Politics

Election 2010

And so, after the longest ‘election night’ I can remember, we have a government; and not one any of us expected a few days ago. The problems the country face are so appalling, it seems unlikely that any honeymoon period the coalition may have will be short indeed, but before the inevitable cynicism kicks in, I have to say I am quite heartened by it all. Against the odds I think all three party leaders behaved very well, and Cameron has astounded me (though I did start with a fairly low opinion) and Clegg has been equally impressive. Clegg has seen a disappointing night at the polls lead to his becoming Deputy Prime Minister and seeing Vince Cable as Business Secretary. I somehow think he would have settled for that three weeks ago!

The combined programme released today is probably better than I could imagine either a Tory or Labour government coming up with. Adopting the understandable LibDem tax proposals is excellent and while I think the Tories have too much appetite for early cutting, the sums involved are hardly large compared with the overall defecit. The programme of constitutional reform is exciting and well overdue (I like the Lords proposal), while the education programme is a curate’s egg which is unlikely to be worse than what we have (though no idea yet of my area – ‘Skills’). The Tories have abandoned their divisive Inheritance Tax proposals, at least some of the National Insurance rise is to be redistribution is to go to job creation and Ken Clarke and Therese May sound like a decent pair to look at the question of civil liberties – I like the sound of this Great Repeal bill. Banks to be restructured and bonuses capped (thanks, Vince) a Green investment bank, restoring the link between pensions and earnings..... Why hasn’t Labour DONE all this already? Obviously I am disappointed at the LibDems giving up on the abandonment of Trident and the amnesty for illegal immigrants has gone – but who else was going to give us that anyway? If the Liberals can keep Hague in line over Europe this appears to be a reasonable policy for difficult times.

OF course this is not going to be easy, and it probably WILL all end in tears. But actually I think Cameron and Clegg have done that rare thing – been brave and done something entirely unprecedented. I think they deserve a chance to make it stick.

And a response from none other than Richard Walkerdine:

Well we do indeed live in strange times. A coalition government for the first time in my 63 years and, having just read your election blog, I find myself (at least partially) agreeing with you on politics! Who would have thought it?

The Cameron/Clegg marriage is of course ground breaking, extremely brave, extremely high risk but shows that both men are capable of thinking the unthinkable. We have not had many (any?)political leaders in the last several decades who would have been prepared to go that far. I am very, very impressed by both of them. And the body language looks good. They actually seem to get on well together. Oh I know that Cameron is a former PR consultant and Clegg is certainly no fool, so you would expect them to behave like bosom buddies in public. It's also very early days. But so far, so good.

There will also be an intense desire by both parties to make the coalition work. Cameron finally gets to be PM and the Liberals get their first taste of power in over 70 years. Neither of them will want to jeopardise that and the fact that both parties have had to compromise by dropping some of their election pledges is evidence of how determined they are. But I suspect the Liberals are at more risk than the Tories. If the coalition works and we have our next election in five years time (irrespective of the voting system) how do they sell themselves? The Tories can claim they did what they had to for the good of the country and now (assuming the economic crisis has been eased) it is time for a proper Tory government again. The Liberals however will know they have no chance of a majority so what is their strategy? Continuing to support the Tories or bed-hopping between the two larger parties which could make them look like just going for the main chance in the eyes of the voters? Nick Clegg has to be very careful.

But a successful coalition, particularly with a change in the voting system (although I doubt that will get through a referendum) could mean a continuation of the coalition. And that could keep Labour out of power for a generation - now that really would be an achievement! But I suspect on that point our political views might start to return to their previous positions...

After thirty odd years, to find myself agreeing with Walkerdine is a remarkable thing indeed...

Brian’s Election Blog:

Sunday May 9: Has the election actually finished? It doesn’t feel as if it has; rather we are still in some sort of time warp, waiting to see if we really have a new government, or still the old one or something entirely different. All very difficult for Clegg; if he goes with the Tories, all those who voted Lib Dem to keep out the Tories will feel betrayed. If he goes with Brown, all those who voted Lib Dem to show their disgust at the Prime Minister will feel betrayed. If he goes with neither all those who voted because he talked of consensus and compromise will feel betrayed. I hope he is sleeping well at night!

