Our political opponents will be preaching that the resignation of Liberal Democrat Lord Oakshott as coalition economic spokesman in the Lords, and the letter to The Times signed by 90+ Liberal Democrat councillors arguing that the cuts are too fast and too deep are the first cracks in the unity of the party. They will be proclaiming that history is about to repeat itself, and as has happened twice before, most of those in government will merge with the Tories and the rest of us will resume our post 1920s role as a party of protest and bright ideas with no real prospect of being, or even desire to be, the government.
This is undoubtedly a possibility and we should be aware of it.
However, I prefer to see the two events as an early warning to the Leadership which I hope they will heed. As I have argued ad nausium in this blog, supported by the views of several distinguished economists and commentators, the governments economic policy is plainly wrong, based on the fallacies that the public debt is abnormally great and that the highest priority is to reduce it or we are in danger of losing the confidence of "the markets."
So far the message does not seem to have been heard and it is galling to to hear Liberal Democrat Andrew Stunell repeating the tired mantras about the "woeful" deficit inherited from Labour (which) meant "very tough times" for all public services. Let's hope this is just a front and the leadership are taking to heart the lesson that the Tory economic policy is on the wrong track, and Liberal Democrats in government most distance themselves from it as far as possible, as leading members of the party on whom they depend are already doing.
Friday, 11 February 2011
Wednesday, 9 February 2011
Multiculturalism
Cecil Rhodes, the colonist of central Africa, is said to have claimed that: "To be born British is to have won first prize in the lottery of life." The French take a similar view, and believe that to be French is the greatest privilege civilisation can bestow. Hence immigrants to France have the good fortune to be able to embrace its culture and the most beautiful and logical language in the world and enter into that privileged state. This view has a certain logic
Historically Britain has taken a more liberal stance. In the Guardian of 28th November 2007 Timothy Garton Ash wrote: "Liberalism properly understood (is) a quest for the greatest possible measure of individual freedom, compatible with the freedom of others." Hence immigrants over the centuries have, give or take a few glitches, had the freedom to continue their own way of life to the extent that it did not interfere with the established one, and our culture and diet have been greatly enhanced, and our economy stimulated.
The modern name for this liberal tolerance is multiculturalism , and it is a nonsense to say that it has failed. Of course there are problems. Ghettoisation is one, although immigrants themselves are hardly solely responsible. As Tariq Modood writes in yesterday's Guardian: "Research shows that all minorities - including Muslims - want to live in mixed neighbourhoods , and ghettos are created by those who move out." A more intractable problem arises where a traditional norm, such as an inferior status for women, clashes with the liberal value of equality held by the host country.
For centuries both Roman Catholics and Jews were regarded as suspicious aliens: today hardy anybody notices, though their faithful still carry out their own customs and practices. It is a nonsense to declare our present multicultural society a failure The solutions to the problems it presents are dialogue, tolerance, measures to promote interaction and prevent discrimination and, above all, time.
Historically Britain has taken a more liberal stance. In the Guardian of 28th November 2007 Timothy Garton Ash wrote: "Liberalism properly understood (is) a quest for the greatest possible measure of individual freedom, compatible with the freedom of others." Hence immigrants over the centuries have, give or take a few glitches, had the freedom to continue their own way of life to the extent that it did not interfere with the established one, and our culture and diet have been greatly enhanced, and our economy stimulated.
The modern name for this liberal tolerance is multiculturalism , and it is a nonsense to say that it has failed. Of course there are problems. Ghettoisation is one, although immigrants themselves are hardly solely responsible. As Tariq Modood writes in yesterday's Guardian: "Research shows that all minorities - including Muslims - want to live in mixed neighbourhoods , and ghettos are created by those who move out." A more intractable problem arises where a traditional norm, such as an inferior status for women, clashes with the liberal value of equality held by the host country.
For centuries both Roman Catholics and Jews were regarded as suspicious aliens: today hardy anybody notices, though their faithful still carry out their own customs and practices. It is a nonsense to declare our present multicultural society a failure The solutions to the problems it presents are dialogue, tolerance, measures to promote interaction and prevent discrimination and, above all, time.
