Do you remember this from 12 months ago? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIH-2lZF2yw The Un-credible shrinking man. 12 months before a General Election they spent an entire broadcast slaughtering us and letting the Tories off scot free!
Labour spent most of the previous parliament calling us "Yellow Tories", traitors, and diminishing everything we did in Government. They forgot to attack the Tories allowing them to take credit for the economic recovery while we got no credit.
It was miserable, dreadful and appalling night and partly we have to look at what we did wrong. However, one thing I know is that Labour spent 5 years destroying us and look where it got them.
Labour could have spent 5 years been a constructive opposition that campaigned on a centrist platform. They could have been seen as a Government in waiting. Yes, they were right to stand up over the bedroom tax and the NHS and Social Care reforms, but they could have been more reasonable about the economy and numerous other policies. Instead they adopted a class warfare, hard left stance that may have energised their activists but scared the proverbials out of anyone in the centre.
They lost the election for two main reason 1. The Economy and 2. Strategy. On the economy they made a massive strategic error. They fell into a gigantic trap. For the first two years the mantra was too far, too fast, while the country was in recession this argument resonated. In 2012 the Coalition slowed up on austerity and the economy started to recover. Labour could have congratulated the Government on following Labour's Plan B and then there economic ratings may have ticked up a bit. Instead they were petty and pathetic claiming that the economy was still rubbish. Most people actually realised the economy was improving and it damaged Labour's economic credibility, which was fatal.
On strategy, Labour pursued a 35% strategy. To achieve this they needed to destroy the Lib Dems, even discounting Scotland, this was a flawed policy.
Firstly the Lib Dems can reach Tory swing voters in areas that Labour can never touch (particularly in the South West). All that happened was that the Labour squeeze voters voted Labour and the Lib Dem/ Tory voters switchers switched to the Tories. This handed seat after seat to the Tories as far more Lib Dems seats were Tory facing than were Labour facing. You only needed to look at the 1950s to see that when the Liberal were destroyed, you get the Tories in Government.
Secondly as we are a centrist party they had to attack from a further left standpoint. It pushed them to the left and made them unelectable to the Mondeo Man (Soccer mum) group that decides election. It was utterly crazy.
I'm sure they enjoyed destroying it but the British people are now going to see what a Tory Government is really like!
Sunday, 10 May 2015
Thursday, 29 May 2014
Thoughts on Rennard
When I saw the word "Rennard" in the headlines, after the week we've had, I inwardly groaned. But I was delighted when it emerged he had apologised.
Some good work had obviously gone on behind the scenes to get to this position. We now need all parties to accept the statement and move on. The only harm dragging this out will be to Lib Dems.
Chris should be re-integrated into the party. I say this for several reasons:
Firstly he has done what was asked of him in the report. He has apologised for his conduct. As a party we do believe in due process, Chris has not been charged let alone convicted of any offence. He has engaged with a report into his behaviour and (finally) accepted the conclusions of the report. We would think it would be wrong to punish someone who has not been convicted of any offence - so why should Chris be any different?
Secondly Chris has spent most of life working for the good of the party and this should not be forgotten.
Thirdly, there is a quid pro quo - if we keep moving the goalposts then our already dubious internal procedures will simply fall apart, opening us up to legal challenges. If this happened we may be unable to kick out people who really need to be kicked out.
The rumours I heard about Chris's actions were not of the illegal type but rather of actions unbecoming of a Lib Dem Chief Executive. But the fact I heard rumours makes me think that the party failed to act and supported the powerful over the weak. We must never allow this to happen again.
To this end the party have appointed an pastoral care officer - I've been less than impressed so far. My first contact with the officer was an email requesting I fill in a survey a few weeks before polling day. The timing was completely inept. I didn't fill it in. I ran out of time, like many other organisers. It seemed a bit too like a hatchet job - nothing's wrong with our staff because we didn't receive any complaints. That's rubbish we were all working too hard.
I've seen in the past few months a number of examples of bad working practices. What would be good would be a booklet sent to all elected Lib Dems about inappropriate behaviour with staff. Explaining what is bullying, homophobia, sexual misconduct, harassment etc. It may get laughed at but it is important.
We must always act in accordance with our beliefs even if it costs electorally or damages a senior
party figure. There must be no repeat of Rennard.
Wednesday, 28 May 2014
Et tu Oakshott
Okay I thought that my latest blog would be called "How not to carry out a coup" but instead went for something a bit more pithy. Although to be fair Oakshott didn't stab Clegg in the back, more likely he tried to stabbed him in the front and missed.
The LibDems4change/Oakshott group made several mistakes.
MISTAKE 1 - CAME OUT AFTER WRONG ELECTION
Firstly it started after the wrong set of election results. For London it must have been a terrible shock to lose all your Councillors, but for most of us we expected the defeats (actually there was a warm glow of success for some of us). It was nothing new and for lots of us we were actually quite chuffed with the results. The despair hadn't set in.
In addition it was obvious that a lot of the plotting happened on polling day. When these people should have been trying to elect Lib Dems.
The European Elections were the right moment to do it. Many of us were shattered and terrified after these set of results. We'd never experienced only having 1 MEP under the D'hondt system. This was the time to go.
MISTAKE 2 TECHNICAL ISSUES
Caron Lindsey pointed out about legalistic things like where did they get emails from, where was the address was registered. I happened to think these things are unimportant but others do not. It made it look a bit amateurish.
MISTAKE 3 WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?
The failure to get any substantial figures to back the coup was a real problem - I didn't see a single MP (not even Sarah Teather) stand up and say Nick out. Surely if you are plotting to replace our leader you need to get some important people on board first.
MISTAKE 4 THE POLLS
I suspect Lord Oakshott thought he could remain anonymous and leak his polls. But the British Polling Institute rules meant ICM had to release who commissioned these polls. The problem with the polls is that they seemed sneaky, underhand and damaged the prospects of the MPs in the specific seats. It's not going to be easy for Ian Swales to squeeze UKIP after the results of his seat poll.
Anybody who looks at the way the polls are done can see that it is a hatchet job. They were unweighted and furthermore ICM didn't prompt for candidates which basically makes the point of a constituency polls irrelevant.
MISTAKE 5 NO NEW STRATEGY
It was never properly outlined what the proposal post Nick would be. Would we stay in the coalition?Would Nick still be deputy MP? Who would be new leader? How would our policy/direction differ?
Libdems4change never outlined their preference. Which meant those of us on the fence like myself never had the chance to weigh one option (keep Clegg) against a post Clegg world.
I'm not going to sign the Libdems4change letters - they've cocked it up but what I now want is the Lib Dem leadership to come out say they are listening and what we are going to do about it.
The LibDems4change/Oakshott group made several mistakes.
MISTAKE 1 - CAME OUT AFTER WRONG ELECTION
Firstly it started after the wrong set of election results. For London it must have been a terrible shock to lose all your Councillors, but for most of us we expected the defeats (actually there was a warm glow of success for some of us). It was nothing new and for lots of us we were actually quite chuffed with the results. The despair hadn't set in.
In addition it was obvious that a lot of the plotting happened on polling day. When these people should have been trying to elect Lib Dems.
The European Elections were the right moment to do it. Many of us were shattered and terrified after these set of results. We'd never experienced only having 1 MEP under the D'hondt system. This was the time to go.
MISTAKE 2 TECHNICAL ISSUES
Caron Lindsey pointed out about legalistic things like where did they get emails from, where was the address was registered. I happened to think these things are unimportant but others do not. It made it look a bit amateurish.
MISTAKE 3 WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?
The failure to get any substantial figures to back the coup was a real problem - I didn't see a single MP (not even Sarah Teather) stand up and say Nick out. Surely if you are plotting to replace our leader you need to get some important people on board first.
MISTAKE 4 THE POLLS
I suspect Lord Oakshott thought he could remain anonymous and leak his polls. But the British Polling Institute rules meant ICM had to release who commissioned these polls. The problem with the polls is that they seemed sneaky, underhand and damaged the prospects of the MPs in the specific seats. It's not going to be easy for Ian Swales to squeeze UKIP after the results of his seat poll.
Anybody who looks at the way the polls are done can see that it is a hatchet job. They were unweighted and furthermore ICM didn't prompt for candidates which basically makes the point of a constituency polls irrelevant.
MISTAKE 5 NO NEW STRATEGY
It was never properly outlined what the proposal post Nick would be. Would we stay in the coalition?Would Nick still be deputy MP? Who would be new leader? How would our policy/direction differ?
Libdems4change never outlined their preference. Which meant those of us on the fence like myself never had the chance to weigh one option (keep Clegg) against a post Clegg world.
I'm not going to sign the Libdems4change letters - they've cocked it up but what I now want is the Lib Dem leadership to come out say they are listening and what we are going to do about it.
Tuesday, 27 May 2014
Shooting the UKIP fox
So the UKIP fox is in the Westminster henhouse - well it's not - they haven't got a single MP.
But that's not what you'd think if you beamed down from Planet Zog. The media and politicians from all three parties cannot get through an interview without talking about UKIP.
The only two political issues that seem to matter are Europe and Immigration. No wonder UKIP have just topped the poll!
There is a very human element to this - the anger most politico's feel about UKIP is understandable. They're a bunch of racists and homophobes whose policies are simplistic and treat the voters intellect with contempt. Yet they keep picking up votes. These people need to be made to understand. That's actually how I feel...until I put my campaigning head on.
UKIP have strong basic values which they communicate effectively. Their views on immigration and Europe are popular (but obviously absurd). But the number one rule of politics is to fight campaigns on your turf. Yet in 2014 all three political parties have fought on UKIPs turf and unsurprisingly they've lost.
All three parties have strong reasons to want the UKIP surge to recede. Both the Conservatives and Labour may lose seats to UKIP and the Tories may lose seats to Labour because of UKIP. For us, UKIP stands for everything that we are diametrically opposed to. The more they shift the debate away from our views the less we can push forward with our agenda.