Thursday May 6: So as the final day of the campaign finally (finally!) arrives, I end up exactly where I usually do, albeit arriving from a rather different route. I started from a deeply negative view of the Labour Government. Its record of attacking civil liberties, increasing inequality, petty managerialism which have made targets the raison d'etre of public life, a foreign policy that leaves me at least disgusted and while I would agree that Brown has had a 'good' financial crisis, his denial of all responsibility for its cause is lamentable. It all leaves me feeling that this government does not deserve to remain in office. They need a time in opposition, an opportunity to get rid of the Thatcherite New Labour core and rediscover genuine Labour values. 

Accordingly I started this campaign genuinely prepared to listen to Cameron. The time for tribalism has gone, and Cameron is certainly no Michael Howard. And having listened, I am appalled, and really quite scarred. As mentioned before, it is difficult to decide if he is lying mendaciously or is actually stupid enough to believe what he says. His inane economic promises couple with tax cuts and promises which have to be unutterable dribble (More drugs available on the NHS when the NHS already takes a huge amount of money we do not have) and stupid little redistributive tax policies - from poor to rich I mean. It also seems to me that a Tory Government would struggle to last a full five years before tearing itself to shreds over Europe, another of the topics that never figured in the election campaign. William Hague is the Enoch Powell of our times; an intelligent, witty, humane man who goes rabid at the mention of Europe. Hardly my choice for Foreign Secretary!

Without a doubt, the voice of progressive liberalism comes from, appropriately enough, the Liberals. They are not perfect, and Clegg is distressingly like Cameron, but their policies are on the whole right, fair and the need for electoral reform is now unanswerable. The country feels that Labour has lost, the Conservatives have not won and a hung parliament is probably an accurate representation of the desires of the electorate.

So where does that leave us? My advice, for what it is worth, is vote anything that will hold back the Tories and keep them from getting over 326 (well, 323 really) seats. A full Tory majority will be a disaster for all except the super rich, they must be kept in check. So make it an anti-Tory vote today.

Tuesday May 4: How much is your vote worth? Find out here: http://www.voterpower.org.uk/

Monday May 3: For all the ferocity of the TV and press campaigns, I have only just realised how little is going on here. Putney is theoretically a marginal seat – though no-one really expects Labour to win it back from rising Tory star Justine Greening. Nonetheless, I have so far only received election handouts from Lib Dems, Labour and UKIP and I haven’t seen a single political poster in Earlsfield. As for the local borough elections on Thursday, zilch. I have no idea who is standing. So while we all know what Brown said in his car in Rochdale, I don’t actually know who is standing in my own constituency, an apt comment perhaps on how centralised this campaign has been. As for the result on Thursday, it seems to me that things are crystallising towards a single digit Conservative majority. It has been a remarkably dull and lacklustre weekend of campaigning, but my gut feeling is that the Tories are firming up their vote, the Liberals are suffering some haemorrhaging back to traditional parties as the election comes nearer and Cameron will receive a very poisoned chalice on Friday morning.

Wednesday April 28: Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Not a lot more to say, is there? I am reminded of doing a ‘down the line’ interview at the Sound Company with some minister just before the 2001 election. I pointed out that they needed to be careful what they said as they wouldn’t know when other studios were connected and they were being overheard. They ignored me and talked about the post-election cabinet re-shuffle between every interview. I assume they just think they are somehow immune?

Tuesday April 27: Not that often I find my words echoed by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, but they too seem to have noticed the utter lack of substance to the parties’ commitments to budget cuts. While the Lib Dems come out as ‘least bad’ the Tories really do have a problem. Not only do they want cuts quicker than the other parties, they have ruled out the ‘jobs tax’ rises, is promising tax cuts for married couples and are ring-fencing the NHS. As far as I can see this means anything not ring-fenced gets wiped out. Labour also suffer from the ring-fencing malaise, a ruse designed to sound good but actually make everything worse. Very entertaining this morning was Dominic Grieve trying to justify the Tory statement that crime has got worse under Labour. A succession of independent experts were wheeled out by the BBC to say the Tory claims were wrong leaving poor Dominic claiming that ‘you didn’t get children in school uniform knifing each other before Labour came in.’ Dear Gods save us. At least he had the decency to not even sound as if he was trying.

