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

TWATANS

TWATANS
This may not seem at first ‘political’, but wait until the end.
I have been desperately searching for an acronym for a seemingly growing number of people in British society whose practices suggest that they have a mindset which places them outside or above the norms of behaviour of most of society. They include :
· (obviously) investment bankers and senior company executives who pay themselves or as for huge rewards not directly relate to performance. Apparently the size of these payouts in relation to average earnings in the companies has spiked alarmingly in recent years. They clearly believe that it is acceptable behaviour. The norm is for people to be rewarded reasonably for success but not excessively and certainly not at the expense of other employees who may work just as hard and effectively in their own sphere.
· People who own fast, powerful cars (premier league footballers are often in this group), think it acceptable to drive at high speed when over the alcohol limit, and then attempt to escape by hiring an expensive loophole lawyer to get them off, having endangered many lives. It is a norm of society not to drive excessively fast or when under the influence or both.
· Comedians who think it is acceptable to insult and degrade totally innocent people in the name of ‘humour’. Most people do not gratuitously insult people they don’t know.
· Journalists who think it is OK to destroy people’s privacy and/or reputation to further their own career and to sell papers. Most of us respect the privacy of others and expect ours to be respected too.
· Politicians who steal taxpayers money in the name of expenses and think it is OK if it ‘technically’ falls within the ‘rules’. Most people do not steal even when they have a safe opportunity to do so.
· The very wealthy who think it is OK not to pay taxes (legally or illegally) as the rest of society does. Most believe tax should be based, either strictly or loosely, on the ability to pay. On the whole those who evade or avoid tax most voraciously have the greatest ability to pay.
The best I could come up with is Those Who Adjudge Themselves Above the Norms of Society – TWATANS.

Here is the political bit. Governments often lecture, cajole and even legislate us into not smoking tobacco, using narcotics, drinking excessive alcohol, becoming obese etc. Perhaps there should be a campaign appealing for such people to act within society’s norms.
I think a simple test is this. ‘If most people behaved in one of the ways described above, society would soon disintegrate’. It is thus not acceptable for individuals to behave outside the norms because most are operating within those norms. I think it was Lord (Geoffrey) Howe who said something like , ‘ the test of a stable democratic and just society is whether people conform to its norms of behaviour, whether or not they are coerced into doing so by law’

But.....we may have to put up with them.



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