So what can be done: Firstly it's time to draw to a close to the European and immigration debate. That means shut up about it. There is part of me that winces when Tory bankbenchers move motions for an early referendum.
Both coalition parties have good reasons to want to talk about the economy. Start talking about it - in great detail. Have debates about tax, services, deficit reduction etc. Because on all these points UKIP score badly when people know their policies. Simon Hughes comically destroyed UKIP's tax policy on Question Time a few years ago. Fundamentally I'm pretty sure UKIPs' confused Libertarian policies are not going to go down that well with the electorate.
Likewise Labour should be making points about UKIP reducing benefits and privatising the NHS. I'm not sure the UKIP voters in Rotherham would be that enamoured with these policies.
At the moment UKIP will start to die off sometime after the next General Election. Literally, most of their voters are old. But to stop a new generation of UKIP voters coming along we need to do something we haven't done in this country in a very long time.....
Build houses.
UKIP blame immigration for house prices (and rent increases), longer life expectancy is the real reason, but we can't be blaming the OAPs for the fact that most of my generation will struggle to get on the property ladder and therefore we will continue to get ripped off for rent.
This is why I'd advocate a national house building programme. Government directed to build millions of homes and fast. Green Belt, Tax incentives and planning regs would have to be looked at properly but I think the Government need to take charge. The housing market in the UK is classic example of market failure and it needs to be sorted.
But that's not what you'd think if you beamed down from Planet Zog. The media and politicians from all three parties cannot get through an interview without talking about UKIP.
The only two political issues that seem to matter are Europe and Immigration. No wonder UKIP have just topped the poll!
There is a very human element to this - the anger most politico's feel about UKIP is understandable. They're a bunch of racists and homophobes whose policies are simplistic and treat the voters intellect with contempt. Yet they keep picking up votes. These people need to be made to understand. That's actually how I feel...until I put my campaigning head on.
UKIP have strong basic values which they communicate effectively. Their views on immigration and Europe are popular (but obviously absurd). But the number one rule of politics is to fight campaigns on your turf. Yet in 2014 all three political parties have fought on UKIPs turf and unsurprisingly they've lost.
All three parties have strong reasons to want the UKIP surge to recede. Both the Conservatives and Labour may lose seats to UKIP and the Tories may lose seats to Labour because of UKIP. For us, UKIP stands for everything that we are diametrically opposed to. The more they shift the debate away from our views the less we can push forward with our agenda.
So what can be done: Firstly it's time to draw to a close to the European and immigration debate. That means shut up about it. There is part of me that winces when Tory bankbenchers move motions for an early referendum.
Both coalition parties have good reasons to want to talk about the economy. Start talking about it - in great detail. Have debates about tax, services, deficit reduction etc. Because on all these points UKIP score badly when people know their policies. Simon Hughes comically destroyed UKIP's tax policy on Question Time a few years ago. Fundamentally I'm pretty sure UKIPs' confused Libertarian policies are not going to go down that well with the electorate.
Likewise Labour should be making points about UKIP reducing benefits and privatising the NHS. I'm not sure the UKIP voters in Rotherham would be that enamoured with these policies.
At the moment UKIP will start to die off sometime after the next General Election. Literally, most of their voters are old. But to stop a new generation of UKIP voters coming along we need to do something we haven't done in this country in a very long time.....
Build houses.
UKIP blame immigration for house prices (and rent increases), longer life expectancy is the real reason, but we can't be blaming the OAPs for the fact that most of my generation will struggle to get on the property ladder and therefore we will continue to get ripped off for rent.
This is why I'd advocate a national house building programme. Government directed to build millions of homes and fast. Green Belt, Tax incentives and planning regs would have to be looked at properly but I think the Government need to take charge. The housing market in the UK is classic example of market failure and it needs to be sorted.
Monday, 26 May 2014
A few post election thoughts
Wow - it's nearly two years since I blogged - lots of catching up to do!
We had a good election ,,,,
Local Election that is, and only in Yorkshire. I'm really pleased that we held our leader in Leeds and a myriad of other Councillors. It's the first time since 2010 since I've left a count not feeling distraught.
We had a very bad election.....
The European Election results were not just bad, they were appalling. They were far far worse than I expected. We have finally answered the perennial question - should we as a pro European party fight a European election on Europe? Er no.
Mark Park explained the mistake in an interview with the BBC. He basically said that as a radical reforming party we seemed to be defending the status quo. I'm Pro European, but I'm also not blind to the EU's numerous faults. I want to see greater democratisation of the EU, I want it be more cost effective and less bureaucratic (It's sad that Edward McMillan-Scott will no longer be able to fight to ditch Strasbourg) I'd like proper reform of the common agricultural policy and much more. The problem is that by saying we were the party of IN we were often left defending things we didn't believe were right. The EU needs reform and people (even supporters of the EU) know this.
This is why the majority of the population, while supporting our membership, are at best lukewarm about the EU. We made the mistake of thinking the EU was popular amongst those "Inners." it's not, most think our membership is the least bad option. So our Pro- European message was not going to appeal to the Inners at all.
Cack handedness abounds...
The day after the results I got an email from Annette Brooke. I'm sure the email was not from Annette Brooke, I'm sure she wouldn't have being so dumb to send something so flagrantly offensive as the tripe the party decided to unleash on it's members.
Fundamentally it said that the Local Election results were good where we worked hard. For those who lost this implied their defeat was down to their own deficiencies and had nothing to do with the national mood.
While undoubtedly we had some shit Councillors and candidates who frankly got what they deserved. The vast majority I know who lost, worked bloody hard and it is a tragedy they lost. That email can only have pissed of these people and their teams. Losing is an extremely emotional experience, for some it was a kick they really didn't need.
The parties top brass need to stop rolling out the "where we work we win/were doing well where we have MPs" line as
A) It's not true - ask Manchester, who properly worked hard and still got wiped out.
B) It pisses activists off
C) Who do we think is going to pile in in 2015 to our held seats? it's going to be the teams that Councillors in wards outside the parliamentary seats. If we abandon all hope in these areas we are damaging the activist base that may save MPs
D) It ignores reality, places are bucking the trend... but we do need to do something about the trend.
However I also received an email from Libdems4change asking if I would sign their letter trying to get Nick Clegg out. Carl Minns articulates why many of us were more than little perturbed about this http://carlminns.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/a-question-to-fellow-lib-dems-what-were.html
It reminded me a bit of the great Shed 7 song - Where have you been tonight? You should have been electing Lib Dems not fannying about with a letter.
Anyway they should have waited more people would have been pissed off on Sunday night than Friday morning!
I won't be signing the letter.
But....
We need to talk aboutKevin Nick
At the European Election when I saw the figures from Calderdale, a place that frankly is the most naturally Lib Dem place in the region (we got 4.6% of the vote) I thought that's it NICK HAS TO GO.
A day of mulling it over has left me feeling conflicted.
On the one hand I feel that Nick is toxic and that people simply have stopped listening to him.
But the argument that Cleggigista are putting forward that we risk going through all the pain to throw it away just as we are about to reap the rewards of the economic recovery is powerful.
The best blog on Lib Dem voice I have read in the last few days is this one by Iain Roberts http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-we-need-to-stop-helping-the-other-parties-and-change-our-message-40339.html
It expounds something I've felt for a long time. We need to sharpen up and stop being so nice. Sod collective responsibility - we need to say some of the Government's policies such as bedroom tax are shit and we are putting up with them so we can get x,y or z.
A few years ago I listened to Chris DaviesMEP rattle off a whole raft of things we had stopped that I'd never heard of. We must get these messages out there.
Ryan Coetzee is putting lots of time into branding. I fully agree with the Stronger Economy, Fairer Society stuff. But we have to back this up in Government.
A fairer society does not impose the prisoner book ban or marriage tax breaks. I know we can't stop everything but lets stop more things.
The end
Mad Tory backbenchers will want to push through a more right wing agenda to counter the UKIP threat. Simply we mustn't stand for it. Even if this means leaving the coalition early. It may even do us some good to quit over a point of principle.
We had a good election ,,,,
Local Election that is, and only in Yorkshire. I'm really pleased that we held our leader in Leeds and a myriad of other Councillors. It's the first time since 2010 since I've left a count not feeling distraught.
We had a very bad election.....
The European Election results were not just bad, they were appalling. They were far far worse than I expected. We have finally answered the perennial question - should we as a pro European party fight a European election on Europe? Er no.
Mark Park explained the mistake in an interview with the BBC. He basically said that as a radical reforming party we seemed to be defending the status quo. I'm Pro European, but I'm also not blind to the EU's numerous faults. I want to see greater democratisation of the EU, I want it be more cost effective and less bureaucratic (It's sad that Edward McMillan-Scott will no longer be able to fight to ditch Strasbourg) I'd like proper reform of the common agricultural policy and much more. The problem is that by saying we were the party of IN we were often left defending things we didn't believe were right. The EU needs reform and people (even supporters of the EU) know this.
This is why the majority of the population, while supporting our membership, are at best lukewarm about the EU. We made the mistake of thinking the EU was popular amongst those "Inners." it's not, most think our membership is the least bad option. So our Pro- European message was not going to appeal to the Inners at all.
Cack handedness abounds...
The day after the results I got an email from Annette Brooke. I'm sure the email was not from Annette Brooke, I'm sure she wouldn't have being so dumb to send something so flagrantly offensive as the tripe the party decided to unleash on it's members.
Fundamentally it said that the Local Election results were good where we worked hard. For those who lost this implied their defeat was down to their own deficiencies and had nothing to do with the national mood.
While undoubtedly we had some shit Councillors and candidates who frankly got what they deserved. The vast majority I know who lost, worked bloody hard and it is a tragedy they lost. That email can only have pissed of these people and their teams. Losing is an extremely emotional experience, for some it was a kick they really didn't need.
The parties top brass need to stop rolling out the "where we work we win/were doing well where we have MPs" line as
A) It's not true - ask Manchester, who properly worked hard and still got wiped out.