Monday April 26: So the Conservatives want to introduce legislation dictating that parties which change their leader when in Government must go for a new election. My understanding of political theory is that this is an illiterate suggestion. We do not vote for a Prime Minister, or even a government, but a parliament. We then leave parliament to sort out what sort of government it can from the cards we deal it. You may feel I am being a bit purist here, and certainly the TV debates have given the system a major push towards presidential style politics. But perhaps we should remind the Tories that Churchill was not a leader of any political party when he became PM, but the person parliament felt best fitted to lead the country at that time. Given the possibility of a hung parliament, would they require a new election if a minority coalition partner party changed their leader? The idea that we vote for a PM is a modern misunderstanding, and as the House become more fragmented– and I am sure this trend will continue, however the current Lib-Dem surge finally plays out - increasingly untenable.  If they are serious in this, they need to go right back to square one in looking at the constitutional basis of not just the commons, but the Lords and the monarchy, as well as the relationship between voter and representative. The established position of the Church would be a factor as well, presenting a welcome opportunity to embrace disestablishmentarianism. All in all this simple sound-bite policy – probably designed to cement Cameron’s own position from Right-wing Tory attacks around the 2/3 years of his own hoped-for premiership - would involve the Tories in a huge programme of constitutional reform, something which Cameron has so far seemed disinclined to indulge in.

Friday April 23: When we left for our ‘short break’ to Seville the political situation was fairly predictable; the Conservatives had a smaller than expected lead over Labour who in turn had a small lead over the Lib Dems. By the time we returned you would think Nick Clegg was the front runner. Seen from the perspectives of a couple of thousand miles, this all seems rather hysterical. Clegg did well in t he TV debates and those who follow politics though the press probably didn’t know much about him. I expected the Lib Dems to receive a boost and they did. But when I saw comparisons with Obama, well.....

As I write this there does seem to be substance. You can tell that from the hysterical reactions of the Tory press, whose coordinated smears yesterday were a bit of a disgrace. The most interesting comment I read while away was from ex-Sun editor David Yelland, that if Nick Clegg were to form a Government it would be the first time in a couple of generations that Murdoch would have been shut out of the highest levels of British Politics. That must surely be a good reason for voting Lib Dem!

Saturday April 10: This election campaign is starting to irritate me. All the parties seem to be colluding in this game of ‘efficiency savings’ (good), ‘cuts’ (bad). So, the current government (not making ‘cuts’ at this time let’s remember) are committed to making £340million of ‘efficiency savings’ across FE and Skills in 2010-11. How, and in what way is this different from ‘cutting’ the FE budget by £340million? It is semantics and nothing else.

Then the Tories say they will save a deeply improbably amount of money (£12billion) by ‘not filling vacancies’ which will not cut jobs. So if they ‘lose- 40,000 jobs over the year, that is not 40,000 people without a job then? They will also cut IT costs, renegotiate contracts and curb the use of consultants. Briefly this unpacks as meaning that IT companies supplying Government contracts will have to make redundancies, and that the very same ‘outsourcing’ they are claiming saves money actually costs money. The consultant issue is more difficult. In the sector I know, consultants are used to keep the civil service ‘job count’ artificially low. Certainly the number of high level civil servants with any knowledge of FE is tiny, and they rely on consultants to provide that expertise. If you cut the consultants you have to increase the number of fully employed civil servants.  

What could have an impact of course, though not a quick one, is a change of rules and culture. This is the time of year when we all recognise money wasting projects landing on our desks; last minute useless projects designed to mop up ‘underspend’. In my life in the private sector I never had a concept of ‘underspend’; if we were lucky enough spend less than budgeted, then great, that’s  more money left over for other things. Making departments genuinely responsible for budgets over a longer period of time could produce genuine efficiency savings, rather than the pretend ones both sides are currently talking about.  

