy, to some extent divisive, and to some extent emphasised personalities rather than policies, but they were honest in that they revealed the true nature of the Labour Party, as, like all parties, a coalition of opinions. The Miliband move is an attempt to present the party as a streamlined, obedient and homogeneous entity, which it isn't and shouldn't be.
The move also enhances the power of the party leader above the other senior members at a time when I believe we need a return to collective leadership and collective responsibility. It was for this reason that I opposed the idea of "leaders only" debates before the last election. We should have had a series of debates between the principal spokespersons of the parties, culminating in a debate between the leaders.
Rather than the Labour party falling into line with the others in giving the leader the right to appoint the cabinet or shadow cabinet unfettered by the demands of democracy, for the other parties to adopt elections would do more for the health of our democracy. This is a further step towards a presidential system and away from a parliamentary system and is to be regretted.
On page 198 of his Liberty in the age of reason the philosopher A C Grayling describes the thesis that:
...the enlightenment philosophers sought to rescue people from the arbitrariness of royal or priestly power and to replace it with rule by reason....All that happened was an increase in influence of technical elites. The world, in short, became the fiefdom of managers (his emphasis.)
Miliband's moment is a victory of the managers and presentation gurus over the rough and tumble of healthy democratic debate.
The move also enhances the power of the party leader above the other senior members at a time when I believe we need a return to collective leadership and collective responsibility. It was for this reason that I opposed the idea of "leaders only" debates before the last election. We should have had a series of debates between the principal spokespersons of the parties, culminating in a debate between the leaders.
Rather than the Labour party falling into line with the others in giving the leader the right to appoint the cabinet or shadow cabinet unfettered by the demands of democracy, for the other parties to adopt elections would do more for the health of our democracy. This is a further step towards a presidential system and away from a parliamentary system and is to be regretted.
On page 198 of his Liberty in the age of reason the philosopher A C Grayling describes the thesis that:
...the enlightenment philosophers sought to rescue people from the arbitrariness of royal or priestly power and to replace it with rule by reason....All that happened was an increase in influence of technical elites. The world, in short, became the fiefdom of managers (his emphasis.)
Miliband's moment is a victory of the managers and presentation gurus over the rough and tumble of healthy democratic debate.
Friday, 8 July 2011
Shocked! (?)
There is a classic film, I think it is Casablanca, in which most of the action takes place in a bar/gambling club which is regularly frequented by the chief of police.However, activities of the club became politically incorrect (maybe the Nazis invade, or something, I am not good at remembering the details of films,) the club is raided by the police, and the police chief claims to be "shocked" at what he finds.
I am sure there is a great deal of this, often less convincing, play acting in the almost universal expressions of surprise and horror at the antics of the Murdoch press in general and the News of the World in particular (and how many other newspapers? Let's hope the Guardian is squeaky clean.) By accident or design the Guardian's publication of the revelations at this time has succeeded in delaying the decision on News Corporation's bid to gain an even greater share of BSkyB. However, we are solemnly told that Mr Hunt must follow the law and can take into account only media plurality and not whether or not the organisation is a "fit and proper person" to control a further large lump of the media.
If that is the case than we believers in the rule of law must accept it. As Shami Chakrabati pointed out at this year's Liberty AGM, "Unpopular people have rights too." However, in other circumstances, from dangerous dogs to police bail, if parliament doesn't like the law it doesn't hesitate to rush to change it. So if a change in the law is required to stop Murdoch, then let them get on with it.
I am sure there is a great deal of this, often less convincing, play acting in the almost universal expressions of surprise and horror at the antics of the Murdoch press in general and the News of the World in particular (and how many other newspapers? Let's hope the Guardian is squeaky clean.) By accident or design the Guardian's publication of the revelations at this time has succeeded in delaying the decision on News Corporation's bid to gain an even greater share of BSkyB. However, we are solemnly told that Mr Hunt must follow the law and can take into account only media plurality and not whether or not the organisation is a "fit and proper person" to control a further large lump of the media.