B) It pisses activists off
C) Who do we think is going to pile in in 2015 to our held seats? it's going to be the teams that Councillors in wards outside the parliamentary seats. If we abandon all hope in these areas we are damaging the activist base that may save MPs
D) It ignores reality, places are bucking the trend... but we do need to do something about the trend.
However I also received an email from Libdems4change asking if I would sign their letter trying to get Nick Clegg out. Carl Minns articulates why many of us were more than little perturbed about this http://carlminns.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/a-question-to-fellow-lib-dems-what-were.html
It reminded me a bit of the great Shed 7 song - Where have you been tonight? You should have been electing Lib Dems not fannying about with a letter.
Anyway they should have waited more people would have been pissed off on Sunday night than Friday morning!
I won't be signing the letter.
But....
We need to talk about
At the European Election when I saw the figures from Calderdale, a place that frankly is the most naturally Lib Dem place in the region (we got 4.6% of the vote) I thought that's it NICK HAS TO GO.
A day of mulling it over has left me feeling conflicted.
On the one hand I feel that Nick is toxic and that people simply have stopped listening to him.
But the argument that Cleggigista are putting forward that we risk going through all the pain to throw it away just as we are about to reap the rewards of the economic recovery is powerful.
The best blog on Lib Dem voice I have read in the last few days is this one by Iain Roberts http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-we-need-to-stop-helping-the-other-parties-and-change-our-message-40339.html
It expounds something I've felt for a long time. We need to sharpen up and stop being so nice. Sod collective responsibility - we need to say some of the Government's policies such as bedroom tax are shit and we are putting up with them so we can get x,y or z.
A few years ago I listened to Chris Davies
Ryan Coetzee is putting lots of time into branding. I fully agree with the Stronger Economy, Fairer Society stuff. But we have to back this up in Government.
A fairer society does not impose the prisoner book ban or marriage tax breaks. I know we can't stop everything but lets stop more things.
The end
Mad Tory backbenchers will want to push through a more right wing agenda to counter the UKIP threat. Simply we mustn't stand for it. Even if this means leaving the coalition early. It may even do us some good to quit over a point of principle.
Monday, 13 August 2012
We are not turkey's voting for Christmas!
I haven't had chance to post since the House of Lord debacle, but last week Nick Clegg announced that he would get all our MPs to vote against boundary changes. I fully support this decision.
Firstly the coalition agreement cannot be taken in isolation the argument that that the Boundary changes is linked to the AV referendum is spurious. If you agree to a contract where you provide a specific amount of work and then you don't do all the work then the employer is likely to deduct some of your potential earnings. We can't have a deal where one party loses on the whim of another.
As a party we were going to be criticised for either been petulant or being a doormat - it's better to be petulant who gets something that we want (or in this case stops something we don't want) than viewed as weak. A message had to be sent.
The Boundary changes would have cost us MPs. We retain a large number of our seats because of the personal votes of our MPs. Bringing in new areas would have diluted these personal votes. Additionally what has happened in the way we campaign and target is that many of the wards around marginal seats have seen minimal activity as we target resources at our key parliamentary seats.
As I said in the pub at the weekend - do you think we would be turkeys voting for Christmas? After nearly a century where the Great British constitution has continually damaged us do you think we we would actually vote to make it harder for ourselves? We are re daft but not that daft.
Firstly the coalition agreement cannot be taken in isolation the argument that that the Boundary changes is linked to the AV referendum is spurious. If you agree to a contract where you provide a specific amount of work and then you don't do all the work then the employer is likely to deduct some of your potential earnings. We can't have a deal where one party loses on the whim of another.
As a party we were going to be criticised for either been petulant or being a doormat - it's better to be petulant who gets something that we want (or in this case stops something we don't want) than viewed as weak. A message had to be sent.
The Boundary changes would have cost us MPs. We retain a large number of our seats because of the personal votes of our MPs. Bringing in new areas would have diluted these personal votes. Additionally what has happened in the way we campaign and target is that many of the wards around marginal seats have seen minimal activity as we target resources at our key parliamentary seats.
As I said in the pub at the weekend - do you think we would be turkeys voting for Christmas? After nearly a century where the Great British constitution has continually damaged us do you think we we would actually vote to make it harder for ourselves? We are re daft but not that daft.
Wednesday, 11 July 2012
The Email Nick Clegg should have sent
After a day becoming more and more depressed watching the coverage of the Lords and crowing Right wing Tories and authoritarian Labour MPs I got an email from Nick Clegg which started off like this:
"Dear Rob,
This evening we overwhelmingly won an historic vote on the Second Reading of the House of Lords Reform Bill - a Bill that will finish something our party started a century ago.
This is a huge triumph for our party, and a clear mandate to deliver much needed reforms to the House of Lords. "
At the precise moment this popped into my inbox a little piece of me died. Whoever sent this email needs their head examining.
Yesterday was a disaster - we have probably lost the only opportunity we will ever have to get an elected Lords and the party needs to realise this. Everything about the coalition has changed and we need to get our heads around this.
Sending this email was trite, treated the membership with contempt and was actually dishonest. We are not stupid, we now know that Lords reform is further away after yesterday, not closer. It has been the subject to much mockery on the Internet and I'm sure Andrew Neill will have a field day with it on This Week. Can an MP with a straight face say Yesterday was a triumph - no of course not.
Politically it's also daft - we need to appear to be angry not compliant if we are to get our own way. Cameron needs to be scared of us, not his own right wing.
This is the email I would have sent members last night if I had been Nick Clegg:
Dear Rob,
Yesterday was a day when I was proud of my party, all 57 of our MPs voted to end privilege and patronage in our democracy.
However the conduct of both the Labour Party and a significant number of Tory MPs left me ashamed to be a Parliamentarian. They were happy to scupper Lords Reform on the basis either of narrow party political gain or because they do not believe in democracy. While we passed legislation to start the ball rolling on Lords reform, getting the legislation enacted onto the statute book will be much harder now because of the wrecking antics of these MP. It was clear that we could not win the programme motion which would have set a timetable for Lords Reform which is why I agreed to withdraw it.
However this is not the end for Lords Reform, the bill will be brought back for it's second reading in the Autumn and we will fight tooth and nail to win this battle.
But we need your help - over the coming months I am asking you to "spread the word" talk to your family, your friends and your neighbours about why Lords Reform is important. Support Lords Reform online at www.fixparlaiment.org and help the Lib Dems deliver their message on the ground by delivering leaflets and knocking on doors.
We are determined to defeat the forces that protect the establishment and carry out this vital reform.
All the best
etc
I will write in the coming days about what the party should do now but one must be to be honest with their own members!
"Dear Rob,
This evening we overwhelmingly won an historic vote on the Second Reading of the House of Lords Reform Bill - a Bill that will finish something our party started a century ago.
This is a huge triumph for our party, and a clear mandate to deliver much needed reforms to the House of Lords. "
At the precise moment this popped into my inbox a little piece of me died. Whoever sent this email needs their head examining.
Yesterday was a disaster - we have probably lost the only opportunity we will ever have to get an elected Lords and the party needs to realise this. Everything about the coalition has changed and we need to get our heads around this.
Sending this email was trite, treated the membership with contempt and was actually dishonest. We are not stupid, we now know that Lords reform is further away after yesterday, not closer. It has been the subject to much mockery on the Internet and I'm sure Andrew Neill will have a field day with it on This Week. Can an MP with a straight face say Yesterday was a triumph - no of course not.
Politically it's also daft - we need to appear to be angry not compliant if we are to get our own way. Cameron needs to be scared of us, not his own right wing.
This is the email I would have sent members last night if I had been Nick Clegg:
Dear Rob,
Yesterday was a day when I was proud of my party, all 57 of our MPs voted to end privilege and patronage in our democracy.
However the conduct of both the Labour Party and a significant number of Tory MPs left me ashamed to be a Parliamentarian. They were happy to scupper Lords Reform on the basis either of narrow party political gain or because they do not believe in democracy. While we passed legislation to start the ball rolling on Lords reform, getting the legislation enacted onto the statute book will be much harder now because of the wrecking antics of these MP. It was clear that we could not win the programme motion which would have set a timetable for Lords Reform which is why I agreed to withdraw it.
However this is not the end for Lords Reform, the bill will be brought back for it's second reading in the Autumn and we will fight tooth and nail to win this battle.
But we need your help - over the coming months I am asking you to "spread the word" talk to your family, your friends and your neighbours about why Lords Reform is important. Support Lords Reform online at www.fixparlaiment.org and help the Lib Dems deliver their message on the ground by delivering leaflets and knocking on doors.
We are determined to defeat the forces that protect the establishment and carry out this vital reform.
All the best
etc
I will write in the coming days about what the party should do now but one must be to be honest with their own members!
Tuesday, 10 July 2012
Lords Reform - we really need this
Today could be a day school children learn about in a hundred years time. The day Britain broke free from the yoke of despotism and embraced democracy. More likely the powers of vested interest and privilege will win the day and the vote will be lost.
The House of Lords is a disgrace, if a foreign country decided to set up a democracy where an unelected bunch of rich, religious and privileged old people could veto legislation, we would call this a scandal. This is precisely what happens today in Briatain.
Astonishingly only 4% of Lords are under the age of 50! and there are only 2 Lords (out of 850) under the age of 40 (and none under the age of 35).
The Lords does have power - it amends legislation on a regular basis and often squashes legislation by talking it out. It is not the benign institution it is made out to be. It has a track record of defending privilege and power at the expense of Joe Public.
But the question I want to really ask is what happens for us if we do lose the vote tonight. Over the last few years, as a Lib Dem, I've taken a lot of flack. The Government cuts have lost us votes by the bucket full (although I agree with them and actually they are basically Labour's fault). But I have struggled to swallow the changes to the NHS, tuition fees, the 50p rate, Police Commissioners, Free Schools and much more. I have swallowed these changes because I accept the need for compromise in a coalition Government.