Thursday, April 8: It is difficult to understand how such an important election campaign, and one which started so long ago, can have been so dispiriting, trivial and unexciting. I shall miss a week of it – we are off to Seville at the weekend – and I am not sorry. Nonetheless, political instinct runs deep, and I will aim to leave the odd on-going comment here as the campaign unfolds.

Perhaps nothing will surpass the starting point. Mark Thomas’ Election Manifesto proved to be a splendid evening. For those who are unaware, Mark asks his audience for policy ideas, which are then discussed and ‘voted’ on – in this case by volume of cheering. The policies are a mixture of the outrageous, humorous, worthy and serious. The biggest cheer last night was the proposal that If it pisses down with rain on a Bank Holidy, it will be considered a rollover. But other policies ‘passed’ were to have a cap on house prices relative to the average wage in the area, railways to be re-nationalised that all ministers should have had experience of their ministry prior to taking office.

In between these debates Mark does a more standard comic turn talking about some of his other political campaigns. One of the best sections was on the kidnap of Margaret Morel’s bay tree which was then passed around the country with letters demanding that if she didn’t resign her seat, the Bay Tree would suffer. It was eventually sentenced to death on the Trafalgar Square plinth. He also extolled the virtues of other people’s policies that have been passed. Along with the predictable attacks on ‘non-doms’, imposition of the Tobin Tax and a three day weekend was the declaration to invade Jersey. This is essentially an attack on the tax exile status of Jersey which Mark reckons is holding over £100 billion of money that should have been paid to the British exchequer.

Even better, Mark has found the money to put up a candidate, Danny Kushlick in Bristol West. He will be representing the people’s manifesto on May 6^th, which will at least mean there is one interesting election night!

Vote for my man, Danny Kushlick | Mark Thomas | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Humour this may be, but Mark Thomas is making some very serious political points which are not that far away from Tony Benn’s. People, and particularly young people, need to get actively involved in the political process in any way possible to maintain an active democracy. You can laugh as much as you like, but despite it all, everyone needs to get out and vote on May 6^th.

But I somehow doubt the televised debates will be as interesting!

The Trials of Cameron

I have been reading some independent economic assessments at work this week, and they make for very sobering reading. There is little good to be said, and independent analysis suggests the parties approaches make marginal difference. Cuts will be savage, growth slow, employment dire and it is likely to be 20 years before we see anything like the ‘wealth’ of 2006 again. In the final analysis that will seal the election. Labour will not win and despite sensible crisis management measures, really do not deserve to win. The focus inevitably turns to Cameron and the Tories and the question, do they deserve to win?

So far, so bad. Cameron has had a dreadful new year, and the Tories are consistently finding themselves on the wrong side of the argument. It is by no means clear that he can lead his party away from their inherent nastiness, and he as yet lacks the sure touch of confidence that we require from a Prime Minister in waiting.

The Tory bubble essentially burst with the economic crisis. They were initially slow to realise that the crisis stripped them of their entire policy agenda (how to spend our wealth, not how to create it) then inept in opposing Government solutions which looked to be – and proved to be – sensible. They eventually settled on a ’more cuts, sooner’ mantra, but have been unable to back this up with specifics and finally felt they had to wobble on how much more and indeed how soon. The Conservative economic policy, plans for regenerating the economy stimulating industry and employment all look vague, haphazard and changeable. They are not proving to be the bedrock on which a new Tory ascendency can be built.

Cameron has to convince the nation that he can be a PM for everyone, not just the Conservative core vote (in fact the core vote don’t like him at all). The marriage issue was tempting, the Right seeing such things as ‘common sense’. As we know, this foray into supporting marriage turned into farce. I think this really was carelessness and as such is a serious sign of incompetence. He should never have uttered a word without his proposals being costed, and without knowing the arguments from the opposite side. Tories may ‘assume’ supporting marriage must play well, but life is far too complex for such assumptions. The Tory plans would support the serial philanderer, penalise widows, further disadvantage children of abandoned mothers.... He seemed entirely unprepared for these arguments and backed off in some disarray Does anyone know the current Tory policy on this?