If that is the case than we believers in the rule of law must accept it. As Shami Chakrabati pointed out at this year's Liberty AGM, "Unpopular people have rights too." However, in other circumstances, from dangerous dogs to police bail, if parliament doesn't like the law it doesn't hesitate to rush to change it. So if a change in the law is required to stop Murdoch, then let them get on with it.
Sunday, 3 July 2011
Dominique Strauss-Kahn
When DSK was arrested I was walking in the Isle of Wight with a group of French friends. Without exception they all (even two who said they preferred Sarkozy to DSK - so much from French rationality) agreed that he had probably been set up. There was even a suggestion in one of the papers that a UMP apparatchik had reported the incident before it had actually happened.
Speculation that DSK may now run as socialist candidate for the French Presidency is surely premature. After all, the charges still stand and he has yet to be tried and may yet be found guilty.
If the charges ore withdrawn that could be the worst possible outcome for all. As the Guardian pointed out when the alleged rape was first reported, whereas in law the accused is innocent until proved guilty, and only if the accused is proved guilty does a punishment follow,in politics the mere fact of the accusation caries its punishment.
Whatever the outcome I doubt if DSK can recover from this episode. The only positive result could be an improvement in the high-flying Frenchmen's attitude towards women and their concept of sexual "conquest."
Speculation that DSK may now run as socialist candidate for the French Presidency is surely premature. After all, the charges still stand and he has yet to be tried and may yet be found guilty.
If the charges ore withdrawn that could be the worst possible outcome for all. As the Guardian pointed out when the alleged rape was first reported, whereas in law the accused is innocent until proved guilty, and only if the accused is proved guilty does a punishment follow,in politics the mere fact of the accusation caries its punishment.
Whatever the outcome I doubt if DSK can recover from this episode. The only positive result could be an improvement in the high-flying Frenchmen's attitude towards women and their concept of sexual "conquest."
Friday, 10 June 2011
चुर्च एंड State
The title is "Church and State."
When Prince Charles came to enhance the independence celebrations in Papua New Guinea in 1975 the lesson he read at the official service was from Romans Chapter 13 (The powers that be are ordained by God.) When Prince Phillip read the lesson a this year's Maundy service it was all about looking after the poor.
The Church therefore fulfils this dual role of adding to the legitimacy of the government (and therefore acting as an instrument of social control) whilst at the same time reminding the government of the limits to its authority and its responsibility towards the weaker members of society.
Rowan Williams is therefore fulfilling the church's historic role in challenging the governments' systematic attack on the welfare state, for which, as he says, no-one voted, and in such a hasty manner that there is time neither for proper thought nor public discussion.
However, I find the Archbishop's language as aggressive and unhelpful as is much parliamentary debate. He writes of "anger" and "plain fear." True, a minority may be angry and fearful, but the vast majority seem to be either supportive (those who welcome what Williams rightly describes as "the quiet resurgence of the seductive language of 'deserving. and 'undeserving' poor"), indifferent or resigned.
Combative language, and the hysterical jeering of "U turn" when the government does have a re-think, do not encourage the public to engage positively with the political process. Rather it is a turn off: it remains "old politics" rather than the "new politics" we were promised.
Politicians, the Archbishop and the media would do well to bear in mind item 17 of the Quakers' "Advices and Queries":
Listen patiently and seek the truth which other people's opinions may contain for you. Avoid hurtful criticisms and provocative language. Do no allow the strength of your convictions to betray you into making statements or allegations that are unfair or untrue. Think it possible that you may be mistaken.
Here endeth the lesson.
When Prince Charles came to enhance the independence celebrations in Papua New Guinea in 1975 the lesson he read at the official service was from Romans Chapter 13 (The powers that be are ordained by God.) When Prince Phillip read the lesson a this year's Maundy service it was all about looking after the poor.