Over the last few years, in the North, we have lost about two thirds of the Councillors, I and many of my friends have lost their jobs - through no fault of our own. We no longer run large Councils such as Hull, Sheffield, Newcastle, Cardiff or Liverpool. We've been wiped out on numerous Councils. In Wales we have become a virtual minority party and in Scotland we've been beaten by a man dressed as a penguin.
And God help us at the next General Election.
So why the bloody hell are we putting ourselves through this?
I'm not saying we haven't had our successes - the tax threshold changes have helped millions of people ( if the Tories had been in Government by themselves this tax cut would have gone on inheritance tax instead). We've made school funding fairer through the Pupil Premium, we are bringing forward legislation on Gay Marriage and we've stopped the Tories doing a hell of a lot of bad/bonkers stuff. But many of these changes can be (and probably will be) easily reversed and changed by the next Government. To get up in the morning and hold my head up high, I need something lasting that will make a difference and House of Lords is that something.
If we can't get something that is a) in all parties manifesto, b) has large public support (69% want reform only 5% want the status quo according to an April Yougov poll) and c) is in the Coalition Agreement then we really are powerless and being taken for a ride.
If we lose tonight it shown that the Government is unable to implement the Coalition document. Brutally the Tories have reneged on the deal. As a party we need to think long and hard about how we need to respond to this.
I do not think we should pull out of Government as lets face it we would be battered at the ensuing General Election (and on a personal note I've booked a Holiday in August which I really need!) but we need to be more calculating on what is in our best interest. The Administration will have to become a de-facto confidence and supply Government.
Tomorrow, if we lose we should come out and veto the Boundary Changes and the Data snooping laws. No Lib Dem wants the latter anyway and the Tories really want the former. This would be a statement of intent and would set a marker down for the rest of the 2 and a half years in Government.
If we do veto boundary changes, we will be accused of stopping an important reform of equalizing the size of constituency allowing everybodies vote to be equal.
Well actually votes under the FPTP cannot be equal. Nearly a million people voted for UKIP at the last General Election yet there is not a single UKIP member on the green benches. I'm not going to have a long rant about PR but this change will make very little difference to the fairness of the outcome of an election - and that is what really matters. In fact it will make it harder for many smaller parties to get their voice heard at all as the larger the constituency the harder it is for anyone bar the main two too win.
Secondly one of the big pluses of FPTP is the supposed link between MPs and Constituencies. It allows MPs to represent communities and argue for them. What the Boundary changes effectively does is destroy this notion. Communities are split apart, local authority boundaries are crossed, it will make it harder for MPs to effectively represent communities. As the Liberal Democrat believe in Community Politics this is surely something to hard for us to swallow without an improvement in another area of our democracy?
Dean, on Lib Dem Voice says that if we veto Boundary Changes we will have failed:
1. To demonstrate that coalitions are workable. - rubbish surely it's the Tories who are hell bent on destroying the coalition by not backing the coalition agreement.
2. That the lib Dems are a serious grown up party ready for government - Wrong - being a grown up party ready for Government means standing up for yourself and the people who elected you - rolling over and doing as your told is not part of being a grown up party!
So in summary if we lose tonight we can stop being NICE - time to be bitter and twisted, grow some balls and put ourselves first for once.
The House of Lords is a disgrace, if a foreign country decided to set up a democracy where an unelected bunch of rich, religious and privileged old people could veto legislation, we would call this a scandal. This is precisely what happens today in Briatain.
Astonishingly only 4% of Lords are under the age of 50! and there are only 2 Lords (out of 850) under the age of 40 (and none under the age of 35).
The Lords does have power - it amends legislation on a regular basis and often squashes legislation by talking it out. It is not the benign institution it is made out to be. It has a track record of defending privilege and power at the expense of Joe Public.
But the question I want to really ask is what happens for us if we do lose the vote tonight. Over the last few years, as a Lib Dem, I've taken a lot of flack. The Government cuts have lost us votes by the bucket full (although I agree with them and actually they are basically Labour's fault). But I have struggled to swallow the changes to the NHS, tuition fees, the 50p rate, Police Commissioners, Free Schools and much more. I have swallowed these changes because I accept the need for compromise in a coalition Government.
Over the last few years, in the North, we have lost about two thirds of the Councillors, I and many of my friends have lost their jobs - through no fault of our own. We no longer run large Councils such as Hull, Sheffield, Newcastle, Cardiff or Liverpool. We've been wiped out on numerous Councils. In Wales we have become a virtual minority party and in Scotland we've been beaten by a man dressed as a penguin.
And God help us at the next General Election.
So why the bloody hell are we putting ourselves through this?
I'm not saying we haven't had our successes - the tax threshold changes have helped millions of people ( if the Tories had been in Government by themselves this tax cut would have gone on inheritance tax instead). We've made school funding fairer through the Pupil Premium, we are bringing forward legislation on Gay Marriage and we've stopped the Tories doing a hell of a lot of bad/bonkers stuff. But many of these changes can be (and probably will be) easily reversed and changed by the next Government. To get up in the morning and hold my head up high, I need something lasting that will make a difference and House of Lords is that something.
If we can't get something that is a) in all parties manifesto, b) has large public support (69% want reform only 5% want the status quo according to an April Yougov poll) and c) is in the Coalition Agreement then we really are powerless and being taken for a ride.
If we lose tonight it shown that the Government is unable to implement the Coalition document. Brutally the Tories have reneged on the deal. As a party we need to think long and hard about how we need to respond to this.
I do not think we should pull out of Government as lets face it we would be battered at the ensuing General Election (and on a personal note I've booked a Holiday in August which I really need!) but we need to be more calculating on what is in our best interest. The Administration will have to become a de-facto confidence and supply Government.
Tomorrow, if we lose we should come out and veto the Boundary Changes and the Data snooping laws. No Lib Dem wants the latter anyway and the Tories really want the former. This would be a statement of intent and would set a marker down for the rest of the 2 and a half years in Government.
If we do veto boundary changes, we will be accused of stopping an important reform of equalizing the size of constituency allowing everybodies vote to be equal.
Well actually votes under the FPTP cannot be equal. Nearly a million people voted for UKIP at the last General Election yet there is not a single UKIP member on the green benches. I'm not going to have a long rant about PR but this change will make very little difference to the fairness of the outcome of an election - and that is what really matters. In fact it will make it harder for many smaller parties to get their voice heard at all as the larger the constituency the harder it is for anyone bar the main two too win.
Secondly one of the big pluses of FPTP is the supposed link between MPs and Constituencies. It allows MPs to represent communities and argue for them. What the Boundary changes effectively does is destroy this notion. Communities are split apart, local authority boundaries are crossed, it will make it harder for MPs to effectively represent communities. As the Liberal Democrat believe in Community Politics this is surely something to hard for us to swallow without an improvement in another area of our democracy?
Dean, on Lib Dem Voice says that if we veto Boundary Changes we will have failed:
1. To demonstrate that coalitions are workable. - rubbish surely it's the Tories who are hell bent on destroying the coalition by not backing the coalition agreement.
2. That the lib Dems are a serious grown up party ready for government - Wrong - being a grown up party ready for Government means standing up for yourself and the people who elected you - rolling over and doing as your told is not part of being a grown up party!
So in summary if we lose tonight we can stop being NICE - time to be bitter and twisted, grow some balls and put ourselves first for once.
Thursday, 24 May 2012
Clegg isn't a commie but social mobility is an issue
The Daily Mail thinks that Nick Clegg is a communist - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2148484/Nick-Clegg-accused-adopting-communist-policies-state-school-students-universities.html
This is a bit of an about turn for the Mail who accused him of being a Nazi during the 2010 General Election!
The Daily Mail blasted Clegg because he has highlighted the widening gap between the educational performances and opportunities between private and state school pupils.
Before Tony Blair, the previous 5 Prime Ministers were all state educated. In the 80s and early 90s the problem seemed to be in decline with John Major declaring Britain to be a classless society.
Now most of the Cabinet and the majority of the opposition front bench are privately educated. It's a problem across many major industries - those who have over the last ten years risen to the top tend to have the "old school tie".
So what has happened in the last twenty years to halt and reverse social mobility? you could write a book on it (and I don't intend too). Andrew Neill presented a documentary on it, where he lamented the loss of Grammar Schools. I don't intend to either agree or disagree with his verdict, but as I am a former Grammar School pupil I did find his view interesting.
One personal point I would make one assertion between the difference between my experience at a Grammar School and my wife's experience at a Comp. My wife is brighter than me, she achieved straight As in her GCSEs and A-Levels. I was pretty much a straight B pupil - good, but not great. Yet, when we looking for Universities, I was hauled into the Head of 6th Forms' office and he made it clear to me that I could get into a Russell Group University and it was important that I applied for them. My wife, on the other hand received no such encouragement, had she gone to my school she would have been told to apply for Oxbridge. This is of course just one example from more than a decade ago, but I do wonder whether Comps do enough to open the eyes of their brightest pupils to the possibilities that they could pursue.
This is a bit of an about turn for the Mail who accused him of being a Nazi during the 2010 General Election!
The Daily Mail blasted Clegg because he has highlighted the widening gap between the educational performances and opportunities between private and state school pupils.
Before Tony Blair, the previous 5 Prime Ministers were all state educated. In the 80s and early 90s the problem seemed to be in decline with John Major declaring Britain to be a classless society.
Now most of the Cabinet and the majority of the opposition front bench are privately educated. It's a problem across many major industries - those who have over the last ten years risen to the top tend to have the "old school tie".
So what has happened in the last twenty years to halt and reverse social mobility? you could write a book on it (and I don't intend too). Andrew Neill presented a documentary on it, where he lamented the loss of Grammar Schools. I don't intend to either agree or disagree with his verdict, but as I am a former Grammar School pupil I did find his view interesting.
