The end of the age of the dinosaurs

We still don't know precisely why the age of the dinosaurs came to an end. Some catastrophic change in their environment seems to have been the culprit, but whether this was a climate change or meteorite strike we cannot tell. Reflecting on this, we may well also ask whether the age of dictatorships is also coming to an end.

The environmental change is, of course, modern communications and media. This change was first perceived by Mikhail Gorbachev in the mid 1980s after the Chernobyl disaster. He knew then that, as a result of satellite communications, he would not be able to hide the truth from the rest of the world and his own people. News of Chernobyl was leaking into Germany and from there to the rest of the world, ironically rather like the fallout from the nuclear plant itself. Making a virtue out of necessity, therefore, Gorbachev institued the glasnost movement and started the process which ended with the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union. This lesson was not learned quickly by other dictatorships, who ploughed blindly on in the belief that they could 'fool all of the people all of the time'. It has taken the Arab Spring to rekindle the perception that the world has irrevocably changed and these political dinosaurs will not survive.

There are signs that Raul Castro in Cuba and the Burmese junta have indeed learned the lessons of recent history and are cautiously moving towards reforms which will ultimately remove them and their kind from power. Assad in Syria and the Egyptian army leadership are, however, rather slow learners.

George Orwell presented us, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, with a vision (not a prediction, he always insisted) of a state where all information and language are controlled, making any forms of 'alternative' thought impossible. In the event, the Internet has created the very opposite of this world.It remains true that, if future states develop the ability to control the Internet the Orwellian nightmare will become possible, but this looks to be implausible at this stage. Assad and his kind clearly do not understand that autocratic regimes can never surivive without the consent of the people and, more significantly, that the new world of independent information can only hasten this inevitability.

It may well be, of course, that many dictators suffer from an advanced form of insanity which prevents otherwise intelligent and educated men (yes, it is always men) from recognising clear historical truths. In Gadaffi's case, this seems almost undeniably true, but Assad, for example, presents himself as frighteningly rational. Perhaps he has not been in absolute power long enough to start demonstrating the kind of giddy behaviour we saw from Gadaffi in his later years.

Perhaps we can hope that Assad and his kind do eventually understand that they have to adjust to the new environment or perish like the dinosaurs. In other words, they need to understand that it will all end for them in a sewer pipe in the desert.

Individual ministerial responsibility - what price ?

Liam Fox was forced to resign over errors of judgment, because he carted a friend around with him and invited him to meetings at which he had no right to be. As far as we know, defence and foreign policy were nor compromised and national security was not in jeopardy. But he had to resign.

Theresa May now seems to have committed a series of political sins far worse than those of Fox. I have counted these so far :

1 Relaxing immigration checks without telling anyone.
2 Thus placing national security uner threat.
3 Thus denying official Conservative policy to 'get tough on immigration'
4 Issuing confusing instructions to the Borders Agency
5 Being out of touch with what is going on with immigration control
6 Clearly being under-briefed about what is going on when answering questions.
7 Performing hopelessly under questioning in parliament
8 Arguably, buck passing.

If I were Liam Fox I think I'd feel a tad discriminated against.

Of course, Cameron can't afford to lose two right-wingers in one season !

EU referendum vote

Yesterday's (Monday) vote on a EU referendum revealed the size of the constituency that exists in favour of complete wihdrawal from the EU. Of course this is unthinkable as we would be reduced to third world status very quickly, unable to deal with the tariff barriers which would be placed against us. Much of the current 60% of foreign trade would melt away. Our only realistic alternative would be to cecome, de facto, the USA's 51st state and that would be like catching a lift on the Titanic as things stand !

So how do all three political parties deal with this ? For now, do nothing because we cannot be reforming the EU while it is in crisis and possibly a transformation stage. In the long run though we must, I think press for reforms, e.g. to the CAP (possibly abolition, which Brown campaigned for unsuccessfully) and use the strength of anti EU feeling in England (sic) as a bargaining counter. The EU needs us as much as we need it. This might be a blessing in disguise for those who want the European project to succeed.

tax and contribution

I was recently reading a book by Steven Pinker, the philosophical etymologist and he reflected on what would happen if the word tax, which is a negative term, were replaced by contribution, which is positive.

Imagine filling in your social contribution form rather than your tax return ? I.e. this is how much I should contribute to the welfare of my society rather than this is how much the government is entitled to confiscate. Food for thought !

breakdown in normal moral behaviour

What have these people in common ?

Fred Goodwin
Carlos Tevez/Wayne Rooney
Jonathan Ross (in association with Russell Brand)
Liam Fox MP
Andy Coulson
Philip Green
Aubrey Morley MP

The answer is, of course, that they have all been in a privileged position through wealth or position and, I suppose, as a result, believe that the common norms of behaviour in our society do not apply to them.

If they are rare exceptions, this is of relatively little concern. The difficulty arises if they become role models for others.

I was reflecting that people who are fantastically more wealthy than the mass of the people have always been with us. What may distinguish them from the list above is whether they have recognised their privileged position and acted in a responsible way. Downton Abbey is currently portraying such a family, but I wonder whether they are a fictional exception. In a way I hope such disfunctional, privileged people have always existsed because that would mean that current society is no more decadent than any other. I remain unsure......

Daily Mail outing

Today's (Tuesday,11th) Daily Mail seems to have revealed the truth of the Fox-Werritty affair through its political cartoon which is pretty explicit. This, if it is true, would explain why Labour seems to be tiptoeing around the issue. If the reasons behind the mysterious movements of Mr Werritty are as the Mail seems to be implying (I won't say what they are, but have a look, you can probably guess - we are in Ryan Giggs country here) then the affair is probably less serious than it might be and would only raise questions about Dr Fox's character.

It clearly stretched credulity when we hear that Mr Werritty gained no financial or political or any other advantage from all his contacts with Dr Fox, unless there is another reason why he seems to pop up everywhere. The question is , how long can Fox hold out for before he does reveal the true nature of their relationship ? This is tricky. Dr Fox made a mistake right at the outset, by lying - he has admitted as much. When anyone tells lies, we have to ask what they may have to hide. So, politically, this need go nowhere and just as well in view of the sensitivity of defence issues, but isn't it time that politicians can be more open about their relationships ?

It may well be perfectly 'innocent', of course......

The cat and the fox

Are the two animal stories of the week linked ? Well, only loosely but they both contain warnings about how British politics is going.

The cat was, of course, an example of the Dailymailisation of politics. That a senior minister should resort to dubious Mail tactics is very worrying. There is a very serious debate to be held about immigration, asylum and the Human Rights Act. Telling journalistic quarter truths to bigoted audiences does not advance such debates one jot. Our Home Secretary should be consulting with professionals and opinion leaders and then speaking with authority. Fortunately party conferences no longer matter. What does matter is the fear that Theresa May may start to believe her own headlines.

The Fox affair is still unfolding. Whatever has gone on it must be nipped in the bud and the most serious of sanctions needs to be considered. I suspect that Mr Fox's friend may be pushing himself as a kind of Middle East-style 'Mr Fixit'. This must not creep into British politics. It would be utterly destructive. If a minister has abused his or her position, s/he must be removed immediately. If we stamp on small indiscretions now we will prevent greater ones in the future.

So the link is ..........both tendencies need to be stamped on quickly and firmly before we find ourselves in the position of Italy or a corrupt Middle East-style sheikhdom - or the newsroom of the Daily Mail.

Going for growth

I agree with the dissident Conservatives who have asserted that the Government needs a clear growth plan. Furthermore, I believe we need to micro manage this; it is not sufficient merely to create the macro economic conditions for growth. Fundamentally the UK's reliance on the financial sector is unhealthy. It is unhealthy for two reasons - first it creates many moral difficulties, given the conduct of banks, arbitrageurs, hedge fund managers, speculators etc. Second it is clearly an inhibition on tax policy.

It seems to me that economic growth should be directed in four ways. First towards those industries where the Uk has a clear comparative advantage, e.g. insurance, bio technology, higher eucation, entertainment, sport, technology generally. Second it should be directed towards growth with long term benefits, i.e. infrastucture, communications and the like. Third it should be environmentally beneficial, ie. renewables, eco technology. Fourth it should boost employment and the quality of the worforce, especially the young workforce

This may look a little like socialist planning, 1970s style, but we hve proved, I think, that the free market simply does not work when it comes to long term benefit. The free market is fundamentally short term. Only governments can inject the necessary long term considerations into the market economy. Ah yes, but, of course, the political cycle is also short term - i.e. five years, ten at most. Now that is a problem......

May be, definitely not

Theresa May's sabre rattling about the Human Rights Act needs to be put in its place. First, the HRA will not be repealed because there is no chance parliament will vote for it. This is a step too far even for the Lib Dems. Second the European Convntion is not binding on parliament, which remains soeverign. So, all we need to do if we don't like a clause or implication of the Convention is to pass an exemption through parliament or simply legislate in opposition to it. The UK has often, in thr past, ignored the Convention, there is nothing to stop us doing so again.

Flat rate tax

I am being seduced gradually by the attractions of a flat race income tax. Normally this is rejected on the grounds that it does not take account of ability to pay. However it does have a lot going for it - it provides good incentives and is simpler.

That said, I would include four strict provisos -

First the starting point must be quite high.
Second it must distinguish between earned and unearned income with a much higher rate for the latter
Third there would have to be stricter rules on tax evasion.
Fourth there would have to be stricter rules on benefit 'cheats'.

