Unlike the invasion of Iraq, I supported the war against Afghanistan.
The attack was justified because of the Taliban’s protection of Al Qaeda following the 9/11 outrage. The terrorist attacks were one of the worst experienced by the UK; we lost 67 citizen, more that the Tube bombing four years later.
At the time the Taliban regime show a stupid, almost arrogant contempt of the US Administration. The failure to give over Osama Bin Laden was a monumental mistake.
Although, it felt at the time that President Bush’s actions were slow and considered, there seems to be very little planning for the aftermath of the war.
The American puppet, Hamid Karzai, is weak and corrupt and the NATO forces have been saddled with too many war aims; soldiers have been involved with security, construction, education services, anti-narcotic operations and nation building.
However, the most important of these aims is security. Outside of Kabul, the Allied forces have very little control, and this is after seven years of occupation. Any ground taken during the Summer has inevitably been relinquished during the Winter - although they tell us is going to be different this time. We can only hope this is correct.
One of the worst things that we are doing in Afghanistan is destroying the Poppy crop, the source of a good living for the farmers.
Boris Johnson recently highlighted the folly of this approach; as he rightly puts it, why are we cultivating Poppy crops in Oxfordshire and destroying them in Afghanistan?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/5814860/Its-poppycock-to-grow-crops-here-but-destroy-them-in-Afghanistan.html
We are not going to win hearts and minds with this approach.
So my prescription is that we abandon the anti-narcotic aim and draw up NHS contracts to actually buy in the Poppy crop.
Amongst the other aims we now need to re-focus and concentrate on security as the first priority.
Insofar as we should get involved in nation building we should not be doing this simply through NATO. Most of our allies who have cowered and prospered under the umbrella of NATO have simply not put up the troops to assist the US and UK forces.
We therefore need to turn to those nations who have hitherto been supporting the insurgency and bribe them with an exchange of power and control. We need to invite both Iran and Russia and maybe even China to help with putting in the infrastructure; Afghanistan is just a mass of dirt tracks and it needs roads before it needs (say) education services. We also need to revive efforts in bringing back the majority of the Taliban into the Afghan government; this should be on the proviso that they never allow terrorist training camps on their land in the future.
This approach is not risk-free; with every year that passes the situation in Afghanistan is actually getting far, far worse.
The reality is that the UK and the US are running out of money, and, in the past this has usually meant an early withdrawal. This remains the most likely, and deeply unsatisfactory, outcome.
Monday, 10 August 2009
Sunday, 19 July 2009
The Right To Die
Who leads your life? The State? The Church? Or Yourself?
In the past, it was the Church that dictated so much of a person's life; spiritually, morally and communally.
Life, was something sacred; it was God given. Therefore, the individual’s ultimate power, the decision to end his life, was nothing short of a crime, a felo de se. The crime was a publishable offence, and the felon would have his burial on unconsecrated ground, typically at a crossroads with a stake driven through his heart.
A much more sympathetic approach is taken nowadays. However, being helped to end your life still remains unacceptable to the State.
The reason for this is down to a few powerful lobby groups which, time and again, prevent a change in the law.
The Church still has a dead hand on the affairs of the State and does not hesitate to inflict their views on the sanctity of life – even where it affects people who do not even believe in God.
The other lobby groups are disabled charities; generally the proponents are convinced that Euthanasia is one step away from Eugenics. They make a false equivalence between a weak body and a weak mind. The best possible counter example is Diane Pretty. She took her case for assisted suicide to the High Court and on to the European Court, such was her psychological strength in seeking justice for her partner. She failed – although some would say that the system failed her.
At the same time as these lobby groups preventing a change in the law, the reality is that we already have tacit assisted suicide in the UK.
Generally, this occurs through the administration of morphine, dressed up as palliative care.
A similar dichotomy between law and practice exists when it comes to taking a relative abroad to help them to die at the Swiss Dignitas clinic.
Recently, Lord Falconer proposed a measure in the House of Lords, which would have given such relatives immunity from prosecution. In practice, although such cases are investigated, they never lead to a prosecution.
Therefore, one would have thought it would not be difficult to put the measure through the House of Lords.
Not so. In a free vote the House of Lords defeated the amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill by 194 to 141.
Consequently, anyone helping a loved one travel on what would otherwise be a very lonely, final journey, would be at risk of prosecution. Their only comfort being - a reassuring nudge and a wink from the prosecution service! Is that really how we want to conduct this kind of desperate, emotionally charged, situation?
The Church and some disabled groups have inflicted their own morality and own life experience on to the life experience of other people. We are led to believe that the person choosing to end their life are always vulnerable, and at the mercy of iniquitous relatives. The reality is invariably different
Individuals may choose to end their lives for any number of reasons. It might be because of a terminal illness. It might be that they consider themselves to be a burden on their family. It might be because they do not want to be in a world without their partner e.g. consider the case of Sir Edward Downes who was losing his sight and hearing chose to die alongside his terminally ill wife at Dignitas; nota bene, both did not have any religious beliefs.