One personal point I would make one assertion between the difference between my experience at a Grammar School and my wife's experience at a Comp. My wife is brighter than me, she achieved straight As in her GCSEs and A-Levels. I was pretty much a straight B pupil - good, but not great. Yet, when we looking for Universities, I was hauled into the Head of 6th Forms' office and he made it clear to me that I could get into a Russell Group University and it was important that I applied for them. My wife, on the other hand received no such encouragement, had she gone to my school she would have been told to apply for Oxbridge. This is of course just one example from more than a decade ago, but I do wonder whether Comps do enough to open the eyes of their brightest pupils to the possibilities that they could pursue.
Tuesday, 22 May 2012
The man I hate most in politics - The Baron Winston
When asked which politician I despise most, my answer surprises most people. It's not Thatcher, Blair, Brown, Tebbitt, Ed Milliband, Philip Davies or one of the many other crackpots who have represented us on the green benches of the House of Commons.
It's Lord Robert Winston, not that kind doctory type you may say. YES I do mean that horrible anti-democratic Labour zealot.
You see the above names don't pretend that they are not politicians. They stood for elections, present their views and won or lost accordingly. While I generally dislike their politics, I admire the fact that they are upfront and honest with party affiliations and put themselves up for public critique (and occasionally ridicule).
The Lord Winston however does not do this, instead because of his roles, both within the medical profession and as science TV presenters, the general public views him as a neutral figure. Somebody they can trust over political issues when he speaks. Yet of course he is not. He is a Labour Lord, taking the Labour Whip and speaking in a Parliamentary assembly on behalf of them.
This is of course a problem, when he speaks about Lords reform. Because he speaks about protecting an institution, the public view him not as a Labour Lord, trying to keep his expenses, but as a that nice guy off the telly. It gives him a non-politician credo that is totally misleading. He is a politician - just an unelected one, I can't vote to replace him though like I should be able to do with someone who impacts on the laws I am meant to abide by!
It's Lord Robert Winston, not that kind doctory type you may say. YES I do mean that horrible anti-democratic Labour zealot.
You see the above names don't pretend that they are not politicians. They stood for elections, present their views and won or lost accordingly. While I generally dislike their politics, I admire the fact that they are upfront and honest with party affiliations and put themselves up for public critique (and occasionally ridicule).
The Lord Winston however does not do this, instead because of his roles, both within the medical profession and as science TV presenters, the general public views him as a neutral figure. Somebody they can trust over political issues when he speaks. Yet of course he is not. He is a Labour Lord, taking the Labour Whip and speaking in a Parliamentary assembly on behalf of them.
This is of course a problem, when he speaks about Lords reform. Because he speaks about protecting an institution, the public view him not as a Labour Lord, trying to keep his expenses, but as a that nice guy off the telly. It gives him a non-politician credo that is totally misleading. He is a politician - just an unelected one, I can't vote to replace him though like I should be able to do with someone who impacts on the laws I am meant to abide by!
Back Blogging
Well according to Blogger the last time I posted anything was July last year. I didn't really plan on stopping it just turns out I've been quite busy - mainly with a new job. But I plan to start blogging again from today!
Friday, 1 July 2011
Well done Ken Clarke
I'm not a Tory, I despise much of what the Conservative party stands for. I hate their hard right, particularly Philip Davies MP. But I have always had a soft spot for Ken Clarke.
When he became Justice Secretary I breathed a sigh of relief as I saw the opportunity to end Labour's decade of warehousing people. Much of what he wants to do has been frustrated by a mixture of lack of cash and the right wing press.
There is not a lot he can do about the former, but a couple of days ago he played a blinder on the latter.
This week it was announced an end to may the IPP sentences and a reduction in the number of people serving time on remand. For clarification IPP are Imprisonment for Public Protection orders. Basically prisoners who are given these sentences will not be allowed to be released until they can prove they are nothing more "than a minimal threat to public safety". The problem of course is that is quite a difficult thing to prove, sitting in a prison cell. So people sentenced for a crime of say 4 years may end up serving 20 or 30 years. This is extremely morally objectionable, and Ken Clarke obviously agrees.
However the right wing press and Labour were gearing up to have another go at Clarke over this. So he made a statement about how people should be able to stab burglars in their home. This "clarification" is nothing of the sort and would affect a handful of cases. But, the right wing press had to report the more sensational story rather than the more political nuanced IPP and remand story. The proposals have stayed intact. Well done Ken.
When he became Justice Secretary I breathed a sigh of relief as I saw the opportunity to end Labour's decade of warehousing people. Much of what he wants to do has been frustrated by a mixture of lack of cash and the right wing press.
There is not a lot he can do about the former, but a couple of days ago he played a blinder on the latter.
This week it was announced an end to may the IPP sentences and a reduction in the number of people serving time on remand. For clarification IPP are Imprisonment for Public Protection orders. Basically prisoners who are given these sentences will not be allowed to be released until they can prove they are nothing more "than a minimal threat to public safety". The problem of course is that is quite a difficult thing to prove, sitting in a prison cell. So people sentenced for a crime of say 4 years may end up serving 20 or 30 years. This is extremely morally objectionable, and Ken Clarke obviously agrees.
However the right wing press and Labour were gearing up to have another go at Clarke over this. So he made a statement about how people should be able to stab burglars in their home. This "clarification" is nothing of the sort and would affect a handful of cases. But, the right wing press had to report the more sensational story rather than the more political nuanced IPP and remand story. The proposals have stayed intact. Well done Ken.
Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Why does the Prince of Wales escape the cuts?
I've just seen a headline on the Sky News website that says the tax payer funding of the Prince of Wales has GONE UP by 17.9%. Charlie now costs over 1.25 million with over £200k EXTRA lavished on him this year. I'm furious about this.
During the run up to the debates before the General Election all three party leaders offered small examples of cuts they would make. They interviewer would then say that this tiny cut wouldn't solve the debt problem. They would then give a few more examples and then the interviewer would make the same point. It was frustrating as a viewer because it was abundently clear that there wasn't one big cut that would solve everything. The only way to solve the defecit was to make hundreds of thousands of cuts and make sure that everything the tax payer funds would have to be make savings.
The cuts are painful, new schools have been axed meaning kids are still learning in portacabins. Police men and women are been laid off, Day centres for the elderley are closing. Some of these decisions are extremely difficult and hard.
So why does the Prince of Wales get more cash, he is not a frontline service! why does he not need to tighten his belt as every other public service does? He is a multi miliionaire landowner who can afford to pay his own way. I'm sorry this is a very bad decision - it gives the impression that the rich are immune from the effects of the cuts, and maybe this is because they are.
During the run up to the debates before the General Election all three party leaders offered small examples of cuts they would make. They interviewer would then say that this tiny cut wouldn't solve the debt problem. They would then give a few more examples and then the interviewer would make the same point. It was frustrating as a viewer because it was abundently clear that there wasn't one big cut that would solve everything. The only way to solve the defecit was to make hundreds of thousands of cuts and make sure that everything the tax payer funds would have to be make savings.
The cuts are painful, new schools have been axed meaning kids are still learning in portacabins. Police men and women are been laid off, Day centres for the elderley are closing. Some of these decisions are extremely difficult and hard.
So why does the Prince of Wales get more cash, he is not a frontline service! why does he not need to tighten his belt as every other public service does? He is a multi miliionaire landowner who can afford to pay his own way. I'm sorry this is a very bad decision - it gives the impression that the rich are immune from the effects of the cuts, and maybe this is because they are.
Thursday, 2 June 2011
Breaking a Ben Gunn butterfly over a mobile phone mast
One blog I have been reading for the past year is called Ben's Prison Blog. It is a by a serving prisoner called Ben Gunn. Ben has spent over 30 years at her majesty pleasure. When he was 14 he was involved in a fight with another boy that tragically led to the death of this individual. He pleaded guilty to murder and was effectively given a life sentence with a tariff set at ten years - so he should have been released 20 years ago. Except he still in prison. While inside, Ben hasn't killed anyone, he hasn't committed one violent offence in the entire 30 years. He has, however, been a thorn in the side of the HM prisons service - he has not played the game. He has also broken a number of non-violent regulations, such as developing a relationship with a female member of staff.
Recently he was about to be sent to open prison with the hope he could be released in 12 months time. On the day he was due to make the trip to Prescoed Open Prison, he borrowed an illegal phone to contact the outside world. From this moment on the story becomes sketchy. The next fact is that when his property was x-rayed on leaving the prison the phone was in it. Ben's story is that the con who he borrowed the phone from, stashed it there. This is a problem because prisoners aren't allowed mobile phone (in fact it's a crime, punishable by a further 2 years in prison).
It is now highly likely that Ben Gunn release to open conditions will be go ahead and it may now be many years before he is released.
This is a case of breaking a butterfly on the wheel.
I think Ben is daft for using a mobile phone on the day of his release. I believe the phone was planted by the con as I don't believe anybody knowing their property was to be x-rayed would be that stupid. Even so should possession of a mobile phone halt Ben Gunn's move to Open Prison?
The answer to me is no, maybe if this was the first parole hearing after the 10 year tariff was up, this maybe a legitimate reason to deny release. But after a further 20years it is disproportionate to prevent his freedom based on what is basically a misdemeanour. I have on occasion driven above the speed limit. People I am friends with have not paid for items they should have. Most students at my university broke copywrite law. Should the book be thrown at us for these trivial offences. The answer, of course, is no. Part of being human is making mistakes and doing things we shouldn't do. Very few people live a year, let alone 30 years, without been totally blameless and it unreasonable to expect even convicted murderers trying to get out not to be human occasionally.
There is a difference between these misdemeanours and what Americans would call a felony. If Ben had say stabbed an inmate, dealt drugs or stolen something then this would raise doubts about whether he was safe to be released. But do we actually think Ben Gunn is not suitable for open conditions because he used a mobile phone? Is he a threat to society, numerous psychological assessments and his non-violent 20 year stretch indicate that he is not a threat in any way.
