Our pick-'n'-mix democracy

Earlier this week our central government overruled the the clearly expressed wishes of most of the residents of the Fylde, a coastal part of  Lancashire, and of their elected county council representatives, and gave permission for private extraction companies to go ahead with fracking.

Curiously, when local residents object to the erection of wind turbines in their area, they have the last word - the government does not have the power to overrule them.

Some of the objectors to fracking, aware of the possibility of contamination of their water supplies, minor earthquakes, escapes of methane gas and the despoliation of their surroundings, could be motivated by NIMBY -ism (not in my back yard).  But many will surely believe that, at a time when the effects of climate change are becoming increasingly obvious, we should not be seeking to exploit yet another carbon-based fuel, but instead be exploring and developing techniques for harnessing renewable energy (my own favourites are wave and tidal power).  Most will have objected for a mixture of motives.

However the objections to wind turbines can only be the selfish NIMBY ones -  that they look a bit ugly and make a bit of noise.

Surely in all logic the power of the government to overrule "in the national interest" (indeed, the planet's interest) should apply to the wind turbines rather than the fracking.

Here's another anomaly.  When the first referendum on devolution to of powers to Scotland was held in 1979 a condition was written in that at least 40% of the total eligible electorate should have voted in favour for a "Yes" vote to be valid.  The result was 51.62% in favour and 48.38% against - a margin not all that dissimilar to that  in the recent EU referendum..  However, since the turnout in this Scottish referendum was 64% the "Yes" vote amounted to only 33% of the eligible electorate, so the result was invalid.

In the recent referendum on EU membership 51.9%  of those who  voted opted for "Leave".  The turnout was 72.2%.  So those in favour of BREXIT represented only 37.5% of those entitled to vote. Had the "Scottish rule" been applied  to the EU referendum the BREXIT vote, too, would be invalid.

What centre ground?

Claiming  to occupy the "centre ground" is a popular ploy in British politics and the Tories did  so vociferously in their conference last week.  However, Ian Dent (5th October) and  Simon Wren-Lewis (6th October) have paid more attention to the detail of the conference than I have and between them have enumerated the following proposals:

• to phase out foreign doctors
• to cut down on the number of foreign students
• to jail landlords if they fail to check their tenants' residency papers
• to "name and shame" companies with a high percentage of foreigners in their workforces

In addition, leading-up to the conference, the government has announced plans to :

• build a protective wall round Euro-tunnel entrance at Calais 
• reintroduce educational selection at 11 plus
• use the status of EU migrants already here as a "bargaining chip" in the forthcoming negotiations.

Happily they have already rowed back on  "name and shame" part of the proposal  regarding companies employing a significant percentage of foreigners - they will now just collect the information - but the intention reveals the true nature of the their  thinking.

If this is the centre ground then one shudders to think what a far-right party would sound like.  With these proposals the Conservatives shame themselves. 

"Sorry: we got it wrong!" (The Tories)

"Sorry, we've been getting it wrong for the past six years.  We'll try to do less badly from now on."  In an honest world that would  be the message beamed loud and clear from the Tory Party's conference.

Remember, in 2010 when the Tory-led government took office, we were told that the government's overwhelming priority was to eliminate the  internal deficit and preserve our international AAA rating for economic dependability.  The deficit was to be eliminated by the end of the parliament, after which the National Debt was to be gradually reduced.  To achieve this government expenditure was to be savagely cut.. 

So public services were cut, the civil service reduced in size, grants to local government were cut (most severely to areas with the greatest problems), recipients of social security payments were demonised, the toxic bedroom tax was introduce, and  the disabled were subjected to humiliating harassment, to name but a few.

Macro-economists ranging from the great and the good to this humble blog, screamed that this was the wrong thing to do. As Keynes pointed out, in a depression the proper  government reaction is to undertake public works and the resulting increases in incomes, employment and growth will eventually, and before we're all dead, rectify the government's finances through an increase in the tax-take and fall in social security  expenditure

As predicted, and in spite of the suffering experienced largely by those at the bottom of the pile, the policy failed.  The AAA rating was lost in 2013, the "balancing of the books" was postponed to halfway through the next parliament, and then, after the defenestration of Cameron and Osborne, to the one after this.

A record of economic competence it is not.

On top of that the EU Referendum, a device simply to solve an internal party difficulty and for which there was no real  public appetite (EU matters came about 13th in the public's list of concerns, way behind employment, the NHS, housing, and education) has produced the biggest government fiasco since Lord North lost the American colonies over and argument about the tax on tea.

Mrs May's declaration  that "things must change" - and that in future we'll have "a country that works for everyone"   is clearly an admission that for the past six years  it didn't.

This is received with rapturous cheers by the party faithful, and magnified by the sycophantic press, as though  Mrs May, and they, were absolutely nothing to do with the previous administration.

It is perception management at its best, but an honest appraisal it is not.