It is becoming apparent to me that Britain's growing aversion to tax has two major causes (I think this also applies to the USA). One is that people believe too much of their tax goes on benefit scroungers. The other reason is that too many rich people get away with paying little or no tax. We need to deal with them before refomr can be attempted.





http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

Has Ed got it right ?

Just ahead of Ed Miliband's keynote speech to Labour today (27th), and having seen the leaked reports, I think he may, in my view, be close to an ideal left-of-centre maxim regarding social and economic policy.

My view has been for some time this - We should adopt in the UK a tax and welfare system that differentiates between the deserving rich and the undeserving rich. It should also distinguish between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor. This seems to me to be a simple and clear principle.

Of course, implementation and details are harder. However, there are a few straightforward practical implications. For example - let's look again at an unearned income premium on income tax.


How about this ? (numbers are guesses, the principle is what is important) :

Income 0-15,000 no tax
15,000 - 20,000 no tax on earned/unearned income, 10 % on welfare income (except pensions, disability) so that work pays more through the tax system
20,000 upwards 30 % flat rate. Work and enterprise rewarded.
40,000 upwards unearned income (interest, dividends, capital gains, land deals, property profits, rent, bonuses, inheritance etc.) 50% flat rate.

Something like that ?

Banks, the euro and well done Gordon

The Government's response to the banking commission report was about as good as I could have hoped for, but also as bad as I feared, i.e. it was accepted with little reservation which is excellent, but bad in view of the huge delay in implementation. Eight years is a ridiculously long time to wait - easily long enough for there to be a further banking crisis, though the new international 7% reserve assets requirement does help in the meantime.

I heard presentations yesterday at the Ham and Hi Festival in Hampstead by Stephanie Flanders (BBC) and Stephen King, former chief economist with HSBC. Both were pessimistic about the prospects for the euro and were all but predicting defaults by Greece and Portugal and probably two or more countries leaving the zone. Both also said how relieving it was that the UK is not in the eurozone.

Now Conservatives must obviously pat themselves on the back that we retained sterling. However, it is Gordon Brown I congratulate most heartily. Why ? Because he was not ideologically opposed to the euro but understood the timing was wrong. He also had to hold out against the euro-enthusiasts in Labour, not least Blair himself. Conservative opposition to a single currency was easy, but for Gordon it was a tough road to take. One shouldn't overdo this, as Brown didn't see the credit crunch coming, but he did understand the British economy was not in good enough shape to join.

Schadenfreude is to be avoided just now. We won't escape the fallout that Flanders and King were predicting.

a footnote on tax collection

Just a footnote on my report of the conversation with Mike Frear and in response to James' comments.

Mike Frear said, and quite correctly, that tax aversion is partly the result of public disquiet over how government spends the money. If it is going to 'benefit spongers' or dubious foreign military adventures etc., it is hardly surprising that they are reluctant to give hard earned money to policicians who 'waste' it. I did point out to Mr Frear that, the problem would clearly be solved under a Conservative Government and was delighted to see a gleam in his eye and a suspicion of scepticism.

Seriously I think there are two points to be made. The first is that, yes, there must be greater public confidence that their taxes are being 'well spent' and welfare reform - real welfare reform, not the rhetoric but little action under Labour - is the best place to start. The second is this. neo liberals, libertarians, T Party people etc. argue that the free market always uses resources more efficiently than government. There is an interesting argument to be had, but I think of this in a different way. If, for example, a premier league footballer earning £5 million a year avoids most of his income tax, what does he typically spend his extra money on ? From what I have heard and read, these guys typically spend it on various forms of conspicuous consumption of no intrinsic value. A certain British retailer who avoids tax through his wife's tax haven status has famously wasted vast amounts of money on lavish parties, over-paying celebrities to perform for him, vulgar yachts and the like. Is this money, spent in the free market, being put to any good use? 'Efficient' perhaps, but 'good' ? Well, employment is created maybe, but largely abroad and not particularly sustainable. I think, if I were in government, I could find better ways of spending a footballer's £million pound tax avoidance windfall than he himself can. One Portuguese star, I heard, bought two identical Ferraris on the basis that he was bound to crash one before long - which he did. I think he crashed them both actually.

I should be fair and report another of Mike Frear's comments which has some validity. I argue that the tax we pay forms part of our relationship with the state and should therefore be in the public domain, as are the wages of public sector employees (note the forthcoming publication of BBC salaries). He pointed out that the relationship was not a voluntary one, and he is certainly right, so there is ineded a civil liberties issue at stake in my idea of making our tax contributions available to all. . I would still argue, however, that the 'greater good' here is more important than the privacy issue. I repeat I would like to see a change in the culture regarding tax where we see it as our proud contribution rather than some kind of punishment.




http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

bank reform

Todays' publication of the report on banking reform is a real test for the government, the coalition and the Lib Dems. It does not need any more time for consideration, because everybody has known for months what its conclusions were likely to be.

The money doen't matter here, does it ? What matters is the public perception of the banks and the politicians who regulate them. I have read that the opponents of such reform argue that too much regulation will drive banks away. This argument has a huge gaping hole in it, which is that the crisis was precipitated by an absence of regulation. Part of the answer, therefore, simply cannot be less regulation.

Vince Cable and the Lib Dems have retreated often enough. One more capitulation could see them looking back anxiously at the edge of the cliff. As to the Government there is a weary predicatbility about the likelihood of delay, delay, delay. This is a myth. The regulation can be legislated immediately, in the financial services bill, even if the implementation comes in a couple of years time.

a golden age of backbench MPs ?

I met Mike Frear, the MP for Finchley this morning and, unintentionally, the the conversation came round to the role of the backbench MP. We had been at a presentation by the economists Stephanie Flanders and Stephen King. I engaged him on the question of what the government position currently was on tax avoidance and evasion. he gave me a stock answer from the MPs' briefing card and feigned vague interest in the idea of making everybody's tax payments a matter of public record.





Now Mr Frear may well be a very good constituency MP and, in fact, I believe he has made a good satrt, but the rest of the conversation rather dismayed me. he said something like, 'of course I am just a humble backbencher so I'm afraid I have no influence on such thngs'. I told him, coincidentally I had just been writing a piece for a politics student survey entitled 'are we entering a new golden age for the backbench MP?'. It will refer to the activities of people like Tom Watson on phone hacking, the justice select committee's work and the like, together with the new traction that all MPs have with there being no gurarnteed government majority. I was, therefore, perhapos a little rude in saying to him that if he felt himself powerless he would be powerless. It is dispiriting to think that many Mps, of any party, should think this way.





There is the potential for a golden age of backbenchers, but they have to display two qualities. One is the belief that they can influence things, perhaps over a narrow range of issues , the second is the kind of hard work and tenacity that Tom Watson has demonstrated.

The 50% tax band

It is an interesting question to ask : what are the earnings of the economists who have recommended the abolition of the 50% tax band ? We need to know to ensure their academic detachment.

We also need to know where in the world one can go in order to pay less than a marginal tax rate of 50% on earnings of over £150,000. USA obviously, but where else where one might wish to live ?

Of course they may well be right, but is it politically possible to abolish it, especially in view of the more common explnations of recent public disorders ?

Tax transparency

I read with some horror about the behaviour of Italian footballers who want their clubs (i.e. the fans) to pay the additional super tax levied in response to the country's financial woes. I do have a little sympathy in view of the Berlusconi government's past excesses, but only a little. The horror is, of course, that already outrageously overpaid sportsmen think they are exempt for some reason. Again I have a little sympathy, though not much, with foreign players, but most players in the Italian league are Italian citizens.

The story renewed my interest, already expressed, in the proposals for the tax authorities to publish the amount of direct tax - income, capital gains and inheritance -which all citizens pay. This has a dual purpose.

One is to begin a change to the 'culture' of taxation, viewing it as a contribution to the common wealth, rather than a punishment levied by government. Indeed many of the 'rich' seem to believe they are being punished for being rich. This is not so, of course. They are simply being asked to contribute more because they have more.

The other is to 'flush out' the wealthier citizens who are paying virtually no tax. Imagine the, impact for example, if football fans learned that some of their players were paying less tax than themselves ? or of all of us learning that wealthy entrepreneurs were paying virtually no tax at all ? This would create huge political pressure either to persuade them to pay what they should or to persuade government that new legialtion is needed to collect tax effectively.

I don't believe there is a civil liberties issue here and I would not suggest publishing anyone's declared income. I wish I had the energy to start up a real campaign on this. Hopefully someone will

Deconstructing disorder

Thinking more about the terrible events of the last week, I offer a word of caution and a suggestion.

There is a danger that we attempt to find 'holistic' answers to what is a multi-layered problem. Thinkers of both the right and left tend to ofer such holistic responses. The right refer to policing, crime and punishment solutions. The left concentrate on socio-economic solutions.

We need to deconstruct the issues. I suggest a five layered approach. These are also in order of time scale, the first ones being possible in the near future, the later ones being generational.