I'm not saying that Ben shouldn't be punished for using a mobile phone (removal of phone privileges for a week or two may be an ironic punishment) but the sentence must fit the crime. This is about what society do we want to live in. Do we want to be caring and compassionate or vindictive and cruel. If it is the former then we should release the prostate cancer sufferer (Yes he is not well)to open conditions as soon as humanly possible. Plus as a taxpayer, I don't want the Government to keep on forking out 40 grand a year to keep him inside!
Recently he was about to be sent to open prison with the hope he could be released in 12 months time. On the day he was due to make the trip to Prescoed Open Prison, he borrowed an illegal phone to contact the outside world. From this moment on the story becomes sketchy. The next fact is that when his property was x-rayed on leaving the prison the phone was in it. Ben's story is that the con who he borrowed the phone from, stashed it there. This is a problem because prisoners aren't allowed mobile phone (in fact it's a crime, punishable by a further 2 years in prison).
It is now highly likely that Ben Gunn release to open conditions will be go ahead and it may now be many years before he is released.
This is a case of breaking a butterfly on the wheel.
I think Ben is daft for using a mobile phone on the day of his release. I believe the phone was planted by the con as I don't believe anybody knowing their property was to be x-rayed would be that stupid. Even so should possession of a mobile phone halt Ben Gunn's move to Open Prison?
The answer to me is no, maybe if this was the first parole hearing after the 10 year tariff was up, this maybe a legitimate reason to deny release. But after a further 20years it is disproportionate to prevent his freedom based on what is basically a misdemeanour. I have on occasion driven above the speed limit. People I am friends with have not paid for items they should have. Most students at my university broke copywrite law. Should the book be thrown at us for these trivial offences. The answer, of course, is no. Part of being human is making mistakes and doing things we shouldn't do. Very few people live a year, let alone 30 years, without been totally blameless and it unreasonable to expect even convicted murderers trying to get out not to be human occasionally.
There is a difference between these misdemeanours and what Americans would call a felony. If Ben had say stabbed an inmate, dealt drugs or stolen something then this would raise doubts about whether he was safe to be released. But do we actually think Ben Gunn is not suitable for open conditions because he used a mobile phone? Is he a threat to society, numerous psychological assessments and his non-violent 20 year stretch indicate that he is not a threat in any way.
I'm not saying that Ben shouldn't be punished for using a mobile phone (removal of phone privileges for a week or two may be an ironic punishment) but the sentence must fit the crime. This is about what society do we want to live in. Do we want to be caring and compassionate or vindictive and cruel. If it is the former then we should release the prostate cancer sufferer (Yes he is not well)to open conditions as soon as humanly possible. Plus as a taxpayer, I don't want the Government to keep on forking out 40 grand a year to keep him inside!
So what if the public deosn't care about House of Lords reform
Commentators and newspapers are telling the Lib Dems should give up on Lords Reform. The reason - that the public doesn't care about it.
I disagree with this argument - just because the public aren't engaged on a particular issue doesn't mean nothing should be done about it. If this argument was continued to it's logical conclusion - then the Government should do nothing for people with diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis, becasue the public are only interested in diseases they might get.
It is of course wrong to run Government according to public clamour, yes politicians must take public opinion into account in decision making but the key thing is to do what is right.
There were proposals in each of the main parties manifesto's, and actually in most of the minor parties as well, for Lords reform. The problem at the moment with the Lords is that they have an impact on the laws we obey and yet we have no say in the make up of this body. This is something we would condemn in other countries as non-democratic, mainly because it is. It is also unrepresentative - did you know there are more peers in their 90's than in their 30's. There isn't a single peer who is younger than 34!
But I don't want to rehash the arguments about whether or not we should have an elected house of Lords. What I want to argue is why the Lib Dems should push forward now.
At the recent local elections, it was noticable that we were losing a high percentage of the intellectual liberal left. In wards with a high percentage of this demographic our vote was significantly down. Accross the country support for Lords reform is highest amongst the intellectual liberal left. The coalition has done a number of things this group don't like (tuition fees been number one) so it important that we try and win this group back (lets not forget that we have a large of university seats, where intellectual liberal left have been crucial to our victories.
Secondly, for Lib Dem members and activists, it is very important, especially after the AV referendum. If we are to be electorally succesful then we will need the foot soldiers to go out and deliver leaflets, knock on doors and stuff envelopes. If we can't get any very lib demmy policies through then these people will melt away.
For the position of the party in national politics it is also key, if we can't get this, what changes to the country can we actually trumpet. The change to personal limits is popular, but easily reversable. The pupils premium, which hasn't resonated with the public can also be easily reversed (and in practice already has with the cuts to the education budget). With the loss of the AV referendum we do need things to say to the electorate that we have actually changed. If we don't how do we sell to not tory leaning voters the value of the Lib Dems in Government.
Finally, we are not a populist party. the preamble to the party constitution reads "The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which no-one will be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity." If we are to build this type of society then Lords reform is crucial - the lords is not open, not free and not fair - where better to start than dismantling this anachornostic institution.
I hope Nick Clegg won't duck the clash with the lords and he doesn't end up thinking "I fought the Lords and the Lords won."
I disagree with this argument - just because the public aren't engaged on a particular issue doesn't mean nothing should be done about it. If this argument was continued to it's logical conclusion - then the Government should do nothing for people with diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis, becasue the public are only interested in diseases they might get.
It is of course wrong to run Government according to public clamour, yes politicians must take public opinion into account in decision making but the key thing is to do what is right.
There were proposals in each of the main parties manifesto's, and actually in most of the minor parties as well, for Lords reform. The problem at the moment with the Lords is that they have an impact on the laws we obey and yet we have no say in the make up of this body. This is something we would condemn in other countries as non-democratic, mainly because it is. It is also unrepresentative - did you know there are more peers in their 90's than in their 30's. There isn't a single peer who is younger than 34!
But I don't want to rehash the arguments about whether or not we should have an elected house of Lords. What I want to argue is why the Lib Dems should push forward now.
At the recent local elections, it was noticable that we were losing a high percentage of the intellectual liberal left. In wards with a high percentage of this demographic our vote was significantly down. Accross the country support for Lords reform is highest amongst the intellectual liberal left. The coalition has done a number of things this group don't like (tuition fees been number one) so it important that we try and win this group back (lets not forget that we have a large of university seats, where intellectual liberal left have been crucial to our victories.
Secondly, for Lib Dem members and activists, it is very important, especially after the AV referendum. If we are to be electorally succesful then we will need the foot soldiers to go out and deliver leaflets, knock on doors and stuff envelopes. If we can't get any very lib demmy policies through then these people will melt away.
For the position of the party in national politics it is also key, if we can't get this, what changes to the country can we actually trumpet. The change to personal limits is popular, but easily reversable. The pupils premium, which hasn't resonated with the public can also be easily reversed (and in practice already has with the cuts to the education budget). With the loss of the AV referendum we do need things to say to the electorate that we have actually changed. If we don't how do we sell to not tory leaning voters the value of the Lib Dems in Government.
Finally, we are not a populist party. the preamble to the party constitution reads "The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which no-one will be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity." If we are to build this type of society then Lords reform is crucial - the lords is not open, not free and not fair - where better to start than dismantling this anachornostic institution.
I hope Nick Clegg won't duck the clash with the lords and he doesn't end up thinking "I fought the Lords and the Lords won."
Diamond Jubilee - can it come up North?
A year today we will be starting a 4 day weekend for the Queen's Jubilee. One thing I noticed about the planned events is that they are all in London.
With the Olympics, London is already set for a great 2012. In 2005, when London were awarded the Olympics a number of prestige projects such as the Leeds Supertram were scrapped to pay for the Olympics.
Surely some (if not all) of the Diamond Jubilee events could have been held outside the capital. It could have boosted tourism is places that will probably lose out to next year as people race to London, and help highlight to the rest of the world that there is more to the UK than London.
With the Olympics, London is already set for a great 2012. In 2005, when London were awarded the Olympics a number of prestige projects such as the Leeds Supertram were scrapped to pay for the Olympics.
Surely some (if not all) of the Diamond Jubilee events could have been held outside the capital. It could have boosted tourism is places that will probably lose out to next year as people race to London, and help highlight to the rest of the world that there is more to the UK than London.
Monday, 16 May 2011
AV campaign a shambles
It's a week and a half since the referendum vote was lost. In the end it was a landslide for the NO campaign. This didn't surprise me in the slightest as I knew the campaign run by the YES campaign was frankly a shambles.
I have spoken to a number of YES campaign insiders as well as many throughout the Lib Dems. Almost all believe that strategic decisions were botched and the campaign was disorganised, ineffective and run by people who simply didn't know what they were doing. They had no idea how to run a campaign or how to influence voters.
I think it's important to ask why YES became a big NO so that if we ever need to win a vote on reform (Lords perhaps?) we don't make the same mistake again.
The first two big mistakes were taken in early September. These were with recruitment and campaign strategy. I know of one very senior figure at the campaign, who had to go to the Oldham East by-election as they had never attended a count before. Clearly they recruited “policy wonks” rather than campaigners, this is a bad mistake because policy wonks are good at the detail that the public doesn't care about. Campaigners, through experience and instinct know what are the key points and how to present them to the general public. One of the key problems was that the NO campaigns messages resonated but the YES campaign's didn't. Outside head office they recruited PPC's and Councillors - again a bad mistake, mainly because they don't have the time to kill themselves for the campaign.
Strategically at this point they also made a key mistake, they decided to spend their money and activists time on (drum roll please).... phone banking! My first response was eh? then comical laughter. I actually thought they were joking. In a campaign where people didn’t know what AV was they expected people to ring up and ask whether voters planned to support something they didn't have clue about! On a campaign note, phone canvassing is only a small part of any campaign as it can a reach a small fraction of the population. With most people undecided at the start of the election, it was clear to me that persuading people to vote YES was more important than getting people out on the day (which is what phone canvassing really does.) They should have gone for leafleting and advertising. They already have networks across the country that can deliver leaflets (Lib Dems, Greens, UKIP, some Labour) they could have influenced huge swathes but they didn't try. I was one being begged by Lib Dem activists in September for something to deliver with their latest FOCUS leaflet, nothing turned up until mid February. Crucial months were lost that could have been used to persuade people of the merits of AV.
