The Football Association and Trident

So what on earth is the link between the English Football Association (or perhaps FIFA) and Trident? The answer is simple....well not that simple. The issue about Trident renewal often boils down to the apparently contradictory principle that Trident is a weapon that can never be used but which nevertheless is believed to be a deterrent. ..and some of its supporters actually state that they would never use it. How can this be? Perhaps a way of solving this apparent conundrum is to consider the case of the Football Association (FA) and the practice of many top footballers of removing their shirts when they score a goal. Some wave them about, some throw them into the crowd and some just put them on again when they have emerged from the heap of players who fall on top of them. Why do they do this? They never used to ‘in the old days’ after all. I suspect it is because they are anxious to show off their impressive torsos in search of a lucrative underwear modelling contract. It cannot be to attract women as their humungously large salaries should do that for them...but I digress. I have not gone mad – there is a link with the Trident issue. The FA do not approve of the practice of shirt removal and want it stopped ( can’t imagine why, it seems rather harmless, but that’s the FA for you – killjoys). To demonstrate their disapproval referees are instructed to issue a yellow card when it happens. Sadly this has not proved a deterrent (ah a glimmer of light). Players do not especially fear yellow cards unless they get two in a match in which case they will be sent off (one player once did remove his shirt twice in a game and was thus dismissed – his manager was less than pleased to say the least). Now, if the FA are serious about stopping shirt removals they can do so at a stroke. Simply instruct referees to issue a red card if a player takes off his shirt after scoring ( a goal, that is, not with his WAG). The practice will immediately stop. No player would risk the ire of his manager and team mates by getting himself sent off for something so trivial. So the red card would be an effective deterrent just as the yellow is not. Thing is, the red card sounds very harsh, but IT WOULD NEVER BE USED. However, the red card will have to continue as a threat or the shirts will start coming off again. I can leave you to figure the rest. I rest my case.

Is the EU more democratic than the UK?

It is almost a pronouncement of faith that the EU is less democratic than, for example, the UK, but does this common assertion stand up to scrutiny? Not necessarily so and the current round of talks on reform instituted by the British government informs us a great deal on this issue. To begin with the criticism that the EU’s policy and decision making bodies, the Commission and the Council, are unelected and unaccountable. This is undeniably true, though the ministers are accountable to their own parliaments and ultimately their people. In the UK the executive operates with a large army of unelected civil servants and advisers while the government itself was elected by only a little over 20% of the qualified electorate (taking into account a turnout of little over 65%). It will not be accountable to the electorate until 2020 and Parliament is showing itself remarkably ineffective in this regard. While on the subject of elections, half the UK Parliament is not elected at all. If we look at regional politics, in the UK the Conservative government can hardly be said to represent the national and sub central regions. The government has no seats in Northern Ireland, one in Scotland and a handful in Wales. Similarly it is in a minority in London seats and has about a third of the seats north of Birmingham. By contrast the EU has mechanisms in place – majority or unanimous voting – that ensure that all the nations of Europe can have their say and can influence final decisions. The current deal being negotiated will require the unanimous approval of all member states. Unlike Scotland, no member country will be forced to accept a change it does not like. In a few months Scotland and Wales might be forced to leave the EU against their will. How democratic is that? Turning to the two parliaments, the EU parliament (Increasingly influential incidentally) lacks a majority for the electorate. Different political groupings can influence in the Parliament by joining alliances with others on specific issues. The European executive cannot bulldoze measures through the parliament by using a secure majority. No such thing exists. The result is that consensus politics rules in the EU Parliament. In the UK, by contrast, as long as government has a Commons majority (based on a popular minority) it can almost guarantee that all its legislation will pass virtually unhindered. So the assumption that, if all the UK’s powers are repatriated we will enjoy greater democracy, cannot be sustained. EU democracy remains highly imperfect, but set against the UK’s democratic deficit, it looks rather more attractive.

