It is some months since I felt moved to write something but the Coalition Government's early weeks have produced the most exciting political landscape in my lifetime.
What is so refreshing is the willingness to think the unthinkable. Possibly as a direct result of the dire economic situation, probably because of the compromises of coalition, but hopefully because of conviction, the Government is rethinking two decades of received wisdom on such matters as police numbers, the prison population, and the welfare state.
For too long politicians of both main parties have been in hock to the tabloids, short term political advantage and a belief that voters are too stupid to weigh up arguments for themselves. The worst offenders were New Labour which had a two pronged approach to "government" - rule by unchallenged "belief" (eg the Iraq war) or rule by focus group (almost everything else). Neither amounted to leadership, and ultimately neither were successful.
True political leadership requires an underlying belief system, an openness to new ideas, and a willingness to engage in debate and to persuade.
It will not be enough for the Government to assert that we need prison reform, or that there is no simple correlation between police numbers and crime, Ministers must engage with voters in a rational debate. Their case is a good one but they must persuade, and win hearts and minds. If they fail to do so they will not achieve the step change in political thinking the country needs and future government will just reverse their changes.
Saturday, 3 July 2010
Saturday, 30 January 2010
The Iraq Inquiry, Blair and history
It is a long time since I put pen to computer but the appearance of Tony Blair this week at the Iraq Inquiry merits some reflection.
Looking back, I suppose I was a supporter of the war. I certainly took the view that once one's Government had committed us to war it was our duty to get behind our forces and give them support. I still think that was right.
But what if we were sold a false prospectus? What if our Government lied to us about the nature of the threat and the options open to us? Is it possible that we could be led by a meglomaniac into an unjust war?
My conclusion after watching Tony Blair is that he genuinely believed that what he said and did was justified. He was our elected leader and he believed it was his responsibility to lead.
Certainly, having been reminded of his remarkable qualities this week (and by contrast what pygmies we now have to choose from at the next election) much of my criticism has turned to his pathetic, supine Cabinet that failed to challenge, to question, to think for themselves.
I am angry that I was lied to but if there are truly guilty men (and women) TB is not the only one among their number (he, right or wrong, was doing his job as he saw it) it is his Cabinet (with the notable exception of course of Robin Cook and - very belatedly - Clare Short) that should shoulder most of the blame.
History will be the final judge. Churchill said "history will be kind to me, for I will write it" (or something like that). If Blair's cabinet want history to smile on them, they had better get writing.
Looking back, I suppose I was a supporter of the war. I certainly took the view that once one's Government had committed us to war it was our duty to get behind our forces and give them support. I still think that was right.
But what if we were sold a false prospectus? What if our Government lied to us about the nature of the threat and the options open to us? Is it possible that we could be led by a meglomaniac into an unjust war?
My conclusion after watching Tony Blair is that he genuinely believed that what he said and did was justified. He was our elected leader and he believed it was his responsibility to lead.
Certainly, having been reminded of his remarkable qualities this week (and by contrast what pygmies we now have to choose from at the next election) much of my criticism has turned to his pathetic, supine Cabinet that failed to challenge, to question, to think for themselves.
I am angry that I was lied to but if there are truly guilty men (and women) TB is not the only one among their number (he, right or wrong, was doing his job as he saw it) it is his Cabinet (with the notable exception of course of Robin Cook and - very belatedly - Clare Short) that should shoulder most of the blame.
History will be the final judge. Churchill said "history will be kind to me, for I will write it" (or something like that). If Blair's cabinet want history to smile on them, they had better get writing.
Friday, 14 August 2009
My hair shirt is rougher than yours
Really, this hair shirt campaign to talk down the salaries and expenses of MPs is becoming rather ridiculous and we are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
The disgraceful antics of some, not all, MPs to manipulate a deliberately lax and imprecise set of "rules" for their own enrichment should not mask the need to reward MPs appropriately.
In this day and age it is unreasonable to expect to attract high calibre candidates from a broad cross section of society and all parties unless the rewards are proportionate to the responsibility.