Level 1 - sort out policing, making streets safe, protecting people and property more effectively.
Level 2 - attack gang culture and all that goes with it.
Level 3 - micro socio-economic. This concerns issues surrounding the family failure, schooling, voluntary organisations etc.
Level 4 - macro socio-economic. This concerns the welfare system, inequality, aspiration, social mobility, opportunity, employment and training.
Level 5 - the cultural/moral climate. This is about the moral climate which encourages acquisitiveness, greed, consumerism, lack of moral restraint etc. This pervades all levels of society etc. - top to bottom.

If we do deconstruct the issues like this, we may be able to attack the problem more effectively. You can eat an elephant - but only if you take it one meal at a time.

Tax

Thanks, James for your remarks and for looking at the blog.

It is interesting why we can't seem to get to grips with tax avoidance and evasion. I think what you suggest is fundamentally true - that policy makers are frightened of driving away investment if tax is collected too effeiciently or at too high a rate. You are also right to mention what is, I think, called the 'Laffer Curve ' effect by economists. This is that, the higher the tax, the less is collected because people have a greater incentive to avoid high tax rates. It may work, though I am sceptical as I suspect the culture of tax aversion is too deep seated here.

How about, though, an idea that operates in Norway, I think ? The amount of tax each individual or compant pays each year could be publicly available. This might, just might, create a climate in which more people might be more willing to pay the tax due. I am not wealthy but pay a good deal of tax because I earn a good deal, and I am proud of how much tax I pay because I am contributing to the country's services and welfare. I don't like paying it, but recognise I should contribute. If I learned that a premier league footballer paid, say, £2 million income tax last year I might feel more kindly disposed to him and his ridiculously overblown salary. Sadly I suspect that most of them pay considerably less through legal avoidance schemes.

Finally there is the American system. We could do away with tax exile status. If you are a British citizen you should pay tax on what you earn in the UK, wherever you live. As soon as you set foot on British soil, the tax authorities wil present a tax demand and you cannot leave until you pay it.If anyone wants to avoid UK tax I think they should live abroad permanently.

There is here, by the way, an obvious link with events of the last week in our city centres, isn't there ?

Halifax, Nova Scotia, riots

I recently discovered, while doing some research, that rioting and looting of this kind has a particularly interesting and bizarre antecedent. It may place things in some perspective and we can learn lessons from it, perhaps. It concerns the bizarre incidents on VE night (May 7-8) in Halifax, Nova Scotia in 1945.

When the War in Europe ended, about nine thousand allied and other seamen poured out onto the streets of Halifax, which had been a vital port in the war. There had been prohibition in Halifax in the war and there was little booze to be had. Rioting and looting immediately broke out. At first it was mainly booze they were after but, having got it and drunk it, more general disorder ensued. Vehicles and buildings were set ablaze, authority figures attacked, shops broken into and contents looted. By the second morning the looters included many of the civilian population of Halifax, including women and schoolchildren (some in school uniform). Contemporary photographs show pictures quite similar to those seen recently in British cities, with looters carrying away racks of clothes, shoe boxes and food. It was only when the naval authorities ordered the men back to their ships and hostels that things quietened down. Remember, too, this was supposed to be a joyous occasion !

The official statistics are staggering, especially considering Halifax’s population was barely 60,000 at the time : stolen were nearly 7,000 cases of beer, 1225 cases of wine, 55,000 bottles of spirits and a brewery was looted of 60,000 pints of beer, 2,600 plate glass windows were broken, 207 businesses looted and a further 564 suffered some damage, 363 people arrested, most for serious offences. Three people died, though one was the result of alcoholic poisoning! All this occurred in one night and day ! The official report afterwards blamed lack of control of sailors by the naval authorities, insufficient police and faulty tactics – where have we heard that before ?

Food for thought...

thoughts on the riots

Some interesting observations, I hope, on the immediate political reaction to the rioting :

Interesting that the Government seems to have dumped Theresa May as spokeswoman (she should be out front, after all, she is Home Secretary) and have wheeled out Michael Gove instead. The Government seems to think Gove has a good public image as he is often thrown to the wolves on Newsnight. I rather disagree, he comes across as stiff and patrician.

How long will the Government be able to hold out against charges that it is reducing police expenditure at a critical time ? Police cuts will certainly have to be reduced at some stage.

Ed Miliband is resisting so far trying to make political capital out of it - very sensible. Somebody tell Harriet Harman though.

Nick Clegg - oh dear. he really does look a sorry sight. Out of his depth.

Will somebody please tell various spokepeople to stop saying "this is purely criminal behaviour". We have got the message. Nobody thinks it is political. We knew that by Sunday morning, for God's sake.

Much more will obviously be said and written in the months to come, but I think there are two principal issues her :

1 The frontline 'shock troops' of the riots - those who challenge the police, target and damage property, start fires etc. are part of a new phenomenon - consolidated gang culture. The long term answer lies in challenges to gang culture and all it entails.

2. The second waves - those who are there to loot - reflect a deaper seated fault in our society - that is greed and consumerism fed by excessive inequality. That will require a long term change in the culture and the structure of the economy. It will need generational change on the scale we saw in the 1980s when rampant greed and consumerism rose to new heights, in my view at least.

In short I think this is two problems, not one.




http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

the riots

I want to strike a slightly optimistic note on all this.
Feral youths of the kind we are now seeing have existed for some time. In the past they have been largely engaged in smaller scale criminality - hassling people, shoplifting, drugs, car crime, gang fighting, vanadalism etc. because this has been endemic but relatively low level we have been able, not exactly to ignore it, but to treat it as containable.
The difference here, of course, is that they have gathered in large, semi- organised groups and have engaged in mass actions, rather than individual or small group crime. Why I am trying to look on the bright side is that this will force us, as a society, to confront the issue of feral youth. So, something meaningful may well at last result.
Incidentally, appeals to 'parents' are a complete waste of time. Most of these youths and a few girls, will be from the care system, will have no parents effectievly, or will have parenst who are inadequate at best, leading chaotic lives at worst. These rioters and looters are on the streets BECAUSE there is no family in operation.

holiday season

I am normally one of those who accepts that even senior politicians are entitled to their holidays and that the world will not fall apart while they are away. On this occasion, though, I think there may be exceptional circumstances that demand that they return to their posts. My reasoning is simply that part of the current 'crisis' arises from the jitteriness of the markets (incidentally, how appalling it is that the Western economic world can be so badly affected by the frenetic behaviour of the men in red braces, hyped up on adrenalin or ketamine or whatever, men who seem to treat trading floors like club dance floors and are motivated solely by greed and fear). We need some calm so that rational decisions can be made. This will be considerably helped if the key players are seen to be doing something (even if they are not). Markets tumble on uncertainty and that must be knocked quickly on the head. So, sorry but I think at least the Prime Minister has to come back and be seen to be meeting the other key characters, even if it is only to swap holiday snaps.

Incidentally, there seems now to be a growing feeling among economic and business experts that the inevitable way out of the current crisis will be considerable increases in money supply - dolars, euros and sterling - which will create inflation. Inflation of course automatically reduces the real value of debt. I wonder whether this is a price worth paying, at least in the medium term, until order can be restored and the men in red braces are put back in their boxes ?





http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

Freedom of the gutter press (2)

Before the current hackinggate crisis broke, I wrote that the problem of the 'free press' principle is that much of the press operates from the gutter. The full truth of that is now being revealed. But where to go when most of the dust has settled ?

What we are looking for here is not, I think, complex solutions, but some fundamental principles upon which we can anchor any future legislation or regulation. One such principle does come to mind. It is this :

The media shall be free to publish all information 'as long as it has been legally obtained'. This would mean that any information obtained illegally might result in both/either criminal or civil action by definition. This leads to the question, 'what is legal and illegal ?' Just for a start, 'illegal' could mean information obtained on private property (without permission of the subject) or from private communications (letters, e mails, texts, voice mail etc.). This will not eliminate difficulties, of course, but at least they could form a strong legal foundation on which we can work.

The remaining question, I suppose, is what would happen to investigative journalism, much of which may be carried on within the definition of illegality I suggest here we would have to apply the 'in the public interest' test. That will need more complx definitions and subsequent case law. It may, regrettably, mean that the onus of proving 'public interest' would fall on any person accused of obtaining information illegally, rather than the other way round.

NotW affair now out of control

As we write this NotW episode seems to be spinning out of control. The changed nature of the scandal is the fear that is clearly being generated. The police are afraid of the journalists, journalists are afraid of editors, and politicians are afraid of red tops in general. This is no longer a case of ' are we justified in reglating a newspaper in case it is the thin end of the orwellian wedge' ? It now has undertones, as has already been suggested, of the mafia in Italy. There is hope - that the rats will realise the ship may be sinking and turn on each other so we will hear the whole sorry story. But one suspects there will be too much obfuscation and fudging for that. Both the police and the journalists may be constratined in case the blame arrives back at their door - even the door of number 10.
So, if this now transcends the issue of press freedom, how do we proceed ? Appeals to moral regeneration are unlikely to last long as they face the blizzard of the profit motive. Legal action looks draconian and dangerous. With a sigh (because I suspect it will not actually work), a public boycott of the offending newspaper is the best answer, underpinned by the flight of the advertisers. In other words, put them out of business. And, of course, there must be the fullest. most genuine inquiry possible with prosections to follow. Enron here we come. It is a pity the Americans are not doing it. They know how to lock people up !