We should not over-revere life for life’s sake. For the great majority of us, life is not for the glory of God, it is merely an end in itself.
Life is precious, but who ultimately decides it’s value? The individual concerned? The Church? The State?
Speaking personally, as someone who loves life, I now find the sting of death fairly muted. As time goes on, I re-valuate my life – in my teenage years I feared death. Since then I have experienced love, and indeed experienced a great deal more – I find myself in a state of (in all honesty) having had my fill. If I had a terminal illness, it might just be that I would consider doing my own living will – something unthinkable twenty years ago.
Naturally, it is important that safeguards are put in place in any law legalising Euthanasia, but fundamentally we need to recognise the individual is sovereign over their own life. We need to come of age, we need to grasp that final, ultimate responsibility.
In the past, it was the Church that dictated so much of a person's life; spiritually, morally and communally.
Life, was something sacred; it was God given. Therefore, the individual’s ultimate power, the decision to end his life, was nothing short of a crime, a felo de se. The crime was a publishable offence, and the felon would have his burial on unconsecrated ground, typically at a crossroads with a stake driven through his heart.
A much more sympathetic approach is taken nowadays. However, being helped to end your life still remains unacceptable to the State.
The reason for this is down to a few powerful lobby groups which, time and again, prevent a change in the law.
The Church still has a dead hand on the affairs of the State and does not hesitate to inflict their views on the sanctity of life – even where it affects people who do not even believe in God.
The other lobby groups are disabled charities; generally the proponents are convinced that Euthanasia is one step away from Eugenics. They make a false equivalence between a weak body and a weak mind. The best possible counter example is Diane Pretty. She took her case for assisted suicide to the High Court and on to the European Court, such was her psychological strength in seeking justice for her partner. She failed – although some would say that the system failed her.
At the same time as these lobby groups preventing a change in the law, the reality is that we already have tacit assisted suicide in the UK.
Generally, this occurs through the administration of morphine, dressed up as palliative care.
A similar dichotomy between law and practice exists when it comes to taking a relative abroad to help them to die at the Swiss Dignitas clinic.
Recently, Lord Falconer proposed a measure in the House of Lords, which would have given such relatives immunity from prosecution. In practice, although such cases are investigated, they never lead to a prosecution.
Therefore, one would have thought it would not be difficult to put the measure through the House of Lords.
Not so. In a free vote the House of Lords defeated the amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill by 194 to 141.
Consequently, anyone helping a loved one travel on what would otherwise be a very lonely, final journey, would be at risk of prosecution. Their only comfort being - a reassuring nudge and a wink from the prosecution service! Is that really how we want to conduct this kind of desperate, emotionally charged, situation?
The Church and some disabled groups have inflicted their own morality and own life experience on to the life experience of other people. We are led to believe that the person choosing to end their life are always vulnerable, and at the mercy of iniquitous relatives. The reality is invariably different
Individuals may choose to end their lives for any number of reasons. It might be because of a terminal illness. It might be that they consider themselves to be a burden on their family. It might be because they do not want to be in a world without their partner e.g. consider the case of Sir Edward Downes who was losing his sight and hearing chose to die alongside his terminally ill wife at Dignitas; nota bene, both did not have any religious beliefs.
We should not over-revere life for life’s sake. For the great majority of us, life is not for the glory of God, it is merely an end in itself.
Life is precious, but who ultimately decides it’s value? The individual concerned? The Church? The State?
Speaking personally, as someone who loves life, I now find the sting of death fairly muted. As time goes on, I re-valuate my life – in my teenage years I feared death. Since then I have experienced love, and indeed experienced a great deal more – I find myself in a state of (in all honesty) having had my fill. If I had a terminal illness, it might just be that I would consider doing my own living will – something unthinkable twenty years ago.
Naturally, it is important that safeguards are put in place in any law legalising Euthanasia, but fundamentally we need to recognise the individual is sovereign over their own life. We need to come of age, we need to grasp that final, ultimate responsibility.
Friday, 3 July 2009
Section 28 of Local Government Act 1988
“We got it wrong. I hope you can forgive us." David Cameron, 30th June 2009
The Tory leader was commenting on the legislation introduced by the Tories in 1988 and finally repealed by a Labour Government in 2003.
For those of you too young to know the text of the legislation it is as follows:
(1) A local authority shall not—
(a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;
(b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
The supporters of this particular Section can never address this question: “Promotion of any lifestyle is wrong – but why the need to legislate on this point in respect of one, and only one, minority lifestyle?”.
It is an important question to ask – because a badly drafted bill, which in particular seeks to address a tabloid concern, can alienate that minority, and can therefore be distinctly anti-social.
Supposing, just to be provocative, I change the wording of the first part of the Section to make this point more clear:
1) A local authority shall not—
(a) intentionally promote judaism or publish material with the intention of promoting judaism;
It is quite right that any local government authority should not promote Judaism – it should not be in the business of promotion of any faith. However, by singling out Judaism – what do we create?