The whole system needs transforming. We have far too many MPs and far too many ministers and others on the Government payroll. The power of the whips is too great. Back bench MPs have little authority or purpose other than to hang around parliament waiting to be told when and how to vote. For too many, perhaps most, an MP's success is measured by gaining ministerial office, and all their efforts are geared in that direction.
We need much smaller Government. Rather than a headline grabbing suggestion that Cameron would cut the pay of his cabinet ministers he would be much better to promise to cut the size of his Government by 50%. The argument, often aired, that there is too much work for ministers to do is nonsense. Ministers should create clear policies and priorities and oversee the results - not try to micromanage delivery.
Ministers should be more accountable to Parliament and backbench MPs more free to speak and vote independently.
Their remuneration package should be transparent and reflect the rewards that might be expected of a reasonably successful professional.
The disgraceful antics of some, not all, MPs to manipulate a deliberately lax and imprecise set of "rules" for their own enrichment should not mask the need to reward MPs appropriately.
In this day and age it is unreasonable to expect to attract high calibre candidates from a broad cross section of society and all parties unless the rewards are proportionate to the responsibility.
The whole system needs transforming. We have far too many MPs and far too many ministers and others on the Government payroll. The power of the whips is too great. Back bench MPs have little authority or purpose other than to hang around parliament waiting to be told when and how to vote. For too many, perhaps most, an MP's success is measured by gaining ministerial office, and all their efforts are geared in that direction.
We need much smaller Government. Rather than a headline grabbing suggestion that Cameron would cut the pay of his cabinet ministers he would be much better to promise to cut the size of his Government by 50%. The argument, often aired, that there is too much work for ministers to do is nonsense. Ministers should create clear policies and priorities and oversee the results - not try to micromanage delivery.
Ministers should be more accountable to Parliament and backbench MPs more free to speak and vote independently.
Their remuneration package should be transparent and reflect the rewards that might be expected of a reasonably successful professional.
Friday, 19 June 2009
The final throes of a corrupt system
So now Parliament's own publication of MPs expenses has shown once and for all how tawdry and corrupt the system has become. Worse still, it demonstrates graphically the reason for the desperate attempts by a majority of MPs to prevent the public from ever finding out.
The redacted (in this case a euphemism for a process equivalent to an accused deciding the evidence to be presented by the prosecution) claims released yesterday would never have revealed "flipping" or that claims had been made for moats and ducks. MPs claims that redaction was necessary to ensure their security have been laid bare as the fraud they always were. Redaction was intended to prevent the public discovering the truth. And thanks to the Daily Telegraph we have. And not before time.
Let there be no doubt. Without the Daily Telegraph revelations the system would not have been changed.
The redacted (in this case a euphemism for a process equivalent to an accused deciding the evidence to be presented by the prosecution) claims released yesterday would never have revealed "flipping" or that claims had been made for moats and ducks. MPs claims that redaction was necessary to ensure their security have been laid bare as the fraud they always were. Redaction was intended to prevent the public discovering the truth. And thanks to the Daily Telegraph we have. And not before time.
Let there be no doubt. Without the Daily Telegraph revelations the system would not have been changed.
Wednesday, 10 June 2009
Tinkering with the Constitution
Now, God help us, Brown tells us he wants to reform the Constitution.
He is apparently looking at the voting system, the Lords, and the balance between the elected members and the executive.
Our system with its unwritten constitution is certainly not perfect but it would be foolhardy to only tinker with aspects of it. The time is probably right for a root and branch review and surely the answer is a Royal Commission.
A system similar to the US, with a Bill of Rights and careful balancing of power between the executive, legislature and supreme court, may be the best solution. It, too, has its faults but it is better than the elected (or unelected in the case of Brown) dictatorship model that we have slipped in to.
The House of Commons has forfeited its long asserted right to primacy. It is too supine, lazy and corrupt - ruled by the Whips, dominated by a huge payroll vote and a mass of wannabe Ministers too scared to step out of line lest they be overlooked. The few really able back bench MPs - and there are some on all sides - struggle to get their voices heard and the select committees have never had the influence of their US counterparts. Power needs to be more equally divided between what is now the Commons and an elected upper chamber.