Time to tax

In all the furore about Greece, the cuts, pensions etc., have we forgotten a key issue ?
This is the question of tax collection. certainly it has always been true that all 'successful' economies have efficient tax collection systems. Britain is among these countries. Greece, on the other hand, is notorious for tax evasion, especially among the wealthy. In Italy it is a national sport, and what price on tax evasion being an Olymic sport in Rio ?

The question we should now ask is - is the Government spending as much time and effort thinking about collecting more tax from those who evade and avoid as it is making cuts in public services and pensions etc ?

Without suggesting what solutions might work, I offer three ideas :

1. We could publish the amount of direct tax all British citizens (wherever they claim to live) and companies have paid (I wouldn't go as far as Norway where full tax returns are available on line). This would flush out the evaders.
2. Introduce more draconian tax laws, perhaps levying income tax on all citizens wherever they live and wherever they have earned their money (if one did this, any direct taxes paid in their country of domicile would be subtracted).
3. Introduce more tax collection 'at source'. It is clearly unequal that most people experience PAYE, wheres high earners are not taxed at source for various reasons.


Let's continue counting to three by identifying three consequences of widespread tax evasion or avoidance among the rich :

1. It is a clear moral issue.
2. It promotes inequality as it is the rich who are most efficient in avoiding tax and the poor who cannot (there are exceptions, notably in the building trade, but this is not on the same scale).
3. It has great economic consequences which are obvious, notably in cutting the budget deficit.

Time to look more closely at this issue, I think.

Bank shares for the masses

Nick Clegg really needs to look at his history of the 1980s. When Margaret Thatcher sold off many nationalised industries she declared that it was to to be the start of a 'share and property owning democracy'. This was a genuine aspiration. She was right, of course, that property owning was to be immensely popular, but those members of the public, me included, who bought blocks of shares in the privatised industries got shot of them as soon as a tidy profit was in the offing.

The same will happen with shares in the banks when they are sold back into the market and freebees are given to the public. There will be a stampede to cash in and the shares will end up in the same corporate hands that contributed to the very crisis that led to the banks being part-nationalised.

This leads to the question, what will happen to the quick profits enjoyed by the lucky public ? Well, if they spend it at home, all well and good. If they go abroad there will be little benefit to UK plc.

OK, so it's a reasonable way of pumping money into the economy, but his concept of dispersing ownership of the banks in the hope of making them more accountable is bound to go the same way as Thatcehr's plan.

A Scottish State or Scottish Republic ?

It is many years off, I know, but I am fascinated by the prospects for some kind of devolution plus for Scotland.

Of course, the ultimate option for Scotland is that it should become a sovereign state with its own elected (presumably) Head of State. There is, by the way is an intriguing question - who would be Scotland's first president in, say, ten years? I suppose Alex Salmond would be favourite, and what price Gordon Brown (suitably well into his sixties by then ? I think figurehead presidents should, on the whole, be well into their sixties). Then there are wackier choices such as Sean Connery or Billy Connelly or Lulu even.

But it now seems probable that the SNP may settle for devolution plus simply on the grounds that they will not be able to secure a yes vote for full independence. This raises some interesting and unique questions (literally unique that is). The Crown is the big problem. If the British Monarch remains the Monarch in Scotland, what is their role ? Would he/she play the same role as he/she does in the UK presently, that is be the constitutional source of the prime minister's powers ? But if a semi-independent Scotland operated under a new codified constitution, no such source is needed. Under devolution plus Scotland would undoubtedly have its own foreign policy, presumably on thr Swedish neutrality model. A codified constitution and independent foreign policy renders the need for the royal prerogative redundant. On the other hand the Monarch could be totally a token with no political or constitutional role, but merely a ceremonial one. Come to think of it, that model could work for the UK now.

Devolution plus is not federalism. Federalism imples a good deal of sovereignty remaining at the centre, i.e. London. This would clearly be uneacceptable to supporters of Scottish autonomy.

Perhaps what we are looking at is federalism plus. A system where the centre has a very limited set of sovereign powers, extending merely to control of the currency perhaps plus cross-border trade, a bit like the American 'interstate commerce' clause of the of its constitution.

This is just a series of questions really - and we haven't started on the EU yet. I have heard Scottish Nationalists refer to a Scotland under the British Crown but with an independent voice in Europe. Mmmmmmm looks problematic to me.

Having raised all these issues I think there is a real possibility here of some kind of unique constitutioonal experiment. The creation of a kind of 'sovereign state within a sovereign state' . We need to amend our traditional view of sovereignty to countenace this, but why not ?

And, while we're at it, why not Ally McCoist for President ?








http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

Ed must go ?

So the media 'let's get rid of Miliband (Ed)' train has well and truly left the station.

Our experience of these kind of media campaigns is that, once they are up and running, it is almost impossible to stop them. They become part of the political agenda and lazy political journalists will simply resort to the theme over and over again for want of seeking out any original stories.

Let's dump.....whoever campaigns are debilitating things. They must take up a huge amount of the time of the victim and his/her advisers. They sap political will and take attention away from real political issues - the ones that people actually care about.

But this is now a serious problem for Ed Miliband and Labour. Does the party dump him now to give themselves plenty of time to recover lost ground, or do they hang on with ever more damaging consequences? It is, of course, a disgrace that the media should hound someone out of office on such flimsy evidence, but they do; that is the world we live in.

The flimsy evidence is not good. As someone recently said (was it a Times or Observer editorial ?) the Archbishop of Canterbury is currently looking like a more effective leader of the opposition. A managerial aproach to opposition won't work. The passion of the Archbishop's words was most telling. Ed lacks passion - of course he does. He is an academic social democrat. Politics needs to be more visceral when you are in opposition. The issues facing Labour now are about growing poverty, deprivation, inequality, unemployment and fear of unemployment. These are not intellectual issues. They are real and they are moral.

Unfortunately for Labour the main alternative is Ed's brother and that kind of handover would be equally disastrous. Labour seems to be stuck wih its own managerial political class and lacks any real options. Talk about creeks and lack of a paddle !

Nevertheless if I were Labour I think I'd do the dumping now.







http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

Love Thy Neighbour

Talking to an old family friend recently, a Manxwoman who married an American and has lived ever since in the Mid West, she informed me that she was a Tea Party supporter. This brought to mind a blog I had been meaning to write. So this is for you, Elaine, as well as anybody else who is interested.

When Jesus Christ preached that we should ‘love thy neighbour’, he was asked ‘who is my neighbour?’ It was this point that he told the story of the Good Samaritan. The man who helped a complete stranger (who would normally be his enemy) who had been attacked at the roadside. Well, you know the rest.

Tea party supporters and other neo cons call state sponsored public health schemes ‘socialism’. But the story of the Good Samaritan tells us that they are actually Christianity expressed in action .

America claims to be a Christian country.

Americans.....think about it.

oil junkies

It feels especially frustrating when we hear, yet again, that high oil prices are jeopardising economic recovery. I am old enough to remember the mid 1970s when the quadrupling of oil prices, following the Yom Kippur war in Israel, caused a major economic slump. We do not seem to have learned much since then.

It has often been said that the West is effectively an oil junkie. We seem unable and/or unwilling to accept the cold turkey and find alternatives. Cost, is, of course, the reason that is presented. All other forms of energy protection remain more expensive than oil.

So, here we are again and once again it is the cost argument that is winning the day. Wind turbine energy, in particular, is constantly claimed to be economically not viable.

The fault in this logic is that economists are simply underestimating (or ignoring altogether) the true costs of our dependence on oil. The Arab Spring and the worsening of tension in Israel have once again brought this into sharp focus. The West remains encumbered by its need not to offend Saudi Arabia and the gulf states and this comes at a huge cost. Our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan can also be traced to the West’s overwhelming need to maintain stability in the Middle East in case oil supplies are disrupted. It is difficult to put a monetary value on paranoia, but that is what this really amounts to. And it is extremely debilitating, not to mention costly.
This argument about ‘true’ cost does not even take account of environmental issues. If we add environmental cost and – shall we call it ‘military and diplomatic cost’ ? – together, we can see that oil is not as cheap as its seems.

To stretch the metaphor, the junkie may only count the cost of his addiction in terms the how much money he needs to ‘score’ regularly. He will not count the cost to his health and the shortening of his life. He is too far gone for that. The West is still in a position, unlike the junkie, to make some rational calculations.

Now we have a great opportunity to mirror the way in which the modern economies escaped from the Depression of the Thirties – by waging war and making the investments necessary to do so. But this would not be a war amongst ourselves, but against carbon. This investment has four huge dividends:
1. To the environment.
2. Never again will we be beholden to unstable regimes.
3. It will, of course, create large scale employment.
4. We can get out of the Middle East.

The rate of return on this investment looks pretty attractive from where I am sitting.




http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

Revolting peers

Just a quickie,

This morning's Times (May 31) has a story that the Lords are set to obstruct proposals for an elected second chamber. Here we go again. 1832, 1909, 1947. Supporters of reform may take comfort that the Lords always loses these battles in the end, but this time they are facing a rather weak, vacillating coalition.

As it happens I am against an elected second chamber - just more party hacks and political traffic jams together with the loss of many excellent appointe legislators who won't run for office etc. - but this kind of obstruction can't be allowed to happen.

If the Times is right this will be a real test for the Liberal Democrats. They must insist on the kind of robust action that was taken in past battles with the Lords. If Lords reform goes the way of AV we will be left wondering what Liberal Democrats are for. Furthermore the democratic process will have been well and truly subverted.