• Suspicion of a secret agenda
• That this particular faith is dangerous and destabilising
• Confusion – does provision of information constitute promotion – could an Association be prosecuted for providing any literature relating to Judaism?
This is the legacy of singling out one religion, one lifestyle, one race, or one minority.
Each time I am stressing the word ‘particular’; that is, if we were to accept the premise that homosexuality is dangerous and destabilising (I don’t) then what about all the other practices which are not Christian/not Heterosexual/not part of the supposedly homogenous society and therefore potentially destablilising.
This is the ‘particular’ point I am making. If the reason for the ‘particular’ amendment was because of some over-zealous gay activists joining the Inner London Education Authority and promoting the book "Jenny lives with Eric and Martin", and the subsequent rant by The Daily Mail, then it is indeed a very poor Law indeed. It is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
If the book is so offensive (having read the synopsis it isn’t by the way) then no doubt parent pressure would have the library withdraw it.
Instead the response was a law? Against a particular minority lifestyle?
Appropriate? Proportionate? Responsible Government?
Moving on to the second section, 28 1b)
1(b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
Families brought up by homosexual parents – unacceptable? – a ‘pretence’ (?)
There is nothing pretend about a loving lesbian couple bringing up a son or daughter.
Once again the legislation infers there is an active agenda and uses offensive terminology to refer to homosexual relationships. I am fine with personal, moral expression of such sentiments – however I do have a problem with it being put into law – even if it is only in the context of promotion. By doing this it takes a position on homosexual relationships. It says that ‘We the Government – think homosexual relationships are unacceptable – so it is written!’
The mood music straining from this particular Pied Piper soon brought out the rats.
During the passage of the bill in December 1987, the offices of the Newspaper “Capital Gay” were subjected to an arson attack.
Conservative Member of Parliament Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman was quoted as believing this was a good thing and when challenged in Parliament said "I am quite prepared to say that there should be an intolerance of evil".
What a disgraceful thing to say.
Public morality is a creature of fashion, anyone with any grounding in history knows this. It is therefore important for Governments to behave responsibly in respect of the latest furore against a particular minority.
Imagine if a Labour Government, as a response to the 7th July bombings, and the never-ending Islamaphobic rants of the Daily Mail, had instituted a clause relating to the promotion of Islam? What an insanely, ludicrous and potentially devestating effect that would have on our society.
Yet it was not even a bombing – it was a children’s book?
Homosexuals have every right to be angry with the Tory Government that brought in this particular legislation.
Cameron has at long last said sorry. However, his own voting record on gay politics is actually quite mixed. For instance he voted for amendments that would require a male role model in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill (HFEB) and voted for an amendment specifically excluding homosexual couples adopting in the Adoption and Childrens Bill – however he voted for the Civil Partnerships Bill and latterly the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations.
It may well be that there are degrees here – in particular on the HFEB Cameron may have been worried about the need for a male role model in children’s development.
However, even to my tired, poltically cynical eyes it does appear that Cameron has indeed undergone an almost damascene conversion. I was particularly struck by his October 2006 Conference speech – the key extract here:
“There's something special about marriage. It's not about religion. It's not about morality. It's about commitment. When you stand up there, in front of your friends and your family, in front of the world, whether it's in a church or anywhere else, what you're doing really means something. Pledging yourself to another means doing something brave and important. You are making a commitment. You are publicly saying: it's not just about me, me me anymore. It is about we - together, the two of us, through thick and thin. That really matters. And by the way, it means something whether you're a man and a woman, a woman and a woman or a man and another man. That's why we were right to support civil partnerships, and I'm proud of that.”
The amusing thing was that the BBC live coverage cut to the tory audience and a woman shaking her head quite defiantly. The next amusing thing was to view it on the Conservative Party website to see the now edited version cut immediately to the cheerleader benches behind Cameron all wildly applauding with almost insane gusto.
The edit was appreciated by me; if only the Cameroon cheerleaders actually made up the party.
What is bewildering for many Tory gays is that although Cameron appears to have made a journey the grass roots struggle to see that the old legislation could be construed as alienating gays – and that by particularising their assault on one minority – it was fundamentally wrong. Whenever Gay politics rears it’s head on the Conservative Home website the members responses can make for very weary reading.
People remain luke-warm and unconvinced about the Tories – because they do not yet reflect society. The expenses scandal just made this public perception even worse.
Cameron is not the problem, the polling is clear on this point. The Party is the problem, Cameron cannot (and should not) have to go and make them move one by one. He leads; it is up to you whether you follow.
The Tories as a whole need to start moving. This can be done if they engage with people/groups and with alternative views. It is only through this process that you can then make up your own mind on the basis of the full facts. That is, to take into account the human impact of your views, you need to engage with all of humanity, not just the bit that you feel comfortable with. This requires an active choice and maybe even a little courage. You either have that or you don’t.