Ten years to save the Labour Party

Labour would do well to accept that it will be out of power for at least the next ten years. This may prove to be a blessing in disguise if it handles this reality properly. The upcoming May series of elections may help the party to understand its predicament (predicament is a kind word). It seems to me it must now take a number of steps to survive in the long term: 1. The party will have to split. The new left, ’Corbynite’ grouping must be uncoupled from mainstream centre-left Labour. 2. The new centre-left party (probably called Social Democrats, leaving the title ‘Labour’ for the left wing rump of the party) must amalgamate with the Liberal Democrats. It would be ridiculous to have two parties with an almost identical ideological stance competing against one another. 3. This new Social (Liberal) Democrat party will have to make common cause with the Greens, Plaid Cymru and the SNP, stopping short of amalgamation, as these other three parties need to retain their identity. This would prevent them allying with the old Labour left. 4. The new party will have to identify early those people who are potential future leaders. The discredited ‘not so old guard’ of the likes of Burnham, Cooper, Watson etc. must be marginalised in favour of a new cohort, perhaps the likes of Jarvis and Kinnock. 5. The new party would have to accept all the errors made by Labour under Blair and Brown and simply state it will not repeat them. 6. It should concentrate on a few absolutely key issues for the electorate. Among them should be : • Saving the NHS – its principles and its funding. • Increasing spending on education, especially to improve opportunities for school leavers. • Tackling effectively the inequalities in the tax system, especially the affairs of large companies and wealthy individuals. • Reducing taxes, local and national, on small and medium sized businesses. • Introduce the ‘citizens’ income’ now being trialled in Finland • Guaranteeing a generous living wage for all. • Outlawing most zero hours contracts. • Investing in infrastructure, especially outside the South-East, using quantitative easing. • Locking itself into fiscal restraints • Guaranteeing more effective controls over non-EU immigration, while accepting a fair share of asylum seekers and genuine refugees. • Taking steps to disengage the UK from the affairs of the Middle East and North Africa. • Restore spending on policing to pre 2010 levels. • Preserve the BBC as a high quality public service broadcaster • Dedicate more resources to care of the elderly That’s fourteen policies that conform to Labour’s traditional ideology and which can be supported by the vast majority of the people of the UK. There are trickier issues on constitutional reform, defence and welfare, for example, but a clear message on these core key issues would restore much confidence in the party that should occupy the centre ground of politics in the UK. The Beckett approach – keep on with the old policies but present them more effectively - will not do. Nor will burying the party’s head in the sand over its past errors. Whatever one’s own political preferences, it is vital that the UK returns to having an effective second party both to ensure government is accountable and to provide a realistic alternative.

My Country Right Or Left revisited.

Jeremy Corbyn would do well to have a look at George Orwell’s celebrated essay, My Country Right Or Left. Orwell argued in all his works that socialism was and should be a visceral sentiment. In this work, written in 1940 just as world war two threatened to overwhelm the country, he also asserted that without a sense of passion, socialists will simply not have the guts to carry through their ideas into practice. More controversially he argued that patriotism is a vital emotion even for socialists. If one does not have pride in one’s own country, how can one have sufficient motivation to establish socialism in it? This is how he puts it : ....but I would sooner have that kind of upbringing [with patriotic ideals] than be like left wing intellectuals who are so ‘enlightened’ that they cannot understand the most ordinary emotions. It is exactly the people whose hearts have never leapt at the sight of a union jack who will flinch from revolution. Orwell is careful to point out that patriotism is not the same as conservatism, though the two are often hand maidens. The desire to preserve those things that make us feel ‘British’ (Orwell preferred the term, ‘English’) is not necessarily reactionary, it can simply be the product of our upbringing or a desire to improve the lot of our fellow citizens. Even international socialists (and Orwell was one of these too) can justify patriotic feelings, provided, of course they involve pride in values that we would wish to see adopted throughout the world, values such as social justice, tolerance and a love of liberty. Though these may not be associated with Britain’s colonial history, they have certainly become part of our post colonial identity. In his many warnings about the dangers of totalitarianism, Orwell has also reminded us that, without patriotic feeling, love of one’s country becomes love of the state and that road leads to the dystopia he describes in Nineteen-Eighty-Four. Jeremy Corbyn and his cohort may well be falling into the trap of failing to distinguish between country and state.

Labour talking to itself - again

I was interested to read the summary of Margaret Beckett’s recent analysis of why Labour lost the last election. Before commenting on it I think it worth noting that the errors made by the opinion polls were almost certainly a contributory factor in the surprise result, with people fearing a hung parliament and a Labour-SNP alliance, so something needs to be done about the polls to ensure they are carried out more accurately. I could introduce the idea of a conspiracy here because all the polling organisations seem to have made the same basic error – strange that, but, like most conspiracy theories, it is probably wrong. Moving on: The causes of Labour’s defeat are predictable enough – Miliband’s performance and image, perceptions of Labour’s economic competence, fear of an SNP coalition etc. – but that is not really the point, I think. The point is that Beckett’s report is making a classic error. It is an example of politicians talking to each other rather that to the country. Above all the report seems to say that it was perceptions of Labour that were wrong and there was no real substance to them. This implies that the fault for Labour’s defeat lay with the voters’ misconceptions, rather than Labour’s own failings. Take Miliband’s leadership. There is a suggestion here that Miliband actually did well and would have been a good prime minister but that the voters didn’t realise this. Now, most of us who are neutral and can take an objective view , would agree that Miliband did not do well and showed every sign of being a weak prime minister. If we had any doubts, his support for the idea of the ‘tombstone’ of Labour policies proved his poor judgment. I think it was Berthold Brecht, commenting on the East German communist regime, who suggested that the regime would have liked to change the people before it would allow any form of popular democracy and, being unable to do that, it could not allow the people to have any influence. In a mild form, the Beckett; reform suggests the only way Labour could win is if the people themselves were reformed and could ‘see the light.’ The world is not like that. The people are the people, the media are the media and politicians have to live with them. It will not do simply to bleat that ’nobody understands us’

