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.
Tuesday 31 May 2011
Monday 30 May 2011
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.
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.
Monday 23 May 2011
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.
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.
Thursday 19 May 2011
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.
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.
Sunday 15 May 2011
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.
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.
Friday 13 May 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday 10 May 2011
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 ?
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 ?
Monday 9 May 2011
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.
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.
Thursday 5 May 2011
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.
Wednesday 4 May 2011
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.
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.
Sunday 1 May 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)