The Tory leader was commenting on the legislation introduced by the Tories in 1988 and finally repealed by a Labour Government in 2003.
For those of you too young to know the text of the legislation it is as follows:
(1) A local authority shall not—
(a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;
(b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
The supporters of this particular Section can never address this question: “Promotion of any lifestyle is wrong – but why the need to legislate on this point in respect of one, and only one, minority lifestyle?”.
It is an important question to ask – because a badly drafted bill, which in particular seeks to address a tabloid concern, can alienate that minority, and can therefore be distinctly anti-social.
Supposing, just to be provocative, I change the wording of the first part of the Section to make this point more clear:
1) A local authority shall not—
(a) intentionally promote judaism or publish material with the intention of promoting judaism;
It is quite right that any local government authority should not promote Judaism – it should not be in the business of promotion of any faith. However, by singling out Judaism – what do we create?
• Suspicion of a secret agenda
• That this particular faith is dangerous and destabilising
• Confusion – does provision of information constitute promotion – could an Association be prosecuted for providing any literature relating to Judaism?
This is the legacy of singling out one religion, one lifestyle, one race, or one minority.
Each time I am stressing the word ‘particular’; that is, if we were to accept the premise that homosexuality is dangerous and destabilising (I don’t) then what about all the other practices which are not Christian/not Heterosexual/not part of the supposedly homogenous society and therefore potentially destablilising.
This is the ‘particular’ point I am making. If the reason for the ‘particular’ amendment was because of some over-zealous gay activists joining the Inner London Education Authority and promoting the book "Jenny lives with Eric and Martin", and the subsequent rant by The Daily Mail, then it is indeed a very poor Law indeed. It is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
If the book is so offensive (having read the synopsis it isn’t by the way) then no doubt parent pressure would have the library withdraw it.
Instead the response was a law? Against a particular minority lifestyle?
Appropriate? Proportionate? Responsible Government?
Moving on to the second section, 28 1b)
1(b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
Families brought up by homosexual parents – unacceptable? – a ‘pretence’ (?)
There is nothing pretend about a loving lesbian couple bringing up a son or daughter.
Once again the legislation infers there is an active agenda and uses offensive terminology to refer to homosexual relationships. I am fine with personal, moral expression of such sentiments – however I do have a problem with it being put into law – even if it is only in the context of promotion. By doing this it takes a position on homosexual relationships. It says that ‘We the Government – think homosexual relationships are unacceptable – so it is written!’
The mood music straining from this particular Pied Piper soon brought out the rats.
During the passage of the bill in December 1987, the offices of the Newspaper “Capital Gay” were subjected to an arson attack.
Conservative Member of Parliament Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman was quoted as believing this was a good thing and when challenged in Parliament said "I am quite prepared to say that there should be an intolerance of evil".
What a disgraceful thing to say.
Public morality is a creature of fashion, anyone with any grounding in history knows this. It is therefore important for Governments to behave responsibly in respect of the latest furore against a particular minority.
Imagine if a Labour Government, as a response to the 7th July bombings, and the never-ending Islamaphobic rants of the Daily Mail, had instituted a clause relating to the promotion of Islam? What an insanely, ludicrous and potentially devestating effect that would have on our society.
Yet it was not even a bombing – it was a children’s book?
Homosexuals have every right to be angry with the Tory Government that brought in this particular legislation.
Cameron has at long last said sorry. However, his own voting record on gay politics is actually quite mixed. For instance he voted for amendments that would require a male role model in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill (HFEB) and voted for an amendment specifically excluding homosexual couples adopting in the Adoption and Childrens Bill – however he voted for the Civil Partnerships Bill and latterly the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations.
It may well be that there are degrees here – in particular on the HFEB Cameron may have been worried about the need for a male role model in children’s development.
However, even to my tired, poltically cynical eyes it does appear that Cameron has indeed undergone an almost damascene conversion. I was particularly struck by his October 2006 Conference speech – the key extract here:
“There's something special about marriage. It's not about religion. It's not about morality. It's about commitment. When you stand up there, in front of your friends and your family, in front of the world, whether it's in a church or anywhere else, what you're doing really means something. Pledging yourself to another means doing something brave and important. You are making a commitment. You are publicly saying: it's not just about me, me me anymore. It is about we - together, the two of us, through thick and thin. That really matters. And by the way, it means something whether you're a man and a woman, a woman and a woman or a man and another man. That's why we were right to support civil partnerships, and I'm proud of that.”
The amusing thing was that the BBC live coverage cut to the tory audience and a woman shaking her head quite defiantly. The next amusing thing was to view it on the Conservative Party website to see the now edited version cut immediately to the cheerleader benches behind Cameron all wildly applauding with almost insane gusto.
The edit was appreciated by me; if only the Cameroon cheerleaders actually made up the party.