Mrs May's Great Retreat Bill.

You have to hand it to the Tories for their choice of words.  Dubbing the parliamentary bill to undo the legislation that took us into the EU the Great Repeal Bill is very clever. It links it in our minds with the Great Reform Bill of 1832, which was one of the unsteady steps towards improving our democracy. (There are still many more to take).

In reality this will be a Great Retreat Bill: the first time as far as I'm aware when Britain has taken a step back from engaging positively, even if sometimes mistakenly, in World affairs, and withdrawing into a tight little island bunker.

However, if MPs do their duty  there is every chance that this fanciful bill may rebound on Mrs May (or, maybe, as a Remainer, though low key, that's really what she wants.)

We understand that around  two thirds (between 400 and 420 out of the 650) of MPs, and nearly all the Lords, are actually in favour of remaining in the EU.  So when the  Bill comes up for approval (arcanely called a "Reading") they should vote against it.  Of course, the red-top press and leading Brexiteers will howl blue murder, and the more timid MPs will splutter about obeying the "will of the people" and the views of their constituents.

Well, they should "stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood" as Shakespeare put it in another crucial context, and remember why they were elected: to use their judgement on behalf of the nation. As Tony Benn so aptly put it: "I was elected to be a signpost, not a weathervane."

MPs who need their backbones strengthening should consider the following::

• the referendum is, legally, only advisory.  In Britain it is "the Crown in parliament", not the people, that are sovereign.  Agreed, it is a pity that this wasn't made clear during the referendum campaign, and so a lot of people will feel duped, but it remains a fact.
• a 52%- 48% majority is insufficient for such a serious decision.  From golf clubs to music societies  most other organisations in civic society require a two-thirds majority, or similar, to change their constitutions.  Again it is a pity that, due to the complacency of the Remainers this wasn't written into the rules for the referendum before it took place, but it is common sense.  
• some would add that we should also have required a positive vote from all the component parts of the UK.  In Scotland and Northern  Ireland there were majorities for remaining. 
• although both sides in the referendum campaign indulged in wild exaggerations, the very mendacity of the Leave campaign has now been exposed, and even admitted by its perpetrators.
• the chief "Leaver" actually said that a narrow result such as 48% -52" would be insufficient.  Admittedly, that was when he though  Leave was going to lose.

There is a very sensible dictum that when you're in a hole you should stop digging.  MPs should do what the were elected for:  their best for the country.  If that results in some flack they have broad backs.

Rosetta with Europe or Blue Streak alone?

Way back in the 1950s we in Britain tried to develop a Medium Range Ballistic Missile (MRBM) called Blue Streak, which would "deliver" the independent British nuclear bomb and so enable us to "keep up with the Joneses " (ie the US and USSR.)  However, Blue Streak proved too difficult and too expensive, so was abandoned and from 1960 we had to rely on the American Skybolt (and later Polaris and Trident) to "deliver" our bomb.

Yesterday the wonderful Rosetta spacecraft  was deliberately crashed into the comet it had been examining for two years after having taken 10 years to cover the 300m miles to reach it.  In its way, we are told , the Rosetta achievement is equivalent in our time to the Russians launching the first spacecraft,  Sputnik, in 1957 and of the Americans landing on the moon in 1969.

Rosetta is a project of the European Space Agency, in which 22 European states, including Britain, work together and so together match the achievements of the US and Russia, and, presumably, in due course, or maybe even already, those of China and India

The European Space Agency is not part of the European Union, but is nevertheless an illustration of how much more we can achieve by working with our European neighbours rather than trying to "go it alone."

Surely here are lessons for our economic and technological progress, control of climate change, prevention of pollution, preservation of human rights, arms control  and the creation and preservation of peace?

Pity the Rosetta project wasn't in the headlines during the  EU referendum campaign

All progressives should get behind Corbyn

 The Labour Party conference has resounded with repeated calls for unity behind Jeremy Corbyn, now re-elected as leader with an even bigger share of the vote than last year.

 Not only should Labour's MPs heed the call, but the rest of what I'll call for want of a better name the "progressive left" should get behind him as well.

Just over a year ago, when Corbyn first was first elected leader with the overwhelming support of party members, the BBC published a list of "24 things that Jeremy Corbyn believes."  You can see the full details here, and here's a summary (my comments and reservations where necessary, in brackets):