Tuesday, 8 February 2011
Difficult Decisions
Members of both parties in the coalition claim to the point of tedium that they are being forced to take difficult decisions with respect to the economy. In fact, there are hardly any difficult economic decisions to be made. The governments of two thirds of the world would love to have the luxury of the wealth that is Britain's in order to solve their very real economic problems. Our economic decisions are only difficult because we, the comfortably off, (and not just the bankers,) are too mean to share a little bit more of our wealth so as to to cushion effectively those who are hardest hit by what is, on the over-all scheme of things, a minor economic setback. Or maybe it is that our politicians are too cowardly to ask us.
What to do about the alleged Lockerbie bomber was a genuinely difficult decision. There were hints that he may have been wrongly convicted and that had his case gone to appeal he may have been found not guilty after all, there were obvious implications regarding our relationships with both Libya and the US, and our humane and legal responsibilities to a man who was and is thought to be terminally ill.
Sir Gus O'Donnell's report shows that the UK government brought no pressure on the Scottish Executive in the making of their decision, and it has already been established that in deciding the case the Scots scrupulously followed the requirements of their law. It is therefore shaming to hear Cameron toadying to the Americans by accusing the Labour government of wrong-doing. Cameron, so anxious for us to be proud of being British, should demonstrate that virtue of loyalty to colleagues (ie fellow British politicians) when they get things right.
What to do about the alleged Lockerbie bomber was a genuinely difficult decision. There were hints that he may have been wrongly convicted and that had his case gone to appeal he may have been found not guilty after all, there were obvious implications regarding our relationships with both Libya and the US, and our humane and legal responsibilities to a man who was and is thought to be terminally ill.
Sir Gus O'Donnell's report shows that the UK government brought no pressure on the Scottish Executive in the making of their decision, and it has already been established that in deciding the case the Scots scrupulously followed the requirements of their law. It is therefore shaming to hear Cameron toadying to the Americans by accusing the Labour government of wrong-doing. Cameron, so anxious for us to be proud of being British, should demonstrate that virtue of loyalty to colleagues (ie fellow British politicians) when they get things right.
Monday, 7 February 2011
Bank Holidays
Apparently we have a Ministry for Tourism and it is thinking of abolishing the May Day bank holiday and replacing it with one in October, possible to be called UK Day (ugh!) or even Trafalgar Day (double ugh!)
In my view if any of the spring bank holidays is to be abolished it should be exactly that, the Spring Bank Holiday. This was originally the Whitsuntide Holiday but was replaced to a fixed day (since Whitsuntide, like Easter, is a movable feast)by Harold Wilson's government, hence it was know for a while as "Wilsontide." Since it no longer has any religious significance and no antiquity, other than a welcome day of it would would be no great loss. The glorous Saddleworth and District Band Competition would doubtless ignore all this messing about by governments,and continue to take place on Whit Friday, as it has done since 1884.
A holiday in the autumn would be welcome, but it is hard to decide which of the two suggestions is the more toe-curlingly embarrassing. That we should commemorate Trafalgar Day (21st October)with a holiday is obviously an attempt to pander to the prejudices of neanderthal anti- Europeans who love to bury their heads in the sands of the present, revel in past glories which are nothing to do with anyone alive today, insult the French and have no vision for the future. A UK Day to "celebrate Britishness" is almost as bad. My youthful diet of the novels of W E Johns and Percy F Westerman taught me that British patriotism should be understated. We should aim at apparently effortless competence but not shout about it as lesser nations do. I'm no longer so keen on the "lesser nations" part of the creed but feel that modest competence in all areas is something to be encouraged but applauded only discreetly.
My own suggestion for an October bank holiday is United Nations Day, 24th October. This would help place a more favourable image on an organisation which, though still imperfect, is our best hope for the future - the organisation specifically devoted to peace through international co-operation and the international rule of law.
In my view if any of the spring bank holidays is to be abolished it should be exactly that, the Spring Bank Holiday. This was originally the Whitsuntide Holiday but was replaced to a fixed day (since Whitsuntide, like Easter, is a movable feast)by Harold Wilson's government, hence it was know for a while as "Wilsontide." Since it no longer has any religious significance and no antiquity, other than a welcome day of it would would be no great loss. The glorous Saddleworth and District Band Competition would doubtless ignore all this messing about by governments,and continue to take place on Whit Friday, as it has done since 1884.