What is bewildering for many Tory gays is that although Cameron appears to have made a journey the grass roots struggle to see that the old legislation could be construed as alienating gays – and that by particularising their assault on one minority – it was fundamentally wrong. Whenever Gay politics rears it’s head on the Conservative Home website the members responses can make for very weary reading.
People remain luke-warm and unconvinced about the Tories – because they do not yet reflect society. The expenses scandal just made this public perception even worse.
Cameron is not the problem, the polling is clear on this point. The Party is the problem, Cameron cannot (and should not) have to go and make them move one by one. He leads; it is up to you whether you follow.
The Tories as a whole need to start moving. This can be done if they engage with people/groups and with alternative views. It is only through this process that you can then make up your own mind on the basis of the full facts. That is, to take into account the human impact of your views, you need to engage with all of humanity, not just the bit that you feel comfortable with. This requires an active choice and maybe even a little courage. You either have that or you don’t.
Monday, 15 June 2009
Labour's Loves lost?
Is the UK Labour Party on it's knees - is it on the precipice?
Some independent polling suggests it could be.
On the 31st May 2009 Ipsos Mori recorded Labour support at it's lowest ever level - 18%. We know that some of the ministers within the old cabinet clearly regarded Gordon Brown as the problem. However, despite the fact tha Gordon Brown is an eminently poor leader there are several other reasons for the woeful level of support. The polling was being taken at a time of a severe economic recession, mounting unemployment, political corruption and a divided governing Party.
Have we witnessed such low levels of political support before?
Yes - in January 1995, Gallup (albeit using different polling calculus) showed Tory support at 18.5%.
Two years later John Major led the Party to a terrible defeat and yet the Tory vote share turned out to be 30%.
It did become clear that the UK's politics had changed; at the Conservative Party's nadir I recall the publication of Geoffrey Wheatcroft's "The Strange death of Tory England". The same year the Tories suffered their third election defeat in a row.
Many thought that the Tories had lost the battle of ideas - or indeed had no ideology at all.
Another factor was the deep splits in the Party - principally over Europe, and built around two major personalities - Thatcher and Hesletine.
However if Wheatcroft had held his breath a few more months - he would have seen a Tory revival, not based on his cure at all, but mainly down to David Cameron. Some of the foundations had been led by the former party leaders. Principally, Hague (rightly or wrongly) made the party more Euro-sceptic - his UK becoming a 'foreign land' speech and his campaign to save the Pound being hallmarks of the Party's 2001 election campaign. The splits over Europe became
hairline cracks; the only, ever present danger being Kenneth Clarke. It was the Tories very lack of an ideology which made it so easy to mould in the image of David Cameron; policies which represented a mix of social responsibility, green politics and fiscal conservatism. The 'Cameron factor' put around 5% on the Tory vote (in actual fact that meant increasing the party's vote share by a staggering 15%).
That is, even if I am very sceptical of the direction he is taking the Tories in - Cameron has made the Conservative Party electable again. The Tory party has a lot to thank Cameron for.
Therefore, it is entirely possible for Labour to re-mould itself, it just needs some time in the desert. It needs it's forty days and forty nights in the Wilderness to come back as something great. The so-called Brownites and Blairite factions need not be like the old Liberal Party factions behind Asquith and Lloyd George - they can be like Thatcher and Hesletine - the divisions forgotten after three elections. What is more difficult for the Labour Party is the
re-moulding of ideas. This is not for me to suggest - but Milliband does point the way to a new type of Left wing politics - in which the social aims of the party are not just done through the State but genuinely done through both the private and independent sectors. It may even mean no more centralised targets - the State no longer even being a guarantor of standards of social provision; a 'fourth way' to replace Blair's third way.
For all the talk of Cameron's social responsibility and the encouragement of social entrepreneurs - I remain deeply sceptical over whether he can pull it off. If he doesn't then Milliband
(or someone in Milliband's mould) will. Labour will need a caretaker before Milliband arrives; Alan Johnson. It will fall to that leader to heal the divisions. A lot of deep thinking is required but they can save the Labour Party. Then, when they are at their weakest, and the political gyroscope spins again, a charismatic leader will come and take the reins; the scent of power working backwards from a possible future - only sensed by the most astute politician, and thus, by definition, the man of the people.
To have a real re-ordering in British Politics you do not just require a party on the way out; you need a party on it's way in. This is why Labour will probably not emulate the death of the old Liberal Party - it does not have an effective challenger from the Left.
At the moment the Liberal Democrats remain surprisingly weak, despite the orange bookists having won and imposed the likeable and vacuous Nick Clegg. Their lack of a breakthrough remains alarming; how long exactly are their supporters prepared to wait?
Without any challenge, the opposition vote may well coallesce, under political gravity, to the Labour Party once again.
Despite my deep hatred for the Labour Party, and the particularly nasty authoritarian brand of late, I have to acknowledge that Britain needs a strong political opposition. We need it because, sooner or later, the establishment party gets its hand caught in the till. It has happened, and it will happen again. The sad monotony of power needs it's corrective.