Blue Labour

Although it has come in for a good deal of flak, the Blue Labour agenda has to be given a fair hearing. It is, after all, the first cogent and positive response to Labour's defeat in 2010 (and, in truth, its decline since 2001). Of course, its name must be changed. Any idea that this is a conservative faction could be disastrous. In many ways it is a 'new third way', but that looks clumsy and over-long. I have no other ideas for names unfortunately.

The problem with Blue Labour is that it looks like a compromise between offering pragmatic sops to right wing white working class emotions - on crime and immigration particularly - in an attempt to get them to turn out and vote again, and a genuine attempt to restore some traditional Labour values such as industrial democracy and community welfare. However, its fliration with the Big Society is a risk. Many commentators see Big Society as a doomed philosophy which will gradually fade away through lack of action and interest.

The main criticism I have with Blue Labour is its apparent rejection of state-led social reform (if you consider that important, of course). The really big questions Labour must address are inequality, poverty and lack of social mobility. These cannot be solved through local action. They are big problems requiring big answers.

If Labour is to win again it must not abandon its fundamental reasons to exist in an attempt merely to lead the next consensus. These inevitably will involve the central state. A programme of real constitutional reform may help to allay fears that the state is a malign force in society.

Conservatives and Liberal supporters do have a vested interest in a resurrection of Labour values. Without a realistic challenge, there is a danger that the coalition forces will simply drift towards an acceptance of the old 'management of economic decline' , which bedevilled British politics in the 1960s and 70s.

Blue Labour is a good start to restoring genuine political dialogue in Britain. Somebody needs to pick up the baton and run with it. (sorry about the cliche, I am in Olympic mode, £276 having just been removed from my bank account for tickets - a month to wait until I know what I got. Quite exciting really).





http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

hyper injunctions and gossip

Musing on the injunctions - free press versus privacy issue I wondered if there might be a legal solution after all. We need to deconstruct the problem first, I think. Why do the press, mainly red tops, want to publish this stuff and why do celebs not want it published?


The red tops want to publish for commercial reasons and to feed the natural prurience of their readers, so there is a strong case for preventing them unless there is an overwhelming public interest issue at stake.


Celebs want to suppress the information presumably for a number of reasons. One may be to hide their indiscretions from their spouses or partners. This seems to me not an appropriate excuse for an injunction. After all, if press people know the story, you can bet the partner will know it pretty quickly. They may wish to protect their children - now that is a different matter. The children, if young enough, may not find out through the normal gossip channels or through social media. So. it seems to me there may be a case for preventing stories appearing in the press or other traditional news media to protect children, but allowing it to circulate on new social media where young children at least may be protected.


Furthermore, if such stories can circulate on new social media but not in the traditional media, it takes away any commercial interest in publishing the story. Without the lure of extra sales and profits, the press would thus be outflanked. And serve them right.

It is really like the legalisation of drugs - take away the financial incentive and sales will dry up. so it will be with celebrity gossip.

To sum up, perhaps there could be injunctions against commercial outlets, but not extended to the free social media. Thus we would have freedom of expression protected, but th tabloids taken out.




http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

Ken Clarke

Poor Ken Clarke. He really should be hanged as a fool rather than a knave. We all know that some rapes are mnore violent than others and this is reflected in sentencing. He just needed to think before he spoke to an excellent, perceptive interviewer like Victoria Derbyshire. Sadly his proposal - which is worth considering - that accused rapists would have their sentence reduced if they confess, thus increasing conviction rates, will now probably disappear. Shame. but Clarke now looks close to 'old buffer' status and so needs to go. Shame - an honest politician.

Lords Reform - oh dear

The revelation of the latest plans for reform of the Lords have thrown up one of the more absurd political ideas I have heard for some time. The whole point of an elected second chamber is to make it accountable. The notion that future peers should be elected for fifteen years and not be eligible for re-election clearly emininates all pretence at accountability.It is therefore utterly pointless.

As it happens this is unlikely to matter because all the signs are that any attempt at Lords reform is doomed to failure. The traditional coalition of right wing conservatives, Labour members who take a radical view and therefore reject all moderate solutions, and peers who are either naturally antipathetic to reform, or who see themselves as turkeys approaching Christmas, will defeat virtually any proposals. Mmmm. lost electoral reform and lost Lords reform looks pretty grim for the Liberal Democrats.

Supporters of Lords reform will, I think, now have to rely on Labour putting very specific proposals in their next election manifesto. If elected they can then force through the measure by invoking either the Salisbury Convention (the tradition that the Lords will not obstruct any proposal contained in the Government's last election manifesto) or the Parliament Act (which says that a proposal passed in two consecutive years in the Commons cannot be overturned in the Lords). Of course Labour has to be elected for the plan to work !

If I hear news just once more of a committee to consider Lords reform I shall tear my hair out. How many inquiries do we need, for Pete's sake ? All the facts and arguments are now known. Time for action or let's just give up on it altogether.

Scotland and Eurovision

Watching the Eurovision song contest last night - a rather sad but strangely compulsive thing to do on a Saturday evening - a thought crossed my mind about Scotland. Would an independent Scotland vote for the English (or would we still be called British ?) in the contest ?

The rules seem to be that small countries vote for other small countries, you vote for a traditional ally and you support a neighbour provided she is not an old enemy. ( The song is pretty irrelevant, of course. Britain could put up Adele and she would lose). The British and Irish tend to swap support despite our violent history of relations, so what about Scotland ?

It is a serious question in a way, because it would be an indication of Scotland becoming a mature, self confident nation if it could bring itself to vote for the 'auld enemy'. Scotland will certainly not thrive if it retains its traditional inferiority complex with regards to the English.It is a grown up nation in many ways, it just needs to act like one. Come to think of it, attacking football managers on sectarian grounds should stop, now that is an indication of stroppy adolescence.

One thing is for certain. the English would vote for the Scots. So I look forward to watching Lulu (yes, she is Scottish) representing Scotland in the 2017 contest, when she will be about 70 - and voting for her.

A new monarchy

Listening to Nicola Sturgeon the other day on the subject of Scottish independence set me thinking again about the future of the monarchy. I was surprised to hear her say that, despite their aspiration for independence, the SNP would recommend that a sovereign Scotland would retain the British Crown. At first sight this seems impossible - to submit oneself to the head of state of a separate country while becoming independent oneself. But a little thought changed my mind and caused me to think about the future of the monarchy in a UK context.

The key issue concerns prerogative powers. As long as the Crown retains these arbitrary powers there can be no truly independent Scotland and there can be no British, codified, entrenched constitution. But what about (as I think Ms Sturgeon is suggesting) maintaining a monarchy without prerogative powers. We would, of course, have to replace them with a codified set of powers to be exercised by a combination of parliament and the prime minister, but at least we would free ourselves from the absurdity of the fiction that the Queen is on any political relevance. In this way we can have it all - a real, modern constitution, but without the complications of a political head of state (i.e. an elected president, who might be someone like Boris Johnson, God help us). Furthermore the 'mystery and majesty' of the monarchy would be retained, much to the advantage of the balance of payments as well as British prestige.

I am all for Scottish independnce if the Scots vote for it and if it means we can re-position the monarchy to the place where it belongs - firmly on the prow of the ship as merely a figurehead.




http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

super-injunctions

Nobody seems to be suggesting that a way out of this excrutiatingly difficult issue is to allow newspapers or other media to have a private hearing with a senior judge to determine whether publication is 'in the public interest'. If they fail to get such a ruling, they leave themselves open to an action by the subject of the story. If they get the ruling, they can declare it. Just an idea.....

The real problem here is, of course, that most people now 'think' they know who all these people are because of common gossip. But how can we distinguish between truth and fiction. The Jemima Khan issue is an example, as she understandably claims that false stories are circulating about her. Other stories about well known people are, on the other hand, clearly true. We can never be sure of the difference between the flowers and the weeds in the Internet garden.

On a lighter note the premier league footballer who everybody now knows has a super injunction has been in the form of his life. A good advertisement for extra marital activity or perhaps just publicity, good or bad ?

NHS and the Lib Dems

OK, so it looks as though Huhne won’t resign, so my prediction was wrong. The thing is, he should have done. That would have sent a much stronger message than a post election disaster wringing of hands. The Liberal Democrats’ sudden discovery of a backbone may look just a tad suspicious but I am not sure whether people will see through it.
The strange circumstance of a government consulting after a policy is announced instead of during its development., as is the case with the NHS reforms, has been shown to be mightily flawed. But why were the Liberal Democrats at the back of the queue when it came to voicing opposition ? They were beaten to it by the BMA, the nursing unions and now stand just behind the Royal College of General Practitioners. I suppose the Liberal Democrats have to decide whether they are part of the government or the opposition, albeit an internal opposition.
But all the politics is really secondary to the fears we must now have for the NHS. The now dead reforms were partly designed to reduce NHS spending without threatening front line services. Deprived of this vehicle for expenditure cuts, the NHS is now vulnerable to more traditional ways of reducing spending - the reduction in so-called ‘non-essential’ services. We have seen in the past what that can mean. The same is true in education and policing. It really never happens that a proper differentiation is made between what matters to people and what doesn’t when it comes to cuts. Liberal Democrats must, therefore, double their vigilance. Come to think of it, the idea of permanent internal opposition is a attractive one. Have the Lib Dems got the necessary gumption ? No sign of it yet.
Now Scotland is another matter....... more to come.


http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

Chris Huhne

On the morning of the referendum, local and devolved elections, a prediction that a No vote plus a Lib Dem meltdown will lead to Huhne's resignation and after that....Lord knows.