Dishonourable honours

I am far from alone in thinking this years’ honours list a disgrace but let’s start with a quiz. Look at the following honours available and work out what they letters stand for. Having done that, place the honours in order of merit, starting at the bottom. Before you start it is worth noting that the actual lowest form of honour is an invitation to the Queen’s garden party. There you would get a cup of tea, some sort of cake and sandwiches and you are unlikely to meet the Queen herself, though you will have a chat with one of her servants. Sadly you pay your own fare to London. A relative of mine has received this honour this year. She is a Work and Pensions civil servant in Leeds and for over thirty years she has been a major organiser (voluntarily – no pay) to the sporting and recreational life of the offices up there. This involves her in many hours of selfless work week after week so how delighted she must be to be offered a cup of tea and a sandwich and a possible distant glimpse of the Queen in recognition. Now for the honours. See how many you can get : CH, OM, Kt,DCB,KCB,CB,DBE,CBE,OBE,MBE,BEM. A clue is that if you take the official order then turn it upside down you will probably have an accurate rank order of how much the recipients deserve their honours. As a tiebreaker question, what does the E stand for and can you explain where the E is? If there is still a tie explain why bubbly Carry On actress Barbara Windsor has been made a dame for services to acting (sic.) and charity (she does a bit), whereas Benedict Cumberbatch, who works tirelessly for charities and is arguably Britain’s greatest current actor in a strong field, is not granted a knighthood. The eye watering absurdity of it all is plain to see even without thinking about Lynton Crosby and the head of HMRC and serial failure, Lin Margaret. And we haven’t yet considered peerages. Their waters are even murkier. So what can we put in place of the honours system? There are two answers. One is do away with them all. The other is to introduce a single honour like France’s Legion d’Honneur which is reserved only for services to the community outside of a persons’ normal occupation. Sorry A.P McCoy, Denis Law (Denis Law????) and the lady who does Taekwondo but they are your normal occupations so you’d be out. Fortunately there is no money in it (apart from peerages) so anyone who has ‘bought’ their honour, more fool them. By definition, if your vanity is so highly inflated that you want to spend money on it then you don’t deserve it anyway, the honour is hollow and you know it, a bit like playing golf alone and cheating. Does it matter? Probably not but it is REALLY annoying isn’t it? And I am not saying that because I didn’t get one yet again. Go on honours committee – give me one just to prove me wrong. I’ll take an OBE.

Parliament - A new golden age?

The period between the first and second reform acts in the nineteenth century is often described as the golden age of parliament. This was because both houses were characterised by shifting parties and factions, with many other radical MPs thrown in so that every vote was hard fought over. Party discipline was weak and no administration could feel itself secure in securing its legislation. Furthermore it was an age of great orators, men who were capable of influencing a vote through the sheer force of their argument and the quality of their rhetoric. The result was that governments were forced to seek a consensus over each individual issue. This model of parliamentary politics can also be frequently seen in the USA, though it often results there in deadlock rather than consensus. Perhaps it is not too fanciful to suggest we are now entering a new golden era. It may, of course, turn out to be short lived, little more than a mini-era, , but we can hopefully enjoy it while the going is good. Two examples illustrate this. The first was the Lords’ rejection of the reduction in working tax credits, a decision that was confirmed in Osborne’s latest spending review. By the way, on that subject, the normally sure footed Osborne missed a trick, I think, by not accepting that he had been persuaded by the force of argument rather than claiming that he had accidentally discovered more money he didn’t know he had. It would have been more politically astute, I feel. The second was, of course, the Commons debate on intervention in Syria. Maybe we have become too cynical about the behaviour of MPs (with good cause in many cases). To hear some of the excellent speeches, Benn’s in particular, and, to see members visibly moved by the debate and the issue, was indeed striking and heart warming. We live in an age of a perfect parliamentary storm, I suppose. A government with a fragile majority, leading a party that is in garrulous mood with splits over foreign policy, Europe and austerity, a fragmented opposition and a completely hung House of Lords which is in the mood to defy the government if it feels like it – witness the recent amendment to allow 16 and 17 years olds to vote on the EU referendum, against government policy. The cabinet may have the devil of a job to overturn the amendment in the Commons, even if it is in the mood to try. Consensus building is an art form and it looks like the government is going to have to learn it fast. They did, however, make a very good start over the Syrian issue.