The phone banking information that they got was never properly used because the database (the much vaunted Obama database) failed. While this is the fault of the American company hired, the ERS should never have got into this situation. They should have got this nailed before the General Election last year. Surely it's their job to be prepared for referendums, but tragically they didn't seem to be. This helps to explains the next big mistake of the YES campaign - fundraising.
It is my understanding that the YES campaign didn't have a professional fundraiser for months and months. As a Lib Dem I was amazed that I never received a begging letter. I could have understood this if they were doing big fundraisers, but to my knowledge, they weren't. What happened was that the NO campaign were able to massively outspend the YES campaign on billboards and advertising.
They could have got away with these blunders if they had got the messaging right. Unfortunately they didn't have a clue. They failed really to make any attempt to explain the system or why it was a positive move. I never heard the argument that “it gives the voters more choice” (I would have used phrases like elections shouldn't be about the MPs but about voters). It took until the final week with the Dan Snow broadcast to actually start making this point.
The constant refrain of "make MPs work harder" missed the point as well. Most people actually have a positive impression of their own MP, if you ask people what they like about their MP "hard working" will come somewhere near the top of the list. You only need to look at the incumbency boost many MPs get when they are re-elected to realise the truth in this. The negative point they should have been making was "Stop MPs fiddling their expenses" "Stop the Corruption" “they're taking your money because they know they can get away with it!” with big pictures of Bill Cash, Hazel Blears etc. The leaflets they did produce looked like something from the 1950's; wordy, boring and failed to explain the concept in a simple way. A further criticism I would make of all material they sent through was that it seemed to be aimed at two groups - students and left wing intellectuals.
They also failed to counter the simple and effective arguments for the NO campaign - It's expensive, it's unfair, it's complicated and you can give Nick Clegg a kicking. Apparently they didn't want to be knocked off their message! the trouble was that they already had been. What they should have done was to work out the real cost and spread it over four years and divide it by the entire population of the UK. AV won't cost you 250 million but only 1p would have been a good message - again not used.
My final gripe with the AV campaign was with the election broadcasts. The first NO campaign video was slick, and clever. They explained their key arguments with good visual images, used a celebrity to rip apart AV and used analogies that people would understand - classrooms, horse racing etc. It may have been complete hogwash, but it was effective hogwash. The first YES video was pathetic. The Christian Party Election Broadcasts are known for been comically bad and the production values of BNP are notoriously atrocious but the YES campaign's video beat both these parties with the worst political broadcast I have ever seen. It was truly terrible. Whoever was involved in this should be lined up and shot. First of all it's production values were shocking - literally secondary school rather than professional. Secondly the acting was rubbish. But my main gripe was with the entire concept. A load of (not particularly) normal people shouting at their MP (who didn't look like an MP) about god knows what. The final insult was a lady (who may or may not have been suffering from mental illness) shouting "porn" randomly. What they should have done is started with a collage of newspaper clippings and broadcasts about the expenses crisis, followed by an explanation about AV and how it would stop corruption. They should have used a celebrity. I think this broadcast was a vital moment when the country decided that AV was not for them.
The second broadcast with Dan Snow was much better, my only gripe was that he used young people. It should have been a family with grown up children, going out for a curry, Italian or Pub lunch. But at least it explained AV in a simple way that pointed out its benefits. Unfortunately by then it was too late.
I know Nick Clegg was an issue and that people wanted to give him a kicking and that the referendum was a convenient way, but we could have used Ed Milliband (and for that matter Caroline Lucas and Nigel Farage) much better. It would have been harder to have given all of them a kicking) In the North, Leaflets to labour area's should have been sent out with Labour Leader Ed Miliband says "YES" but they never managed to get this message across.
The ERS needs to learn lessons. There will now not be another referendum for at least ten years. Hopefully next time it will be on PR. But they still need to work out how to run electoral campaigns rather than political campaigns. They also now need to diversify and be the champion of people who cannot vote at all (the mentally ill, prisoners etc).
I have spoken to a number of YES campaign insiders as well as many throughout the Lib Dems. Almost all believe that strategic decisions were botched and the campaign was disorganised, ineffective and run by people who simply didn't know what they were doing. They had no idea how to run a campaign or how to influence voters.
I think it's important to ask why YES became a big NO so that if we ever need to win a vote on reform (Lords perhaps?) we don't make the same mistake again.
The first two big mistakes were taken in early September. These were with recruitment and campaign strategy. I know of one very senior figure at the campaign, who had to go to the Oldham East by-election as they had never attended a count before. Clearly they recruited “policy wonks” rather than campaigners, this is a bad mistake because policy wonks are good at the detail that the public doesn't care about. Campaigners, through experience and instinct know what are the key points and how to present them to the general public. One of the key problems was that the NO campaigns messages resonated but the YES campaign's didn't. Outside head office they recruited PPC's and Councillors - again a bad mistake, mainly because they don't have the time to kill themselves for the campaign.
Strategically at this point they also made a key mistake, they decided to spend their money and activists time on (drum roll please).... phone banking! My first response was eh? then comical laughter. I actually thought they were joking. In a campaign where people didn’t know what AV was they expected people to ring up and ask whether voters planned to support something they didn't have clue about! On a campaign note, phone canvassing is only a small part of any campaign as it can a reach a small fraction of the population. With most people undecided at the start of the election, it was clear to me that persuading people to vote YES was more important than getting people out on the day (which is what phone canvassing really does.) They should have gone for leafleting and advertising. They already have networks across the country that can deliver leaflets (Lib Dems, Greens, UKIP, some Labour) they could have influenced huge swathes but they didn't try. I was one being begged by Lib Dem activists in September for something to deliver with their latest FOCUS leaflet, nothing turned up until mid February. Crucial months were lost that could have been used to persuade people of the merits of AV.
The phone banking information that they got was never properly used because the database (the much vaunted Obama database) failed. While this is the fault of the American company hired, the ERS should never have got into this situation. They should have got this nailed before the General Election last year. Surely it's their job to be prepared for referendums, but tragically they didn't seem to be. This helps to explains the next big mistake of the YES campaign - fundraising.
It is my understanding that the YES campaign didn't have a professional fundraiser for months and months. As a Lib Dem I was amazed that I never received a begging letter. I could have understood this if they were doing big fundraisers, but to my knowledge, they weren't. What happened was that the NO campaign were able to massively outspend the YES campaign on billboards and advertising.
They could have got away with these blunders if they had got the messaging right. Unfortunately they didn't have a clue. They failed really to make any attempt to explain the system or why it was a positive move. I never heard the argument that “it gives the voters more choice” (I would have used phrases like elections shouldn't be about the MPs but about voters). It took until the final week with the Dan Snow broadcast to actually start making this point.
The constant refrain of "make MPs work harder" missed the point as well. Most people actually have a positive impression of their own MP, if you ask people what they like about their MP "hard working" will come somewhere near the top of the list. You only need to look at the incumbency boost many MPs get when they are re-elected to realise the truth in this. The negative point they should have been making was "Stop MPs fiddling their expenses" "Stop the Corruption" “they're taking your money because they know they can get away with it!” with big pictures of Bill Cash, Hazel Blears etc. The leaflets they did produce looked like something from the 1950's; wordy, boring and failed to explain the concept in a simple way. A further criticism I would make of all material they sent through was that it seemed to be aimed at two groups - students and left wing intellectuals.
They also failed to counter the simple and effective arguments for the NO campaign - It's expensive, it's unfair, it's complicated and you can give Nick Clegg a kicking. Apparently they didn't want to be knocked off their message! the trouble was that they already had been. What they should have done was to work out the real cost and spread it over four years and divide it by the entire population of the UK. AV won't cost you 250 million but only 1p would have been a good message - again not used.
My final gripe with the AV campaign was with the election broadcasts. The first NO campaign video was slick, and clever. They explained their key arguments with good visual images, used a celebrity to rip apart AV and used analogies that people would understand - classrooms, horse racing etc. It may have been complete hogwash, but it was effective hogwash. The first YES video was pathetic. The Christian Party Election Broadcasts are known for been comically bad and the production values of BNP are notoriously atrocious but the YES campaign's video beat both these parties with the worst political broadcast I have ever seen. It was truly terrible. Whoever was involved in this should be lined up and shot. First of all it's production values were shocking - literally secondary school rather than professional. Secondly the acting was rubbish. But my main gripe was with the entire concept. A load of (not particularly) normal people shouting at their MP (who didn't look like an MP) about god knows what. The final insult was a lady (who may or may not have been suffering from mental illness) shouting "porn" randomly. What they should have done is started with a collage of newspaper clippings and broadcasts about the expenses crisis, followed by an explanation about AV and how it would stop corruption. They should have used a celebrity. I think this broadcast was a vital moment when the country decided that AV was not for them.
The second broadcast with Dan Snow was much better, my only gripe was that he used young people. It should have been a family with grown up children, going out for a curry, Italian or Pub lunch. But at least it explained AV in a simple way that pointed out its benefits. Unfortunately by then it was too late.
I know Nick Clegg was an issue and that people wanted to give him a kicking and that the referendum was a convenient way, but we could have used Ed Milliband (and for that matter Caroline Lucas and Nigel Farage) much better. It would have been harder to have given all of them a kicking) In the North, Leaflets to labour area's should have been sent out with Labour Leader Ed Miliband says "YES" but they never managed to get this message across.
The ERS needs to learn lessons. There will now not be another referendum for at least ten years. Hopefully next time it will be on PR. But they still need to work out how to run electoral campaigns rather than political campaigns. They also now need to diversify and be the champion of people who cannot vote at all (the mentally ill, prisoners etc).
Sunday, 3 April 2011
Why no banking crisis prosecutions?
Since the Budget, Labour have been spinning the line that the Government are protecting the rich (particularly bankers) and the poor are paying for the mistakes of the bankers.