FPTP is actually the most complex system

A bit late in the debate but it occurred to me that first past the post is actually the most complicated of the various electoral systems. This may seem odd, but hear me out.

All the systems - AV, FPTP and proportional systems are easy to use as a voter. The problem is the thought that is needed. Voting under AV or PR requires little extra thought - you make your choice or choices. Under FPTP, however, most votes are unikely to count because it is a safe seat or the voter supports a party that must lose. So you have all these thoughts to contend with. Shall I bother ? If I do bother what gives me the best chance of affecting the outcome, voting for my first choice or voting tactically. That's not easy.

Despite what has been said there are virtually no tactics involved in AV. Just make your first choice, then your second and a third if it takes your fancy. What can be difficult ?

Too late though. Its a No tomorrow. Blame the coalition for that, I think, not the system.




http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

After the wedding

As the dust settles after the royal wedding, perhaps a good time to reflect again on the Monarchy. It occurred to me that it is time to deconstruct the issue, especially after such a ‘successful’ and certainly happy occasion. Reports that Kate and William are ‘different’ seem to be true, but we should not let that cloud our judgment.
The case for the economy is clear – British Monarchy plc certainly turns in a healthy surplus. We could retain the institution for that reason alone. If we worry about their wealth and opulence, I think we can find more worthy targets for our ire in the City, the Premier League and corporate Britain generally. But the other questions are less clear :
Does the Monarchy have any political significance ? If it does, it should certainly be either removed or significantly reformed. We cannot allow an unelected, unaccountable, uncontrolled institution to influence.
Does it have constitutional significance ? The answer is very much yes because the prime minister’s prerogative powers derive from the arbitrary powers of the Monarch which stretch back through history. So the question is should we retain this uncodified, and therefore flexible set of prime ministerial powers or do we need a codified constitution. This raises a supplementary issue – is it realistic to have a codified, entrenched constitution and retain the Monarchy ?
Would an elected head of state be preferable ? This is a tough issue. The Monarchy does allow us to have a titular head of state with no political relevance. An elected ‘president’ brings politics into that role. This means we would have either meaningless figures, probably ex politicians, or would we have intensely political individuals with the concurrent dangerous consequences.
But really the key question seems to be – does the Monarchy have a positive influence on the collective psyche of the Nation. Is it a binding force ? Does it promote a multicultural society ? Does it foster a strong sense of civic pride ? This raises another question : if we need such an outdated institution to maintain national unity, what does that say about us as a Nation ?
No answers, but hopefully some clarity about the questions.


http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

Freedom of the gutter press

Watching the 2008 Max Mosley privacy case I found myself wanting both sides to lose, rather like a Liverpool supporter watching Everton versus Manchester United. But it demonstrates how fiendishly difficult it is to pick apart the issue of freedom of the press versus personal privacy.
Into this issue has stepped the prime minister. His declaration that parliament should be guardians of the line to be drawn between press freedom and privacy, rather than judges is certainly timely. His contention, quite rightly, is that parliament is elected and accountable, while judges are not. Fair enough. But a little deeper thought leads us to another conclusion – that MPs, who will eventually have to seek re-election, may be subject to the vagaries of shifting public opinion and will fail to reach rational conclusions which are in the long term interests of a civilized society. Indeed public opinion on the issue may well be being subverted by a relentless tabloid campaign to undermine the privacy laws, and these are the very organizations that stand most to gain from such a shift.
The waters are further muddied by the growth of the social media. Consider this. An injunction that gags the media, preventing them naming and ‘shaming’ individuals who have transgressed society’s norms, can deal with the press, broadcasters and, in theory the Internet. But it cannot stop ordinary, everyday gossip. It cannot stop the guy who sidles up to you in a pub or a club, saying “ ‘ere, I ‘spose you’ve ‘eard who that footballer is who’s ‘avin’ it off with XXXXXX". I suppose that the premier league footballer who is currently the subject of a super-injunction is well known to everyone involved in professional football. All I really have to do is seek out someone who knows someone who knows a professional footballer and I have my answer. Now what is the difference between such ‘legal’ gossip and the kind of gossip that speeds round the social media? The only difference is that one is faster than the other, yet the law is making a distinction. Refer to an injunctionee on Twitter or Facebook and you are in breach of the law. Discuss it in the pub and club and that’s OK. Just to illustrate, I think I know who the footballer and the TV celeb are because I have friends who know people in both professions and the same names keep coming up.
But, to return to the press, we have a further problem. The tabloids' claim that they are serving the public interest is palpably nonsense. It is nonsense for two reasons – first they are really serving the public appetite for public prurience, second they are really serving their own interests. We know that, don’t we ? So, we may want freedom of the press, but do we want freedom of the gutter press ?
There is no answer to this riddle. One’s instinct it to preserve the freedom of the press, however misused it may be by despicable hack journalists. This is because we fear the Orwellian nightmare coming to pass. But our privacy is indeed precious. Who should hold the line ? My feeling is that it should be judges, at least, that is, until politicians can command more public confidence. Then again I think there is nothing wrong with a dynamic dialogue between judges and politicians on the issue.





http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

House of Lords - swimming against the tide

Like most of us who are interested in politics I have been carried along by the seemingly unstoppable tide of opinion in favour of an elected second chamber. But just recently I have begun to lose the faith. This is partly because the current House of Lords seems to be doing a pretty good job. In fact it is looking more effective that the Lib Dem coalition leaders in blunting some of the Conservative Government's (yes I mean Conservative Government - that's what it is really) more controversial (daft in some cases) ideas - in education, health, constitutional reform etc. It is also because I am becoming jaundiced about the prospect of even more party hacks being imported to Westminster via a party list electoral system. An appointed second chamber would surely be more truly independent than a party-dominated upper house. OK we should remove the rump of hereditary peers and tidy up the appointments system, but why not an appointed second house ? I am also dismayed by the fact that all three main party leaders have, effectively, done nothing and have a very narrow experience of life. In short they are nothing more than professional politicians. How important it is, therefore, that we should have a legislature containing large numbers of activists who can bring a wide, varied experience of life to policy and law making. And, who knows, it may be that an appointed (largely non-partisan) second house might become a breeding ground for some more effective political leaders.

coalition - yet another crisis.

The coalition is, depending on your point of view, suffering a new crisis or the start of a major meltdown. Three issues in fairly rapid succession have revealed the fault lines in the alliance – tuition fees, NHS reform and now immigration policy. All three schisms, which measure high on the coalition ‘s Richter scale, have one common feature: they have been introduced with a minimum, if any, cabinet discussion. Indeed it appears that very little ministerial consultation at all has taken place. Tony Blair may well have marginalised his cabinets; Margaret Thatcher may well have bullied them, but they did at least make attempts to ‘clear’ policy with senior colleagues on the Downing Street sofa. By-passing cabinet is a dangerous business at the best of times, but when the cabinet itself is a cross-breed of two parties and when the policies in question are extremely hot potatoes, the result of such a lack of ground preparation is potentially seismic. This clearly cannot continue. Cameron and Clegg have to adopt a more considered approach to policy making, especially when policies do not appear either in party manifestos or in the coalition agreement. Rushing through the cuts programme may have been justified, but this cannot be said of the reform issues. The Government does not have a democratic mandate for such policies and so has to create one. This can only be done either through parliament or through the cabinet system. To compound the problem, the NHS reforms were unveiled without sufficient consultation with the relevant professional groups, thus further reducing their legitimacy. Of course, if we did have a highly sophisticated and pluralistic parliamentary system (as is the case in the USA), policy making could take place in the context of Westminster. But we do not. Parliament is a legislative machine, not a policy-refining body. Time then, for the return of that old friend, cabinet government. Without it the coalition may well find itself engulfed in a tsunami of resignations. (sorry for the extended metaphor, I couldn’t resist it). http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

Now is the hour

This has to be a pivotal moment in the furtunes of the Liberal Democrats. Two critical issues that now confront the Government - reform of the NHS and the banking system - may make or break the Lib Dems for the next generation. If there is a fudged and indecisive compromise on these issues the party will failt to regain any of the massive amount of political capital it has lost over tuition fees. If Norman Lamb is serious about his potential resignation, and if Vince Cable is sincere in his desire to see genuine banking reform, the leadership must now dig in its heels and force the Conservatives into open ground. The Liberal Democrats gained enormous respect, especially from a younger cohort, for their stance on Iraq. This was then thrown away. A principled and firm stance on health reform will not stem the bleeding, but it will reduce the flow. Similarly, support for the new report on reform of the banks will chime with public opinion which is possibly stronger on this issue even than on the NHS. The problem is that some leading Liberal Democrats (Clegg, Cable, Hughes) seem to have fallen in love with power and no matter how many times they are told it will 'all end in tears', as many temestuous love affairs do, they cannot extracate themselves from it. As with many a love affair, they are willing to sacrifice long term happiness and security for short term gratification. So, they must first come to their senses and then do the right thing - and they know what the right thing is. The alternative could destroy the third force in British politics for decades.