Cameron famously promised to retreat from Punch and Judy politics – a pointless hope, but one that initially played well with the wider public. The Conservatives decision to pull out of cross-party talks on how to fund care for the elderly was ill judged, putting out posters on the Government’s ‘Death tax’ spectacularly ill judged. Even more extraordinary is that many of the Conservative party’s core vote is elderly, and this is a topic of huge importance to them. It is not easy and while the ‘Death tax’ solution is not perfect, it is a viable one and worth debating. We are again unclear how the Tory’s would solve this difficult question.

Finally in this brief review the Tory’s use of statistics in flagrant violation of the guidance provided by the independent statistical service bodes very ill indeed. Even when censured for their use, their apology was grudging to non-existent. There are, of course, reasons to doubt and to argue about the official crime statistics, but only a dedicated Daily Mail reader could believe honestly that violent crime has gone up 50% or more in the past 10 years. Most of the non-political voting public are hoping that a new government will not play fast and loose with statistics, in the way perfected by new Labour spin, and Cameron and Grayling have disappointed them.

If you add to this the party’s continued death wish over Europe – Cameron should be schmoozing with fellow European centre right politicians Sarkozy and Mertel, but neither will touch him with a bargepole - his New Labour style imposition of A list candidates – which hit the lurid limelight in London this past week with bitter rows in Westminster North and this weekend Stratford – and you can already see the seeds of the party’s demise before they even reach Government.

Cameron’s Conservatives have not enjoyed being in the spotlight, and for the sake of the country we must hope they improve. They have so far failed to look competent and professional, to have a clear approach or view of society or an understanding of the economic challenge facing us. They will win, without a doubt, but to what purpose, and for how long?

What's Left? How liberals lost their way

by Nick Cohen

It is always difficult when a member of your tribe defects to the opposition. Somehow the anger, the let-down is so much greater than for those who have always been on the other side. This is clearly how Cohen thinks for he sets out his left wing credentials in all their glory at the start of the book, and while the vast bulk is of stringent criticism of the left, the few times Conservatives or Republicans are mentioned the criticism is utterly scathing. Nick knows he has parted company from his background, his roots, his family and his friends. It is not an easy path.

The reason for his disenchantment is the Iraq war, and in the first -and by far the best - Chapter he explains his problem. He is very knowledgeable about Iraq, he has friends who are Iraqis. He has campaigned and opposed Saddam Hussein since the earliest days. He knew the people whose families have been tortured and murdered. His view, passionately but very rationally argued, is that despite the lies, the criminal lack of planning for the aftermath, the lives lost and the destruction it was all worth it to get rid of an evil, fascist dictator. Despite it all, the invasion was a good thing, and the left should understand that the ousting of a fascist is always a good thing. He views the anti-war movement and the demonstrations as an alliance between the intellectual liberal elite and far right fascists.

He then goes on to examine the reasons for this aberration. Here he seems to me at least, to lose his way as he settles scores with a series of bogeymen. He spends a great deal of time attacking the old Stalinist/Leninist/Trotskeyite left as if they still had any influence whatsoever. He spends many pages attacking Chomskey with particular vindictiveness, and a whole chapter on 'theorists', postmodernism and relativism. For some reason he returns more than once to attacking Virginia Woolf - though why I don't really know. I read her novels but it has never occurred to me to read her politics. He even spends a great deal of time lambasting the Labour leader of the thirties, George Lansbury and really has it in for Corin Redgrave. There is a chapter on the Tories, where he attacks John Major, Douglas Hurd and Malcolm Rifkind with serious vehemence for their conduct over Bosnia. But always the enemy is fascism, Sadam's fascism, the fascism of baathism, the fascism of Islamists.