Some independent polling suggests it could be.
On the 31st May 2009 Ipsos Mori recorded Labour support at it's lowest ever level - 18%. We know that some of the ministers within the old cabinet clearly regarded Gordon Brown as the problem. However, despite the fact tha Gordon Brown is an eminently poor leader there are several other reasons for the woeful level of support. The polling was being taken at a time of a severe economic recession, mounting unemployment, political corruption and a divided governing Party.
Have we witnessed such low levels of political support before?
Yes - in January 1995, Gallup (albeit using different polling calculus) showed Tory support at 18.5%.
Two years later John Major led the Party to a terrible defeat and yet the Tory vote share turned out to be 30%.
It did become clear that the UK's politics had changed; at the Conservative Party's nadir I recall the publication of Geoffrey Wheatcroft's "The Strange death of Tory England". The same year the Tories suffered their third election defeat in a row.
Many thought that the Tories had lost the battle of ideas - or indeed had no ideology at all.
Another factor was the deep splits in the Party - principally over Europe, and built around two major personalities - Thatcher and Hesletine.
However if Wheatcroft had held his breath a few more months - he would have seen a Tory revival, not based on his cure at all, but mainly down to David Cameron. Some of the foundations had been led by the former party leaders. Principally, Hague (rightly or wrongly) made the party more Euro-sceptic - his UK becoming a 'foreign land' speech and his campaign to save the Pound being hallmarks of the Party's 2001 election campaign. The splits over Europe became
hairline cracks; the only, ever present danger being Kenneth Clarke. It was the Tories very lack of an ideology which made it so easy to mould in the image of David Cameron; policies which represented a mix of social responsibility, green politics and fiscal conservatism. The 'Cameron factor' put around 5% on the Tory vote (in actual fact that meant increasing the party's vote share by a staggering 15%).
That is, even if I am very sceptical of the direction he is taking the Tories in - Cameron has made the Conservative Party electable again. The Tory party has a lot to thank Cameron for.
Therefore, it is entirely possible for Labour to re-mould itself, it just needs some time in the desert. It needs it's forty days and forty nights in the Wilderness to come back as something great. The so-called Brownites and Blairite factions need not be like the old Liberal Party factions behind Asquith and Lloyd George - they can be like Thatcher and Hesletine - the divisions forgotten after three elections. What is more difficult for the Labour Party is the
re-moulding of ideas. This is not for me to suggest - but Milliband does point the way to a new type of Left wing politics - in which the social aims of the party are not just done through the State but genuinely done through both the private and independent sectors. It may even mean no more centralised targets - the State no longer even being a guarantor of standards of social provision; a 'fourth way' to replace Blair's third way.
For all the talk of Cameron's social responsibility and the encouragement of social entrepreneurs - I remain deeply sceptical over whether he can pull it off. If he doesn't then Milliband
(or someone in Milliband's mould) will. Labour will need a caretaker before Milliband arrives; Alan Johnson. It will fall to that leader to heal the divisions. A lot of deep thinking is required but they can save the Labour Party. Then, when they are at their weakest, and the political gyroscope spins again, a charismatic leader will come and take the reins; the scent of power working backwards from a possible future - only sensed by the most astute politician, and thus, by definition, the man of the people.
To have a real re-ordering in British Politics you do not just require a party on the way out; you need a party on it's way in. This is why Labour will probably not emulate the death of the old Liberal Party - it does not have an effective challenger from the Left.
At the moment the Liberal Democrats remain surprisingly weak, despite the orange bookists having won and imposed the likeable and vacuous Nick Clegg. Their lack of a breakthrough remains alarming; how long exactly are their supporters prepared to wait?
Without any challenge, the opposition vote may well coallesce, under political gravity, to the Labour Party once again.
Despite my deep hatred for the Labour Party, and the particularly nasty authoritarian brand of late, I have to acknowledge that Britain needs a strong political opposition. We need it because, sooner or later, the establishment party gets its hand caught in the till. It has happened, and it will happen again. The sad monotony of power needs it's corrective.
Saturday, 30 May 2009
Politics of Distraction
Magicians often pull off their cleverest tricks through distraction - and politicians are no different.
As tricks go - the latest one is a blinder. As more and more MPs are exposed for their lavishness at the taxpayers expense what are the prime movers of the main parties talking about?
Constitutional Reform!
What does having fixed term parliaments or proportional representation have to do with excessive or fraudulent claims on the taxpayer? How has continental PR helped clear up the scandal of MEPs allowances?
Another distraction has been the party leaders trying to out-do each other than being tough on errant MPs.
David Cameron has now said that some MPs should 'feel the full weight of the law' regarding their claims for fictitious mortgage interest. But isn't this stating the obvious - could this not have been said weeks ago? - could this have not been acted on by now? Isn't this just posturing to look 'tough' to show that he has 'got a grip' on the story.