AV and John Lewis

Its a bit like this really........ You go to John Lewis to buy a sofa. Let's assume you can't go anywhere else for the sofa. You find the sofa you'd like and order it from the assistant. She tells you that it may not be in stock and it is discontinued. She offers you a choice. If there are no more of these sofas available either you can let her choose one for you, or you can select a second choice in case you can't have the first. Which option would you take ? It's a no brainer. Obviously you would make your second choice known to her. Well, you have guessed it by now. The first option is FPTP and the second is AV. ..........There you are. http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

The trouble with AV

Having spoken to quite a number of people about AV it is becoming clear that most people believe that AV is fairer than FPTP, but are fearful that it will continually reproduce the kind of political circumastance we have now - i.e. coalition that is not working as people hoped it might. This is the real battle for the 'Yes' campaign, persuading the voters that AV either does not necessarily mean coalition or can produce coalitions that work, i.e. coalitions where the junior partner is prepared to stand up for its beliefs (e.g. a Labour-Green coalition). Nick Clegg especially needs to see that. The Lib Dems' attitude to NHS reform is a good starting point. http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

defence cuts

I have just heard about the defence cuts. I note that the government has assured us that 'front line services wil not be affected'. This begs the question - if we do not really need these personnel, why did we have them in the first place ? http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

Miliband's policy free zone

Ed Miliband has attracted a good deal of (I think justified) criticism for being overly negative and having no positive things to say about the Labour way forward. One has some sympathy. It must be tempting to simply sit back and watch the coalition blow its electoral fortunes with broken promises and the necessity of presiding over a humungous hangover from the financial crisis. So why should he do anything now ? It is dangerous for him to hang on too long. Once he gains a reputation for having no policies, no direction, no leadership, he will find it ultra difficult to shake it off. The British media are like that, as we know. Even four years may not be long enough to restore his reputation. Getting married is a good idea (cynical, moi ?), to be sure, but it's not really enough. There is a relatively simple answer. He needs to ask himself again, what is Labour for ? It is for, of course, social mobility, less inequality, more oppportunity and social justice and a superb welfare state. Perhaps less obviously it also stands for micro management of the economy. Three words spring immediately to mind (no, not education, education, education, but good guess) - they are education, health, welfare. All three aimed at raising aspirations and creating opportunities. Labour must restore all these, better than it will be by 2015, better than it was even in New Labour's best days. Add to those state led support and encouragement for key industries - technology, ICT, high value manufacturing, knowledge, biotechnology, medicine, media, arts, entertainment, finance (well, OK, problems there for Labour), higher education, research and development, high grade engineering (NOT arms) and the like. Now that is a plan. How to pay for them - through high growth and fairer taxation. OK, OK, it will not all be attainable, but it is a PLAN ! http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

John Reid's AV errors

We really must have a critical look at John Reid’s recent assertions about the AV voting system, both verbally and in the Telegraph (fortunately he is probably preaching to the converted through that medium.). He says it is obscure. Well, it is rare, I grant you, but obscure suggests difficult to understand. Tosh. All a voter has to do is put a 1,2,3 etc. instead of a cross. The voter does not have to understand how to count it ! He says it is expensive. Rot. Where is the additional expense (after the one-off cost of the necessary information campaign to tell people how to vote) ? The ballot papers will be virtually identical to current ones, with only the instructions changed, and counting takes a little longer. Hardly a major expense, especially when one Tomahawk missile lobbed into Libya costs £100,000 apparently. He says that voters for small parties like the BNP are advantaged because their second preferences will be used before those of supporters of large parties. This is factually true, but their second preference only counts once. They do not have any great advantage and they only have one vote realistically because their first vote is a complete waste. Using the BNP example is also emotive. What about those nice Green people ? Surely we won’t begrudge them a proper say in the result ? No, the results in most constituencies where there is no outright winner will be determined by the second preferences of supporters of larger parties (i.e. the party likely to come third). He says it is not a fair system. Possibly. But it is a million times fairer than first past the post. Under FPTP about 70-80% of votes are, in practice, totally worthless. These are all the votes in safe seats where the result is a foregone conclusion, and votes for parties which have no chance of winning in a particular constituency. The votes of those who support the Lib Dems are hugely less valuable than those who vote for Labour or the Conservatives. Reid has also talked about sacrificing the principle of ‘one person one vote’. Nonsense. We would be exchanging one person, one vote for ‘one person several votes’. Which is preferable ? Churchill said that democracy was the least bad political system. AV could be said to be the least bad electoral system. They all have flaws. FPTP has probably the most. Of course there is a valid case to be made for avoiding the possible political outcomes of AV (more hung parliaments and coalitions), but the case for fairness is won by AV hands down. http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

For Ivory Coast read first past the post

As we know the 'President' of the Ivory Coast refused to accept the fact that he lost the last election because more people voted for his opponent than for him. Ridiculous, obviously. But every British Government since 1945 'lost' the general election in that more people voted against them than for them. Back to the Ivory Coast then......




http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

Theresa Coffey MP

I attended at the weekend a political meeting in Southwold. a pretty local affair really. The townspeople of that sulubrious and well heeled resort in Suffolk, plus the second homers etc. are objecting to the practice of Russian oil tankers using the seas a few miles off the beach to anchor with large quantities of oil on board, waiting for favourable market conditions when they will ship it out for sale at higher prices. Oil is also transferred there from small tankers from the Baltic into giant ocean going vessels. Sole Bay, where this happens, is apparently the ideal place with its relatively calm seas (you could have fooled me - the surf on the beach can be frightening. The point is, of course, if there is an accident the consequent oil spillage might despoil many miles of coastline which are vitla for tourism, the local economy (right down to Orford Ness) and the many sites of special scientific interest and bird habitats such as Minsmere. Where was I ? Oh yes. Dr Coffey, the MP for the area turned up to try to allay the fears of the locals. Not only did she fail, but it became absolutely clear that she is a career politician rather than a constituency MP. Though the locals want the practice banned, she seemed to take the side of the Government (she is a Conservative) against her own constituency. Well fair enough in a way, we know there are often conflicts of interest of this kind for MPs, but this makes one wonder what MPs are for. The solution may lie in the Additional Member System (AMS) as used in Scotland, Wales, London and Germany. MPs there are either elected for a constituency or elected by PR off a party list. If we adopted AMS for Westminster at least we would know whom our MPs are supposed to be representing. In the meantime, the Russians will probably have their way.



http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

I was wrong

I think I was wrong a few posts ago when I suggested there was no way back for the Lib Dems after tuition fees. The recent party vote to oppose the NHS reforms is a way back - perhaps. Like the forests, the NHS is a sacred cow and any proposals for reform will be treated with some public trepidation and hostility, whether or not they are sensible and justified. Now will the Lib Dem leadership find its backbone and confront Lanslet and co ? If they duck this one, it really will look as though the thrill of power is too much for them. Nick Clegg is looking increasingly isolated. here is a chance for him to re-connect. I suspect he may well bottle it. he may, of course, support the reforms.Mmmmmm....




http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

AV - still worth a try

The apparent demise of the Lib Dems suggests that introducing AV will be a futile gesture for those wishing to break the two party system. If, as now seems inevitable, Lib Dem support drops down close to 10% even AV will not stop the massacre in 2015. But AV is still worth pursuing for a couple of reasons.

First it will legitimise the election of every MP, guaranteeing them at least some kind of majority. True, the chances are that, with a Lib Dem meltdown, many more MPs will achieve 50% of their vote at the next election, even under first past the post, but AV means all of them will.

Second, with a new electoral system in place, the political system will be ready for any new third force to emerge. This may be a revatalised Lib Dems or possibly a surging Green Movement (OK it also may be an undesirable right wing party, but at least it will expose them more effectively to some kind of accaountability). If legitimised by a referendum AV would not be repealed, evn if it were thought to be unnecessary. So, let's keep it for the future.

Sadly, from a personal point of view, it's not going to happen. A no vote now looks a near certainty.

Barnsley By Election

Well I suppose we have seen it all before - a governing party's support melting down at a by election, usually during hard economic times. And so it was in Barnsley. Question - was the humiliation suffered by the LIb Dems of a differnt quality to historic government defeats ? I think there is a case for saying it was and that it will be of long term significance for the third party. There are two reasons for saying this.

First, it is the third party, not one of the two main parties. Liberals and Lib Dems have done poorly in the past, especially when 'squeezed out' by a clear two party contest. But in the recent past Barnsley has been a Labour-Lib Dem contest (an uneven one to be sure, but still a two party contest) with the Conservatives squeezed out. Yet normally third parties are treated sympatheticaly by the electorate at by lecetions. Not so in Barnsley. Second it is hard to see how the Liberal Democrats can recover. If the economy improves, it will be the Conservatives who will reap the benefit. If the Lib Dems were to wring a major concession from their Conservative masters, perhaps they would gain the public's admiration, but what could such a issue be ? There are no more constitutional reforms to be fought for, no reforms of the banking system or realignment of the tax burden. The Lib Dems loook to be at the wrong end of a cul de sac. Of course if there is a no vote on AV in May, matters will go from bad to worse. Without voting reform, we could legitimately ask, 'what was it all for'. A pact with the devil where the devil conceded virtually nothing ?