The logic, as far as I understand is as follows. The 'liberal left' has never liked the working class and never really felt the need to bond and support those from other races and classes. There have also been weak strains of pacifism in the left which have persisted to the modern day. The hard left of the sixties when they retired to universities produced a complex web of post-modernist and relativistic theories which allowed them to maintain their 'paradise' of liberal Europe without getting too engaged with right and wrong in other parts of the world. He spends a great deal of time on an article about female dowry murders in India which suggests that the West has no right to interfere with this cultural practice while American wives are still beaten up at home. This logic, he suggests, prevents the liberal left from determinedly opposing anything. Overwhelmingly, however he accuses the left of falling for the old my enemies' enemy is my friend; if a movement or regime was against the US or Bush (the hegemonic) then they must have at leas some right on their side. In this way the left has forgotten how to work out who are the goodies and who the baddies.

There is much in this point of view, particularly with regards to Iraq, and it is a challenge to those of us who opposed the war with passion. However, Cohen spends less time explicitly admitting to his own prejudices, his own ontology (as I have learned to call it from Matthew). Interestingly he stimulated a very interesting line of thought in me which he doesn't really explore, the problem posed to political action from the ending of the cold war. In essence life was easier then. The West had a responsibility for its own side. The 'behaviour' of Chile (for instance) was an issue for the West because it made us look bad; and it was clearly the West's responsibility to deal with it. Similarly maverick Socialist states like North Korea were a problem for the Soviets - they needed to keep them in line, keep them on side. Since the fall of the East/West divide and the rise of religion as a (the?) major divide, it is no longer clear who has responsibility rogue states. Cohen argues that Europe produced the enlightenment ideas of the great political philosophers as Human rights, operating at all times to everyone, everywhere. If women are mistreated in India, or Saudi Arabia or Ethiopia our liberal tradition is enough for us to need correct those ills.

Possibly. But while Hume, Locke et al probably did think these were universal values, the idea of imposing them outside of Christendom (and despite the nascent atheism, Christendom was their sphere of influence) would never have occurred to them. The Cold War allowed us to re-frame Christendom as 'The West' and we could apply those laws universally. I am not at all clear this is so easy. Cohen is right that if we think allowing women education is a Human Right we should support that right to all women everywhere. But while in Saudi Arabia (for instance) there are angry, frustrated women wishing for external support to allow them greater independence, there are many women who think their treatment is correct and oppose their 'Western style' sisters.. There are moral teachers and leaders who think it is right to uphold the old ways and genuinely believe that Western culture degrades and belittles women. I agree with Cohen that we should not give up on the argument, but imposing our values on them seems to me both morally dubious, and practically dangerous. In this new world, with new power blocs who do not share European enlightened outlooks I do not think it is clear we have moral rights to impose our views on other cultures. Cohen can sneer at 'relativism' but we may soon live in a world where China is the only super-power and do we really want our cultural values wiped out by theirs?

The second assumption Cohen makes is that war and violence are automatically good. He savages the pacifistic traditions of the left as cowardice and appeasement. He writes at length about World War II never ever considering that it was anything other than the right, the brave and morally correct action. The idea that the justice resulting from World War II depends on where you are standing - Britain or Poland, or Czechoslovakia or Latvia.... is never raised. It was 'a good thing'. I do not retain my old certainties over pacifism, but I stick to the conviction that war solves little and usually leaves the ordinary man in a worse position than before it started. Attempting to prevent war is to me a moral imperative, not an irritating sign of weakness. Given his moral certainty I am pleased Cohen was nowhere near the nuclear trigger in the Cold War, since we would certainly have pushed it, being so clear that Western democratic values are right and totalitarian ones wrong.

And Cohen is correct about the left's lack of certainty. Supporting the war would have supported the brave (and largely left wing) intellectuals who opposed Saddam, but has destroyed the lives and livelihoods of tens of thousands of other Iraqis. It has weakened the case of Western democracies by being an illegal war and it has added to Islam's paranoia of Western intentions. And was Saddam the worst, the most wicked of the dictators? What about the Burmese Generals, Robert Mugabe, the Great Leader in North Korea, the Extremist Christian regime in Uganda? When you spin the globe it will stop on a cruel totalitarian dictatorship which, according to Cohen, the West is morally bound to overthrow. Because the left's primary feature is an ability to recognise and oppose fascism, and all these states are fascists.