A holiday in the autumn would be welcome, but it is hard to decide which of the two suggestions is the more toe-curlingly embarrassing. That we should commemorate Trafalgar Day (21st October)with a holiday is obviously an attempt to pander to the prejudices of neanderthal anti- Europeans who love to bury their heads in the sands of the present, revel in past glories which are nothing to do with anyone alive today, insult the French and have no vision for the future. A UK Day to "celebrate Britishness" is almost as bad. My youthful diet of the novels of W E Johns and Percy F Westerman taught me that British patriotism should be understated. We should aim at apparently effortless competence but not shout about it as lesser nations do. I'm no longer so keen on the "lesser nations" part of the creed but feel that modest competence in all areas is something to be encouraged but applauded only discreetly.
My own suggestion for an October bank holiday is United Nations Day, 24th October. This would help place a more favourable image on an organisation which, though still imperfect, is our best hope for the future - the organisation specifically devoted to peace through international co-operation and the international rule of law.
Thursday, 3 February 2011
Libraries and Buses
Bus subsidies and library services seem to be high on the list of things to be reduced as a result of the cuts imposed by central government on local government. As usual these services are more important to the poor than to the rich. We comfortably-off can swan around in our cars or even 4x4s, can afford to buy our own books and have enough heated rooms for our children to be able to do their homework in peace and quiet.
Today there are to be nation-wide demonstrations to try and save libraries. I wish them luck, but at the same time have reservations about the quality and nature of the libraries to be preserved. A correspondent in the Guardian this week wrote that "(libraries) offer the rare commodity of peace and quiet as well as a whole world of imagination and information. Older children can safely go there to browse, revise or do homework without background distractions."
I had experience of a local library like that during my recent year in France, but here in Kirklees, my local library has been turned into a one-stop "Information Centre" where, in addition to borrowing books, people come to pay their council tax, rent and other dues, receive advice from counsellors and councillors, and on at least one occasion, a mother an baby group rent the air assunder with a spirited rendition of:" The wheels on the bus go round and round." That occasion apart the noisiest people are normally the staff, who welcome the various participants with loud enthusiasm. Hushed tones are a thing of the past. Yet this mixture of incompatible activities is regarded by our Council as a great success and a model for the rest of the District.
A report out this week advocates that local government should sell off purpose built buildings and concentrate activities in just one or two such "one-stop" centres. Fine if there are separate rooms for separate activities. Otherwise this trend should be resisted. Libraries should be preserved as libraries.
PS A splendid article by David Blanchflower in this week's New Statesman compares the coalition's economic policy to that of Lord Cardigan at the Charge of the Light Brigade. Well worth a read.
Today there are to be nation-wide demonstrations to try and save libraries. I wish them luck, but at the same time have reservations about the quality and nature of the libraries to be preserved. A correspondent in the Guardian this week wrote that "(libraries) offer the rare commodity of peace and quiet as well as a whole world of imagination and information. Older children can safely go there to browse, revise or do homework without background distractions."
I had experience of a local library like that during my recent year in France, but here in Kirklees, my local library has been turned into a one-stop "Information Centre" where, in addition to borrowing books, people come to pay their council tax, rent and other dues, receive advice from counsellors and councillors, and on at least one occasion, a mother an baby group rent the air assunder with a spirited rendition of:" The wheels on the bus go round and round." That occasion apart the noisiest people are normally the staff, who welcome the various participants with loud enthusiasm. Hushed tones are a thing of the past. Yet this mixture of incompatible activities is regarded by our Council as a great success and a model for the rest of the District.
A report out this week advocates that local government should sell off purpose built buildings and concentrate activities in just one or two such "one-stop" centres. Fine if there are separate rooms for separate activities. Otherwise this trend should be resisted. Libraries should be preserved as libraries.
PS A splendid article by David Blanchflower in this week's New Statesman compares the coalition's economic policy to that of Lord Cardigan at the Charge of the Light Brigade. Well worth a read.
Egypt,, Arabia and "the West"
In the mid 1970s the UK experienced one of its regular financial crises and had to ask the IMF for stop-gap help. That's what the IMF, set up by Keynes, was designed for and there was nothing exceptional about the application, but even so it caused considerable embarrassment and resentment that the IMF, with its US (and now monetarist) majority could tell our sovereign nation how to organise its finances. The resentment cost Labour the next election (even though by them all the temporary loan had been repaid) and it was another 18 years before they had gained enough credibility to win another.