1.  The [internal government] deficit should be reduced "not through spending cuts and not by an arbitrary deadline" but by raising taxes etc.  Half marks.  This deficit is not all that important and will reduce itself if and when the economy revives.   Giving internal deficit reduction too much priority has delayed and will continue to delay our recovery.
2. Renationalising the railways. Yes yes, and he's against HS2 as well.
3. More allotments. Very worthy: great for those who like that sort of thing.
4. Talking to all groups, even militants, to win peace in the Middle East.  Common sense: has had to be done to resolve most conflicts, eg in colonial  disengagement  and in Northern Ireland.
5. "Quantitative easing for people." Not too keen on this.  QE is a fanciful and ineffective fad.  Directed government expenditure on the infrastructure etc is a better alternative.
6. No replacement of Trident. Absolutely.  There is no rational case for it.  Replacing it is purely a misguided  attempt to retain prestige.
7. A National Education Service. Not too keen on the "national" implications of this.  However, he is keen to restore responsibility for all state-funded schools to local authorities
8. No support for air strikes in Syria. The better approach is to try to cut off arms supplies to IS.   Yes.  Our military interventions is this and other conflicts had done incredible harm and very little, if any, good.
9. Rent controls should be re-introduced.  Yes, yes. 
10. The Chagos islanders should be allowed to return.  Yes, yes. Other people's human rights should not be sacrificed to accommodate the US.
11. A liberal and rational policy on immigration to replace the present "unpleasant" debate.  Yes indeed.  Our failure to share in the proper reception and resettlement of refugees and asylum seekers is a national disgrace.
12. A diplomatic resolution to the Falklands dispute. Long overdue. Could and should have been achieved in 1982.
13. Property speculators are forcing the closure of pub in London. Probably elsewhere as well.
14. An arms embargo should be imposed on Israel.  Yes.  They're in contravention of UN resolutions.  Embargo should apply to Palestine as  well.
15. He's a committed republican. So logically should I be, but if by any chance I did something brave and were awarded a medal, I'd rather get it from a Windsor than Tony Blair, David Cameron, or any other failed politician.
16.  Remain in the EU, but with changes.  Yes.  He gave it 70 to 74%, which is a fair assessment (and would give you a first class honours degree in even our poshest of universities.
17. Backs cycling. So do I, but not for too far.
18. Energy companies should be under public ownership.  Yes.
19. Ireland should be united.  It probably will be eventually, though we shouldn't rush things.
20. A national maximum wage.  Yes: no more that 10x the minimum? 
21. Every child should have the chance to learn a musical instrument.  Yes, yes, yes.  A recipe for a lifetime of enjoyment, and far more valuable than the obscure things they're now required to learn about English grammar.
22. PFI deals should be ended and existing ones "bought out."  Yes, yes yes.  They are a disgrace and should never have been introduced.
23. There should be "a serious debate about NATO."  Yes, we need to consider its appropriateness and relevance in the present circumstances.
24. The arms trade should be restricted. Yes, yes yes, long overdue (and our reliance on it for our "prosperity." )

So, whilst not wishing to dot every i and cross every t, there's enough in the above around which we in the Liberal Democrats, plus the Greens, and most of the nationalists, could unite.  It has vision and could lead us towards a society in which we could be proud to be members.  The mechanics of a "progressive alliance" I leave for the moment to the political apparatchiks, but they need to be thinking of it now.  At the very least we should stop being rude about Corbyn.  Every time we are, or repeat the mantra that he's "unelectable," we play into the hands of the Tories.

The alternative is yet another decade or more of a society that locks itself off from the rest of the world's problems, demonises our own less fortunate citizens, dismantles the public real in favour of private  profit,  panders to the already rich, promotes absurd inequalities, secures its powers  through unacceptable surveillance and is cavalier, even contemptuous, of human rights.

9/26 - America's, and the World's, Black Monday?

Tonight at 21h00 their time (02h00 ours on the 27th) Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump face each other in 90 minutes of televised debate.  This could easily be America's and the World's most dangerous moment since the Cuban Missile crisis.  And it may not have such a non-climatic ending.

I happened to be in the US during the Carter- Reagan campaign in autumn, 1980.  To my mind there seemed to be no doubtt that Carter would win hands down, but, as we know, Ronald Reaagan prevailed and served two terms.  Part of the reason for his victory was his performance in the debates.  For every reasond proposition Carter explained (albeit in somewhat ponderous detail) Reagan would turn and with a  condescending sneer, say: "There you go again." (There's an example on this clip)  In this case brash condescending bluster triumphed over reason.

A more recent example of  a debate "going wrong " (as I see it) was that between Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage on Britain's membership of the EU in the run up to the 2014 elections for the European Parliament.
In a post before the debate I confidently predicted that Clegg would win "hands down"  but the popular perception was in favour of Farage. Bash bombastic bluster triumphed over reasoned argument.

In Britain's campaign on the EU referendum earlier this year we have a similar phenomenon.  Although  the Remain side was itself more than a little careless  with the facts and threats, the bulk of the reasoned argument was on the side of remaining.  But once again brash, bombastic, and simplistic, bluster swayed more minds.

So I await with trepidation the outcome of tonight's debate.  Donald Trump has so far triumphed with an absurd series of distortions and generalisations and has got away with it through absurdly self confident panache.

It is hard to see how Mrs Clinton can counter this.  I pray that she does.