On two levels Labour are being mendacious. If Labour were in Government they would not be going after the banks in the way they are now suggesting. The financial sector is Britain's leading export sector, now it is back in profit, Britain would be mad to drive them out our tax receipts. It is an sector of the economy (unlike manufacturing) that can just up and leave. This maybe morally unfair, but it is a fact.
Secondly, bailing out the banks is not the only reason why we have a structural deficit. We have a total debt of about 900 Billion of which 100 Billion was caused by bailing out the banks. We are paying 51 Billion a year in interest payments, so the banks are costing us about 6 billion a year of our 114 billion deficit. In other words, most of the deficit is caused by non-banking crisis activities.
But the public does feel that the bankers have "got away with it", and they did cause 1/9th of our debt, so the public does have a point.
So what can be done, if we can't "punish" bankers through financial means, what about legal means? I would be amazed (even taking into account the lax regulations in place) if nobody had broken the law during this crises. One of the main reasons we haven't seen bankers in prison jumpsuits is that financial prosecutions are notoriously hard to prosecute, the police and CPS don't know what to do and jurors don't have a clue.
I would therefore set up a special commission to investigate the crisis, with powers to prosecute and investigate. Its goals would be to find out precisely what went wrong (and ultimately suggest reforms to prevent it happening again)and where the law had been broken to prosecute and sentence the culprits.
Of course this would have the advantage of casting the light back over Labour's failure to regulate the banks and their less than proper relationships with banks, while at the same time inflicting some much needed public retribution.
On two levels Labour are being mendacious. If Labour were in Government they would not be going after the banks in the way they are now suggesting. The financial sector is Britain's leading export sector, now it is back in profit, Britain would be mad to drive them out our tax receipts. It is an sector of the economy (unlike manufacturing) that can just up and leave. This maybe morally unfair, but it is a fact.
Secondly, bailing out the banks is not the only reason why we have a structural deficit. We have a total debt of about 900 Billion of which 100 Billion was caused by bailing out the banks. We are paying 51 Billion a year in interest payments, so the banks are costing us about 6 billion a year of our 114 billion deficit. In other words, most of the deficit is caused by non-banking crisis activities.
But the public does feel that the bankers have "got away with it", and they did cause 1/9th of our debt, so the public does have a point.
So what can be done, if we can't "punish" bankers through financial means, what about legal means? I would be amazed (even taking into account the lax regulations in place) if nobody had broken the law during this crises. One of the main reasons we haven't seen bankers in prison jumpsuits is that financial prosecutions are notoriously hard to prosecute, the police and CPS don't know what to do and jurors don't have a clue.
I would therefore set up a special commission to investigate the crisis, with powers to prosecute and investigate. Its goals would be to find out precisely what went wrong (and ultimately suggest reforms to prevent it happening again)and where the law had been broken to prosecute and sentence the culprits.
Of course this would have the advantage of casting the light back over Labour's failure to regulate the banks and their less than proper relationships with banks, while at the same time inflicting some much needed public retribution.
Wednesday, 30 March 2011
EMA unspun....unfortunately
The Government PR machine has failed quite spectacularly again. Yesterday after months of been bashed over the issue of EMA we have finally come up with a bursary scheme that is much fairer than Labour's Educational Maintenance Allowence.
The Government is doing the right thing, EMA was a classic example of Labour wasting money. Yes, there are students in real need and do need support to continue with their post GCSE education. But nine out of ten who receive EMA would have done A-Levels without it. My sister in law got EMA, she spent it on new clothes, a friend of mine called his EMA his "going out on the piss fund". These are not isolated examples. 45% of 16-18 students received EMA, an astonishing figure, do 45% of these students really need thirty quid a week from the tax payer?
So I fully support changing EMA (note I don't use the word scrap). The problem is that we should have had a scheme in place when the first announcements about EMA were made. Then we could have plausible denied we were scrapping it. The Government could also have said we were giving more money to those who needed it most. We could have called them EMA bursaries.
Instead the PR machine announced they were being scrapped so Labour could tell hundreds of thousands of parents and teenagers that the Lib Dems were evil and going back on promises. Rather than us telling the population we were saving money and helping the poorest. Slick!
The Government is doing the right thing, EMA was a classic example of Labour wasting money. Yes, there are students in real need and do need support to continue with their post GCSE education. But nine out of ten who receive EMA would have done A-Levels without it. My sister in law got EMA, she spent it on new clothes, a friend of mine called his EMA his "going out on the piss fund". These are not isolated examples. 45% of 16-18 students received EMA, an astonishing figure, do 45% of these students really need thirty quid a week from the tax payer?
So I fully support changing EMA (note I don't use the word scrap). The problem is that we should have had a scheme in place when the first announcements about EMA were made. Then we could have plausible denied we were scrapping it. The Government could also have said we were giving more money to those who needed it most. We could have called them EMA bursaries.
Instead the PR machine announced they were being scrapped so Labour could tell hundreds of thousands of parents and teenagers that the Lib Dems were evil and going back on promises. Rather than us telling the population we were saving money and helping the poorest. Slick!
Monday, 28 March 2011
Why our intervention in Libya is right
Ten days ago was the eight anniversary of the start of Iraq War. I was opposed to that war. I even joined the over a million others in marching against it - something I had never done before.
Now once again British planes are bombing an Islamic nations tanks, do I feel a sense of deja vu?
The simple truth is that I do not. I believe the actions of the coalition are essentially just. However this does not mean that I have changed my mind of the Iraq War. I still believe that was not morally justifiable.
There a 3 factors with regard to the Libyan conflict that were not evident in the Iraq conflict.
The first is the imminence of a humanitarian catastrophe. Had we not started bombing, Benghazi would have fallen and Gaddafi would have levelled the city. It is likely that the number of dead would dwarfed the death toll from the Japanese Tsunami. This was another Rwanda, another Srebrenicia, another Cambodia in the making. In Iraq the there was not the same immediate threat to vast numbers of civilians. I don't doubt Saddam was a terrible, evil dictator. But by 2003 he simply didn't have the capacity and ability to kill the amount people to qualify for a humanitarian catastrophe. Why is this concept important? quite simply war by it's very nature is horrific and will kill and cause damage that is greater most abuses of human rights. Only with an imminent humanitarian catastrophe can war prevent more damage than it will cause.
My second factor leads on from this point and that is the response is proportionate. We have essentially stopped Gaddafi from killing his subjects, but we haven't gone the whole hog and invaded or fired nuclear weapons, napalmed towns etc. So again we have limited the damage that war causes as far as possible to combatants. With Iraq, the response was not proportionate, the damage we caused; 700,000 dead (according to one report)years of civil war, the collapse of state infrastructure was not a proportionate response, as the good of removing Saddam was outweighed by cost of the action.
Finally the Libyan conflict has legal backing. Unlike Iraq, the UN has passed a resolution that sanctions hostilities. In Iraq there was no resolution, mainly because we had not reached the end of the diplomatic process, in Libya the diplomatic time frame was much shorter because of the imminent threat to Benghazi. In Iraq, weapons inspectors were still to report and then there could have been further movements towards forcing Saddam to comply with Human Rights law. Yet the invasion took place before legal backing had being obtained. Legality is important as the failure by the allies in Iraq to obey the will of the UN, undermined international law, potentially for generations. This assists those leaders who wish to break international law as they now have a powerful precedent and will argue if prosecuted that it is "victors (or western) justice" with some degree of justification.
In conclusion, this does not meant that the Libyan conflict will necesserley remain just, if we are causing more damage than we are stopping, or the UN decrees that we should stop then the conflict in my view would become unjust...time will tell.
Now once again British planes are bombing an Islamic nations tanks, do I feel a sense of deja vu?
The simple truth is that I do not. I believe the actions of the coalition are essentially just. However this does not mean that I have changed my mind of the Iraq War. I still believe that was not morally justifiable.
There a 3 factors with regard to the Libyan conflict that were not evident in the Iraq conflict.
The first is the imminence of a humanitarian catastrophe. Had we not started bombing, Benghazi would have fallen and Gaddafi would have levelled the city. It is likely that the number of dead would dwarfed the death toll from the Japanese Tsunami. This was another Rwanda, another Srebrenicia, another Cambodia in the making. In Iraq the there was not the same immediate threat to vast numbers of civilians. I don't doubt Saddam was a terrible, evil dictator. But by 2003 he simply didn't have the capacity and ability to kill the amount people to qualify for a humanitarian catastrophe. Why is this concept important? quite simply war by it's very nature is horrific and will kill and cause damage that is greater most abuses of human rights. Only with an imminent humanitarian catastrophe can war prevent more damage than it will cause.
My second factor leads on from this point and that is the response is proportionate. We have essentially stopped Gaddafi from killing his subjects, but we haven't gone the whole hog and invaded or fired nuclear weapons, napalmed towns etc. So again we have limited the damage that war causes as far as possible to combatants. With Iraq, the response was not proportionate, the damage we caused; 700,000 dead (according to one report)years of civil war, the collapse of state infrastructure was not a proportionate response, as the good of removing Saddam was outweighed by cost of the action.
Finally the Libyan conflict has legal backing. Unlike Iraq, the UN has passed a resolution that sanctions hostilities. In Iraq there was no resolution, mainly because we had not reached the end of the diplomatic process, in Libya the diplomatic time frame was much shorter because of the imminent threat to Benghazi. In Iraq, weapons inspectors were still to report and then there could have been further movements towards forcing Saddam to comply with Human Rights law. Yet the invasion took place before legal backing had being obtained. Legality is important as the failure by the allies in Iraq to obey the will of the UN, undermined international law, potentially for generations. This assists those leaders who wish to break international law as they now have a powerful precedent and will argue if prosecuted that it is "victors (or western) justice" with some degree of justification.
In conclusion, this does not meant that the Libyan conflict will necesserley remain just, if we are causing more damage than we are stopping, or the UN decrees that we should stop then the conflict in my view would become unjust...time will tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)