This is merely sleight of hand to distract people from asking why their MPs have not been deselected immediately, booted out, and a by-election called. That is to say, if a politician has admitted he has done the wrong thing, and agreed to stand down - why wait?
Hague's answer on a recent Question Time was that if their call for an immediate election was honoured then these MPs would effectively be gone within a month. But everyone knows that an immediate election is highly unlikely. It requires Johnson to make a move on the leadership, and although there are tentative signs this is happening, he will be outmanoeuvred by Brown, no matter how much the prime minister is embattled.
The result is that we have politicians who have made incorrect claims on the public purse who will remain in office for another year to leech more in salary and expense claims.
The distraction is need to conceal the fundamental weakness in Cameron's grip on constituency parties who are notoriously independent and sometimes unforgiveably out of touch.
It is not necessarily easy, but he should be exerting more pressure on these constituency parties to hold expense enquiries in the open, in the full glare of media publicity and public disapprobation. Although Gove and Mackay had their enquiries conducted in such a way - Hogg, as an example, did not. He also then needs to speak directly with these constituency groups, face to face, and explain to them the need to consider deselection of their MP if the claims cannot be justified and the public mood is clearly against them continuing.
The distraction may well pay off - but it leaves a bitterness in my mouth. When Cameron made his bid for the leadership he said that he wanted to make people feel good about voting Conservative again.
For a little time I did... but I can feel very little joy about voting Tory next week.
As tricks go - the latest one is a blinder. As more and more MPs are exposed for their lavishness at the taxpayers expense what are the prime movers of the main parties talking about?
Constitutional Reform!
What does having fixed term parliaments or proportional representation have to do with excessive or fraudulent claims on the taxpayer? How has continental PR helped clear up the scandal of MEPs allowances?
Another distraction has been the party leaders trying to out-do each other than being tough on errant MPs.
David Cameron has now said that some MPs should 'feel the full weight of the law' regarding their claims for fictitious mortgage interest. But isn't this stating the obvious - could this not have been said weeks ago? - could this have not been acted on by now? Isn't this just posturing to look 'tough' to show that he has 'got a grip' on the story.
This is merely sleight of hand to distract people from asking why their MPs have not been deselected immediately, booted out, and a by-election called. That is to say, if a politician has admitted he has done the wrong thing, and agreed to stand down - why wait?
Hague's answer on a recent Question Time was that if their call for an immediate election was honoured then these MPs would effectively be gone within a month. But everyone knows that an immediate election is highly unlikely. It requires Johnson to make a move on the leadership, and although there are tentative signs this is happening, he will be outmanoeuvred by Brown, no matter how much the prime minister is embattled.
The result is that we have politicians who have made incorrect claims on the public purse who will remain in office for another year to leech more in salary and expense claims.
The distraction is need to conceal the fundamental weakness in Cameron's grip on constituency parties who are notoriously independent and sometimes unforgiveably out of touch.
It is not necessarily easy, but he should be exerting more pressure on these constituency parties to hold expense enquiries in the open, in the full glare of media publicity and public disapprobation. Although Gove and Mackay had their enquiries conducted in such a way - Hogg, as an example, did not. He also then needs to speak directly with these constituency groups, face to face, and explain to them the need to consider deselection of their MP if the claims cannot be justified and the public mood is clearly against them continuing.
The distraction may well pay off - but it leaves a bitterness in my mouth. When Cameron made his bid for the leadership he said that he wanted to make people feel good about voting Conservative again.
For a little time I did... but I can feel very little joy about voting Tory next week.
Sunday, 17 May 2009
Cameron's Addiction
Human beings tend to remember first impressions.
In conducting their story on expenses the Telegraph focussed almost exclusively on Labour MPs and Ministers during the first three days of coverage. This was justified in quite moral terms; as the present Government of the day they should be the first under the spotlight of scrutiny. However, even for someone like me, on the right hand side of the political divide, it is clear that the commentary has not been even-handed. This has resulted in a quite spectacular collapse of support for the Labour Party, whereas the Tory lead has remained - partly because of this biased commentary. Not all of this has been down to press bias – it has been helped along by the fact that two Labour MPs have now claimed on non-existent mortgages or loans and the woeful lack of action by Gordon Brown.
In contradistinction, David Cameron has been presented as quite frugal in his claims for expenses and showing ‘leadership’ in making people pay back their quite unethical claims. His plaintive cry at his recent press conference was that he was paying back the £680 claim for Wisteria removal (his one and only claim for gardening maintenance ever - please note that kind members of the press!).
What he did not say was that he was going to pay back the £19,626 claim for Additional Costs Allowance for 2007/08.
The ACA is there to support an MP in conducting his duties away from his main home. The ACA Maximum for 2007/08 was £23,083; that is, Cameron was pushing the limit in what he could claim for mortgage interest.