If this relatively routine financial transaction could cause such embarrassment and loss of face in Britain, what on earth is going to be the effect of the unsolicited, patronising and condescending "demands" from Western politicians on the feelings of equally sovereign nations in the Middle East? The Egyptians are grown up people, many well educated with, if it is relevant, a recorded heritage and history far longer than ours. Since the Americans have bankrolled the Mubarak regime throughout its rule they have, perhaps, a legitimate interest in making their views known, though preferably in private. Cameron et al, with enough problems of their own to solve, should shut up and let these sovereign nations sort out their own problems. Preaching from the former colonial power will only serve to generate further resentment and hostility from which ever side of their divides the nationals find themselves.
If this relatively routine financial transaction could cause such embarrassment and loss of face in Britain, what on earth is going to be the effect of the unsolicited, patronising and condescending "demands" from Western politicians on the feelings of equally sovereign nations in the Middle East? The Egyptians are grown up people, many well educated with, if it is relevant, a recorded heritage and history far longer than ours. Since the Americans have bankrolled the Mubarak regime throughout its rule they have, perhaps, a legitimate interest in making their views known, though preferably in private. Cameron et al, with enough problems of their own to solve, should shut up and let these sovereign nations sort out their own problems. Preaching from the former colonial power will only serve to generate further resentment and hostility from which ever side of their divides the nationals find themselves.
Tuesday, 1 February 2011
Save our Forests
Well, would you believe it: the party which at the end of every Assembly used to sing:
The land, the land,
'Twas God who made the land,
The land, the land,
The ground on which we stand,
Why should we be beggars
With a ballot in our hand?
God gave the land to the people
is now part of a government which proposes to sell off to private developers what bit of our land actually does belong to the people.
Fortunately this proposal has raised the ire of the Tory shires as well as we wild radicals, and there is a petition by the Woodland Trust which I urge you to sign.
The demands of the petition are balanced. They request that the ancient woodlands be recognised as a "special case", urge that the damage done by the forestry commission in defacing such woodlands by over-coniferisation be rectified , and call for existing rights of access and "wild life value" to be preserved.
Personally I find this a bit on the tame side, particularly with respect to the preservation of public rights of access. When the extension of Sunday Trading was authorised all sorts of promises were made about preserving the rights of employees not to work on Sundays, that the chances of promotion for those who opted out would not be harmed and even that overtime rates for Sunday working would be preserved. Those promises are now hardly worth a "bucket of warm spit," (which I believe is a Bowdlerised version of what an America President said), and I suspect much the same will happen to access rights to woodlands one the private sector get their hands on them.
Rather than selling off our land I'd prefer to see a Liberal government taking more and more of this "gift of nature" back into the ownership of the public to whom it really belongs. In the meantime, we need to ask what has happed to our excellent policy of land value taxation.
The land, the land,
'Twas God who made the land,
The land, the land,
The ground on which we stand,
Why should we be beggars
With a ballot in our hand?
God gave the land to the people
is now part of a government which proposes to sell off to private developers what bit of our land actually does belong to the people.
Fortunately this proposal has raised the ire of the Tory shires as well as we wild radicals, and there is a petition by the Woodland Trust which I urge you to sign.
The demands of the petition are balanced. They request that the ancient woodlands be recognised as a "special case", urge that the damage done by the forestry commission in defacing such woodlands by over-coniferisation be rectified , and call for existing rights of access and "wild life value" to be preserved.
Personally I find this a bit on the tame side, particularly with respect to the preservation of public rights of access. When the extension of Sunday Trading was authorised all sorts of promises were made about preserving the rights of employees not to work on Sundays, that the chances of promotion for those who opted out would not be harmed and even that overtime rates for Sunday working would be preserved. Those promises are now hardly worth a "bucket of warm spit," (which I believe is a Bowdlerised version of what an America President said), and I suspect much the same will happen to access rights to woodlands one the private sector get their hands on them.
Rather than selling off our land I'd prefer to see a Liberal government taking more and more of this "gift of nature" back into the ownership of the public to whom it really belongs. In the meantime, we need to ask what has happed to our excellent policy of land value taxation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)