Cohen complains that those of us who opposed the war in Iraq did not have an alternative plan for deposing the fascist regime, a perfectly reasonable criticism. But Cohen needs to tell us how we rank fascist regimes in a convenient order for toppling. He needs to think deeper about the consequences of war and perhaps give a modest thought to the negative effects of bombing a nation in the name of their own liberation. He needs to understand that it is impossible to stand next to people who wish to unleash violence on the basis of lies and dubious intent (liberating Iraqi socialists and trade unionists was not, I suggest, the focus of the war just a happy side effect) and that actually the view of others in a power bloc - in this case Islam - really do matter. He is right that we should be bolder in our claims for universal human and political rights, but needs to recognise the damage done  to those claims by illegal war, and perhaps we should be more wary of siding with anyone who hated Bush - and I would certainly plead guilty to some of that - and put more thought into solutions rather than just blaming the US and Israel.

And Israel. In a strange final chapter he accuses middle class liberals of being anti-Semitic when they say they oppose Zionism or Israel. Or to be more exact, that they may not be anti-Semitic, but they behave anti-Semitically. He suggests that the Islamists and Baathists (mysteriously allied in opposition to Bush and Blair) subscribe to the views first outlined in the French revolution that the ills of world are caused by an alliance of Jews and Freemasons. Here I think Cohen has lost his own plot. For surely our ability to reject the political movement that is Zionism is part of those fundamental Western freedoms he wants us to impose on others and does not entail anti-Semitism - which I see as discrimination against Jews - in the slightest. We did not oppose the war in Iraq because we were anti-Semites, but because we hated the simplistic policies of George W Bush and didn't believe the motivations of Tony Blair. It may have been a mistake, but that was the simple truth of it.

From a thought provoking and solid start Cohen's language deteriorates to hyperbole, his choice of targets is random at the least and he does not acknowledge his own prejudices. I feel that had he waited a year to write this book he may have produced a more sober and persuasive account. As it is he does provoke some interesting thoughts and will challenge your assumptions wherever you stand. But it is not the book needed to redefine and revitalise the left in Europe.

******

While I understand we can expect little from a Queen's Speech so close to an election, Ed Balls gift of 'rights' to school children's parent is so ridiculous it is hard to know where to begin. It is clearly obvious that, for whatever reason, despite the massive increase in spending, all is not well with Britain's schools. You can blame whichever bogey you want, incessant testing, poor teacher morale, inclusion of SEN pupils, OFSTED, national curriculum, over-interference from Government, distortion of the private sector.... But the fact is that all is not well. Despite this, and without any further money, resources or legislation, Ed Balls has said everyone has the 'right' to top quality education and if you don't get it you can sue. Even better, if you are 'underachieving' in basic skills you have the 'right' to 1 to 1 tuition. Where the extra £billions will come from we don't know, not are we clear of entitlement. Does every schoolchild in the UK who performs further than half way down a national test have the right to 1 to 1 tuition?

I fear that New Labour policy people think this is clever when actually it is dumb. It is insultingly dumb, damaging to schools, children and parent all at the same time. For Christ's sake, Ed Balls, just grow up and learn to do some real politics. This nonsense just makes you despair.

Reform!

A Call for Citizen Lords

It seems extraordinary that when Blair first came to power, the initial parliamentary session was filled with constitutional reform. The devolution agendas have moved on swiftly since that time, destination unknown it would seem, but the reform of the House of Lords having passed first base appears to have stalled.

Democrats (of which there are many) and republicans (of which there are rather fewer) like me have great difficulties with the House of Lords. Despite its built-in right wing bias, its undemocratic nature and its vestige of privilege, throughout the last 30 years it has upheld the rights of the people in a way the elected House of Commons has continually failed to do. In the Thatcher days it was the Lords which defended us from some of her more extreme class-war legislation and in this decade has been the last line of defence against New Labour’s totalitarian instincts. Clearly, it is not all bad.