It has become established wisdom that MPs have to have a second home as they are required to attend Parliament, which might be hundreds of miles away from their constituency. Indeed, much to the ire of his colleagues, who have had to pay back thousands, Cameron seems quite happy to keep his ACA. One might say it was an Addictional Claims Allowance; when Brown recently tried to reach a consensus with other party leaders on a new set of rules it was the ACA which proved to be the stumbling block for the Tory leader.
We really need to start questioning this wisdom. Does it stand up to any kind of scrutiny? Is the ACA a habit which needs to be broken?
As Kate Hoey said on today’s “Andrew Marr show”, MPs could claim a subsistence allowance for staying overnight in a Hotel – ‘just like other businessmen’ – well quite!
Harry recommends the Premier Inn, Euston (do I get any commission for advertising?). At current rates a Sunday to Thursday night stay would be £546. Cameron’s ACA would allow for 35 weeks stay – more than enough for the 33 weeks that Parliament actually sits. Naturally, MPs do not attend Parliament every day in every week - so the actual amount spent on such a Hotel will be a lot less than claimed via the ACA.
In addition, and I think I am right in saying this, the telegenic MP for Shrewbury, Daniel Kawczynski, has mooted the idea of getting group rates for stays in Hotel – further reducing the burden on the public purse. A lot of buying power could be afforded by 500 MPs could it not?
In the future we also need to consider whether actual physical presence is required. Business meetings can, nowadays be conducted over the internet. If an MP is not speaking, and is merely attending a vote, would there be scope to introduce text voting? Are we making the most of current technologies to reduce the overall cost to the taxpayer?
If tradition is standing in our way, we need to strike it down; we are no longer in an era of extravagance.
In conducting their story on expenses the Telegraph focussed almost exclusively on Labour MPs and Ministers during the first three days of coverage. This was justified in quite moral terms; as the present Government of the day they should be the first under the spotlight of scrutiny. However, even for someone like me, on the right hand side of the political divide, it is clear that the commentary has not been even-handed. This has resulted in a quite spectacular collapse of support for the Labour Party, whereas the Tory lead has remained - partly because of this biased commentary. Not all of this has been down to press bias – it has been helped along by the fact that two Labour MPs have now claimed on non-existent mortgages or loans and the woeful lack of action by Gordon Brown.
In contradistinction, David Cameron has been presented as quite frugal in his claims for expenses and showing ‘leadership’ in making people pay back their quite unethical claims. His plaintive cry at his recent press conference was that he was paying back the £680 claim for Wisteria removal (his one and only claim for gardening maintenance ever - please note that kind members of the press!).
What he did not say was that he was going to pay back the £19,626 claim for Additional Costs Allowance for 2007/08.
The ACA is there to support an MP in conducting his duties away from his main home. The ACA Maximum for 2007/08 was £23,083; that is, Cameron was pushing the limit in what he could claim for mortgage interest.
It has become established wisdom that MPs have to have a second home as they are required to attend Parliament, which might be hundreds of miles away from their constituency. Indeed, much to the ire of his colleagues, who have had to pay back thousands, Cameron seems quite happy to keep his ACA. One might say it was an Addictional Claims Allowance; when Brown recently tried to reach a consensus with other party leaders on a new set of rules it was the ACA which proved to be the stumbling block for the Tory leader.
We really need to start questioning this wisdom. Does it stand up to any kind of scrutiny? Is the ACA a habit which needs to be broken?
As Kate Hoey said on today’s “Andrew Marr show”, MPs could claim a subsistence allowance for staying overnight in a Hotel – ‘just like other businessmen’ – well quite!
Harry recommends the Premier Inn, Euston (do I get any commission for advertising?). At current rates a Sunday to Thursday night stay would be £546. Cameron’s ACA would allow for 35 weeks stay – more than enough for the 33 weeks that Parliament actually sits. Naturally, MPs do not attend Parliament every day in every week - so the actual amount spent on such a Hotel will be a lot less than claimed via the ACA.
In addition, and I think I am right in saying this, the telegenic MP for Shrewbury, Daniel Kawczynski, has mooted the idea of getting group rates for stays in Hotel – further reducing the burden on the public purse. A lot of buying power could be afforded by 500 MPs could it not?
In the future we also need to consider whether actual physical presence is required. Business meetings can, nowadays be conducted over the internet. If an MP is not speaking, and is merely attending a vote, would there be scope to introduce text voting? Are we making the most of current technologies to reduce the overall cost to the taxpayer?
If tradition is standing in our way, we need to strike it down; we are no longer in an era of extravagance.
New Political Blog
This is my new political blog. I will be posting fortnightly on political issues.
I would describe myself as Libertarian, and sceptical of the direction David Cameron is taking the Tory Party. At the moment the consensus against Cameron comes from the 'old right' and I want to bring a libertarian perspective to the table.
I would describe myself as Libertarian, and sceptical of the direction David Cameron is taking the Tory Party. At the moment the consensus against Cameron comes from the 'old right' and I want to bring a libertarian perspective to the table.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