One factor remains in their favour - the Conservatives cannot afford a general election before the economy shows real signs of recovery, giving rom for some tax cutting and/or reflationary policies. A doomed Liberal Democrat Party might decide that, if they are to sink, they might as well take the whole crew down with them. Conservatives will be aware of this and may, just may, decide to throw some bones in the direction of their pet to try to stop them despairing too quickly.

But, yes, this looks like the beginning of the end for the Lib Dems, or is it the end of the beginning of the restoration of two party politics in England ?

Cameron and the Big Society

If we ask ourselves whether the Big Society is a genuine repositioning of conservative ideology we run into an immediate difficulty, which is that it is difficult to disentangle ideological development from the exigencies of the government's policy of frontloading expenditure cuts to bring public finances back into acceptabel limits. But we can have a go

So is Cameron a policy innovator ?

Well, yes in a number of ways :

First is is re-introducing marketisation along the lines of the Thatcher period and the early years of Major's government. (NHS, local government services etc.)

Second he is clearly attracted by American neo liberalism (private sector good, public sector bad)

Third he follows the American populist (Tea Party) preference for decentralisation (though, ironically, change is being driven from the centre) and community-based social action.

Fourth he recoils from economic and industrial micro management.

Fifth his declaration that multiculturalism should be replaced by integrationism is certainly an ideological initiative.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, his late conversion to the Duncan Smith agenda on social security represents a movement towards American style carrot and stick welfare policy, with the emphasis on stick.

The clear theme here is a movement towards American neo conservatism and neo liberalism. The three elements of conservative policy that are less clear consist firstly of policy towards rights (does he want more or less of them - he can't make up his mind. Possibly one rare example of Lib Dem infleunce). Secondly he appears confused on constitutional reform. It seems a totally contradictory position to oppose electoral reform but support a second chamber eleceted by PR. Thirdly he is content to raise tacxation to help deal with the deficit. A true conservative neo liberal would not even consider such a policy.

If we strip out the contradictory elements of his ideological position, caused by the demands of deficit reduction and the need to be aware of Lib Dem sensitivities, he looks to be moving determindly in one direction - towards a U.S-style society as envisaged by Margaret Thatcher. For Big Society, read American Society.

Now, looking at the dangerous polarisation of U.S. politics, we may be in for a rocky road - back to the 1980s ?

http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01

Ed Miliband and foreign policy.

So Labour is looking for some momentum ? Try a new declaration on ethical foreign policy. The near supine Ed Miliband needs to seize the moment ! Has he the vision ?

Cameron in Eqypt

Watching David Cameron visiting Egypt recently and then going on to Kuwait etc. put me in mind of watching the opera 'Nixon in China' on a direct feed from the New York Met (didn't like the music but a fascinating story and libretto). Nixon's visit, at the height of the Cold War, though well intentioned, was a failure. This was largely because there was a complete mismatch of cultures. While mao wanted to talk philosophy, Nixon was interested in trade and geo politics. Pat Nixon behaved like a tourist but did not have any of the reference points to understand Chinese culture.
I therefore wondered how much understanding Cameron can possibly have of the current state of North Africa and the Middle East. Above all, can his conception of liberal democracy have any meaning for states which have never experienced it and which have underdeveloped civil societies. Furthermore these societies are imbued, to a great or lesser extent, with their own versions of Islamic value systems which are bound to inform the final political settlements that they will ultimately achieve (one hopes).

A clue as to Cameron and his advisers' naivety lies in his choice of travelling companions. The appearance of arms salesmen can send only one message - that we are not really especially interested in your political future as long as you will trade with us. What possessed him to despoil his visit in this way ? The timing certainly looks good, but the message has an unpleasant odour. Furthermore, it may well be that protesters in these countries are actually being killed and maimed with British-made weapons. This suspicion will be lost on those who will populate the new regimes. Protesting that 'promises and undertakings ' will be sought to ensure the weapons will not be used for internal political control is meaningless. By their very nature, autocratic regimes do not tell the truth and do not honour their undertakings - that is why they are autocratic regimes.

Nixon had Kissinger with him so at least he probably understood why his visit failed. Where is Cameron's Kissinger ?

U turns

It is a well known truth that one person'schange of policy is a humiliating climb down but to another, is an example of a sensitive government listening to public opinion and being prepared to alter its policies accordingly. Fine. The mistake the govermment has been making is to draft legislation first, frighten everyone to death and then change its mind when there is furious opposition. I hear that the NHS reforms were not even reported to Cabinet before they were made public. New policies and ideas need to be consulted on, floated to the public and then either dropped or pursued. That seems to be the mature way to go about decision making. I have some sympathy in that, once the coalition had agreed to frontload the expenditure cuts and savings, it was bound to be forced to make fast decisions. And of course we could plagiarise the well known maxim by saying 'make policy in haste, repent at leisure'. The root of the problem therefore is the speed with which the government is seeking to stabilise public finances. In time for 2015 perhaps or am I too cynical ?

ethical foreign policy

The fires of protest now sweeping North Africa and the Middle East must lead to a new initiative on an ethical foreign policy. New Labour had one but it faded out in the early years of the century. We must now make our position on human rights absolutely clear. No weapons, no comfort, no deals with regimes that are prepared to kill their own people. This may damage the UK economy in the short term, but we will save our souls. I know the current government hates micro management of the economy, but time to shift resources away from arms towards green technologies, bio technology and communications. We will be able to afford an ethical foreign policy if we beceom less dependent on oil and weapons exports.

http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01

have a conversation

The celebrated conservative political philosopher, Michael Oakeshott, once said that "politics should be a conversation, not an argument" he also went on to add that all political actions should be carried out with regard to the intimations and traditions of the people.

The coalition government should have taken heed of Oakeshott when developing the policy of selling of the national forest. There was no conversation and they forgot about the British love for its trees. The government should beware in case the same befalls its NHS reform, on which there was little or no consultation; and you meddle with the NHS at your peril. Nick Clegg and many Lib Dems also ignored the advice even when it was clear that the huge hike in tuition fees were almost universally umpopular.

And you can stop smirking at the back of the class, Labour politicians. Gordon's Brown's assault on pensions, private and state, has not been readily forgotten. A fundamental rule for politicians has to be, do not offend the middle aged and elederly. They are the people who go out to vote ! And certainly defend pensions; they are precious to everyone. The young, understandably, may not care so much about pensions, but most of them don't vote.

Margaret Thatcher was as guilty as any (though I doubt she ever read Oakeshott - Hayek and Friedman were her bedtime companions). She will go to her grave believing the poll tax was good policy, but it doesn't matter. She flew in the face of the British people's love of fairness- in taxation and all things.

I suppose we can defend Blair and Iraq. He admitted it was not popular, but merely said he believed it was right. Well, OK, but he had to expect what he got - the destruction of his political reputation.

So, time, I think, to re-discover Oakeshott. The problem is, are current politicians sufficiently in touch with reality to have a meaningful conversation with the public ?

Pots calling kettles black

I notice that David Cameron, when launching his no to AV campaign, said that he opposed AV because it is unfair. Now this seems illogical. The reason for dumping first past the post (fptp) is that it is unfair. So if the prime minister opposes unfair electoral systems, does this mean he opposes BOTH AV and FPTP ? I think this is the wrong tack. AV is opposable because it may produce indecisive results of the kind we saw in May 2010, but when a supporter of fptp calls AV 'unfair', I spy pots and black kettles.

See short comments now on Twitter, dial up Neil McNaughton

http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01

The paradox of the Big Society

The Big Society idea is designed to reduce the role of the state in civil society and, in its place, increase popular participation.

The paradox is that an atempt is being made create this new civic culture through the very state it is meant to replace !.

Cultural change of this kind needs two things - first it needs time. You cannot change the civic culture in a few years, it is generational in nature. Second it must be bottom-up, not top-down change. Nobody is going to volunteer, create voluntary associations, participate or exercise democratic rights because central government tells them to. They wil do it because they want to or they have to.

Fortunately, there is an already highly developed civic culture and sociaty in the UK so we should not worry when this policy withers, as it surely will (anybody remember John Major's 'back to basics' campaign in the 1990s ?).

If it ain't broke.......

Two traditional conservative maxims are:

'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'.

'Exchange the known for the unknown only with extreme caution'

Now let's ask what the NHS and the British forest have in common ?

Neither are without their problems and both may have been the subject of some overspending, but I was under the impression they have been improving on virtually all measures.

You can figure the rest.

http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01

Come off it, Lord Phillips

Lord Phillips has been complaining that the fact the administrative functions of the Supreme Court may compromise the court's independence. This looks like extreme paranoia.

The idea that a government might put pressure on the Supreme Court Justices over any decision by threatening them with reduced funding for their clerks, transcribers and admin managers is smply unrealistic.

Judicial independence is now so firmly established that it would take an earthquake to reverse it.

http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01

Votes for lags

I just can't get excited about votes for prisoners.

My overwhelming feeling is the prisoners themselves are hardly likely to care very much. After all, if you are in the nick, surely you are more worried about things like snout, drugs, falling out with 'Mr Big', getting out, what to do when you get out. How many will actually vote ?

On a more serious, cenceptual note, we accept that prisoners have forfeited some extremely basic rights - freedom of movement, association, expression (partially) by their activities. Why should the right to vote (surely less crucial for prisoners) be singled out for special protection ?

And anyway, prisoners can still write to an MP or NACRO or similar if they have a grievance.

Ho hum
http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01