Any reform of the House of Lords has to take as its starting point, how can it continue to fulfil this hugely valuable role of defending us from the political excesses of our ‘democratic dictatorship’ political system?

Most debate has centred on the merits of ‘appointed’ lords and ‘elected’ Lords, with progressives generally favouring the elected option. When the Commons last voted on these issues there was a small majority in favour of a fully elected House of Lords. I flatly reject this option.

 The first question we have to ask is, in what way would an elected House of Lords differ from the Commons? It does not matter what constituencies are used, how often Lords are elected or serve, it seems to me we would end up with a copy of the House of Commons. So if the Commons is happy to vote for (for instance 42 days detention without trial) what mechanism would prevent an elected Lords from endorsing that policy? How do you build in the obstinate individualism that allows the Lords to block such outrages? The government (of any colour) does not want reasoned, independent scrutiny, it wants its bills passed quickly and efficiently.

If an elected House of Lords was dominated by the opposition, then it would simply seek to wreck good legislation for party political reasons; if dominated by the governing party, it would drive through legislation without the necessary pause for thought and consideration. The Commons is supposed to examine legislation, but it has failed to do this convincingly for a number of years (again this spreads back into pre-New Labour days). To hear MPs lamenting the ‘unintended consequences’ of recent legislation is frankly outrageous; it is a part of the job of MPs to examine legislation from all sides to ensure there are no unintended consequences. Increasingly legislation is whipped through as swiftly as possible with as little time for examination as the government can get away with. 

 I fail to see how an elected House of Lords would act any differently. If an elected House of Commons cannot call Government to account, how is an elected House of Lords?

Appointing members to the House of Lords has a certain appeal. We elect MPs who increasingly have no expertise in the real world, so packing the Lords with ‘experts’ be they scientists, soldiers, entrepreneurs, teachers, engineers or civil servants has a clear advantage. This is far better than filling the benches with retired politicians. If the Lords’ main function is to examine the legislation from the Commons, then having a range of experts who know something about how the legislation would work is a positive way of reducing these infernal ‘unintended consequences’.

 The devil is in the detail. Who appoints these people? On what grounds? To what criteria? Currently, and in all plans I have seen, this ‘privilege’ would continue to be a gift of the political leaders. So how do we know that the IT expert appointed to the Lords is the best IT expert rather than a competent IT man who happens to share the political views of the party who has nominated him or her?

A bureaucratic, but possibly way forward might be to appoint a small commission to appoint a set number of ‘experts’, probably for a limited time, say 7 years. The make-up of the House of Lords would be decided academically ie it needs x politicians, y security experts, z lawyers etc, etc. And the commission would find the best candidates to fill those places.

However, my favoured solution is based on my extremely positive experience of sitting on court juries. These randomly allocated lay groups are generally extremely effective in examining the evidence brought before them. My proposal would be to develop a map of the country – gender, age, ethnicity, profession etc and reproduce that map in the Lords from randomly allocated people. These ‘Citizen Lords’ would be randomly selected (for a shorter time, perhaps 4/5 years) to create a second chamber which represents the country. They would be expected to serve if selected and employers would be expected to keep their jobs open until their return. They should be compensated (not paid) with something like 10% over their regular wage. Their role would be to examine and revise legislation passed by the Commons, with the help of civil servants, and to hold commissions into important issues of the day by hearing and judging the contributions of experts.

I genuinely believe that the common experience of ordinary citizens will prove more instructive in preventing ‘unintended consequences’ than either the party-loyal democratically elected members or the appointed experts. Our ‘Citizen Lords’ will have no responsibility other than to represent the views of the citizens on the legislation our politicians create for us. It would rejuvenate political debate, ask hard questions of the political classes and create the sort of ‘democratic’ shift which I think everyone feels we currently need.

Return to home page