The Church therefore fulfils this dual role of adding to the legitimacy of the government (and therefore acting as an instrument of social control) whilst at the same time reminding the government of the limits to its authority and its responsibility towards the weaker members of society.
Rowan Williams is therefore fulfilling the church's historic role in challenging the governments' systematic attack on the welfare state, for which, as he says, no-one voted, and in such a hasty manner that there is time neither for proper thought nor public discussion.
However, I find the Archbishop's language as aggressive and unhelpful as is much parliamentary debate. He writes of "anger" and "plain fear." True, a minority may be angry and fearful, but the vast majority seem to be either supportive (those who welcome what Williams rightly describes as "the quiet resurgence of the seductive language of 'deserving. and 'undeserving' poor"), indifferent or resigned.
Combative language, and the hysterical jeering of "U turn" when the government does have a re-think, do not encourage the public to engage positively with the political process. Rather it is a turn off: it remains "old politics" rather than the "new politics" we were promised.
Politicians, the Archbishop and the media would do well to bear in mind item 17 of the Quakers' "Advices and Queries":
Listen patiently and seek the truth which other people's opinions may contain for you. Avoid hurtful criticisms and provocative language. Do no allow the strength of your convictions to betray you into making statements or allegations that are unfair or untrue. Think it possible that you may be mistaken.
Here endeth the lesson.
Thursday, 9 June 2011
तवो स्टेप्स फॉरवर्ड एंड ओने स्टेप back
Vince Cable seems to take two steps forwards and then one step back (that is what the title is meant to say: I'm still hoping for a translation of what it actually does say and in what language, and for advice on ho to stop it.)
Last month I wrote a post praising an article in the Guardian in which Vince painted an excellent broad brush survey of the real problems facing the British economy (admitting they are nothing much to do with the alleged "mess left by Labour.") Then, in an interview in the New Statesman (I can see another financial bomb going off, 30th May 2011) he is quite clear that the deficit "was the consequence of the bank collapse" (again, nothing about Labour's alleged profligacy) and then, bless him, advocates "a Danish type model , which relates tax to property values." What joy to the hearts of we Liberals who have spent a lifetime advocating land taxes and site-value rating with almost as much enthusiasm as proportional representation by single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies.
Now Vince has blotted his copy-book by telling trade unions that, although he concedes their right to strike, if they use it the right will be further curtailed. For the strong to threaten further bullying of the weak is absurd for a government which claims "we are all in this together." This aspiration will move closer to reality when we introduce traditional Liberal policies to incorporate the interests of employees into management via employee representation, works councils, and, in the private sector, profit sharing. Liberals believe in the politics of co-operation, not confrontation and, if Liberal Democrats in government are to flex their muscles, this is the language we should be hearing. If Vince wants to do some bullying let it be with the bankers:after all that is within his remit.
Last month I wrote a post praising an article in the Guardian in which Vince painted an excellent broad brush survey of the real problems facing the British economy (admitting they are nothing much to do with the alleged "mess left by Labour.") Then, in an interview in the New Statesman (I can see another financial bomb going off, 30th May 2011) he is quite clear that the deficit "was the consequence of the bank collapse" (again, nothing about Labour's alleged profligacy) and then, bless him, advocates "a Danish type model , which relates tax to property values." What joy to the hearts of we Liberals who have spent a lifetime advocating land taxes and site-value rating with almost as much enthusiasm as proportional representation by single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies.
Now Vince has blotted his copy-book by telling trade unions that, although he concedes their right to strike, if they use it the right will be further curtailed. For the strong to threaten further bullying of the weak is absurd for a government which claims "we are all in this together." This aspiration will move closer to reality when we introduce traditional Liberal policies to incorporate the interests of employees into management via employee representation, works councils, and, in the private sector, profit sharing. Liberals believe in the politics of co-operation, not confrontation and, if Liberal Democrats in government are to flex their muscles, this is the language we should be hearing. If Vince wants to do some bullying let it be with the bankers:after all that is within his remit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)