The greatest risk in embarking on reform is that the Government of the day will cherry pick elements of reform which look most advantageous to themselves, whereas the very essence of an effective constitution is that it comes as a complete package.
Above all, Brown is no Maddison so he must pass the task to someone fit for the role.
He is apparently looking at the voting system, the Lords, and the balance between the elected members and the executive.
Our system with its unwritten constitution is certainly not perfect but it would be foolhardy to only tinker with aspects of it. The time is probably right for a root and branch review and surely the answer is a Royal Commission.
A system similar to the US, with a Bill of Rights and careful balancing of power between the executive, legislature and supreme court, may be the best solution. It, too, has its faults but it is better than the elected (or unelected in the case of Brown) dictatorship model that we have slipped in to.
The House of Commons has forfeited its long asserted right to primacy. It is too supine, lazy and corrupt - ruled by the Whips, dominated by a huge payroll vote and a mass of wannabe Ministers too scared to step out of line lest they be overlooked. The few really able back bench MPs - and there are some on all sides - struggle to get their voices heard and the select committees have never had the influence of their US counterparts. Power needs to be more equally divided between what is now the Commons and an elected upper chamber.
The greatest risk in embarking on reform is that the Government of the day will cherry pick elements of reform which look most advantageous to themselves, whereas the very essence of an effective constitution is that it comes as a complete package.
Above all, Brown is no Maddison so he must pass the task to someone fit for the role.
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
And still the excuses pour forth
After a fortnight out of the UK I return to find that the MPs expenses revelations are still dominating the political agenda.
What I cannot fathom is why MPs still do not understand what it is that they have done wrong. If they did they would act premptively to review past expenses and repay excessive or dubious claims before the Daily Telegraph outs them. But, no, they are sitting like rabbits in the headlights waiting for the inevitable.
Polls showing how little trust there is for politicians and the political system come as no surprise. MPs have for years lived in a parallel universe believing that they are playing an important role in British life whereas in fact they have allowed the whole process to become corrupted. The huge payroll vote, coupled with those members desperate to curry favour, means that Governments are virtually undefeatable. The Commons has allowed itself to lose all capability to act as a check on the executive.
As a result it is the Lords (now a body whose composition defies any coherent explanation) that provides the only serious debate on issues of significance and effective review of legislation.
Politicians have nobody to blame for this situation - it is entirely of their making.
What I cannot fathom is why MPs still do not understand what it is that they have done wrong. If they did they would act premptively to review past expenses and repay excessive or dubious claims before the Daily Telegraph outs them. But, no, they are sitting like rabbits in the headlights waiting for the inevitable.
Polls showing how little trust there is for politicians and the political system come as no surprise. MPs have for years lived in a parallel universe believing that they are playing an important role in British life whereas in fact they have allowed the whole process to become corrupted. The huge payroll vote, coupled with those members desperate to curry favour, means that Governments are virtually undefeatable. The Commons has allowed itself to lose all capability to act as a check on the executive.
As a result it is the Lords (now a body whose composition defies any coherent explanation) that provides the only serious debate on issues of significance and effective review of legislation.
Politicians have nobody to blame for this situation - it is entirely of their making.
Sunday, 10 May 2009
Hipocrisy and MPs expenses
The latest revelations regarding MPs expenses are dreadful.
It has been a badly kept secret for years that some MPs were milking a system designed by them for their own benefit, policed by them, and protected by them from all previous attempts to reform it.
However, I doubt that many were aware of the practice of "flipping". Or, worse, the ability to claim allowances for a designated second home yet when selling it claim to the Inland Revenue it was the primary residence thus avoiding capital gains tax (described as "near fraudulent" by former standards committee chief Sir Alistair Graham).
But the real sickener is the hipocrisy of minister after minister saying "we know the system is wrong and we must change it". The system hasn't suddenly become wrong - it has been wrong and corrupting for years during which time they and it seems many other MPs have been happy to benefit from it.
Incidentally, there has been no mention of the MPs who have never ripped the public off in this way. Dennis Skinner comes to mind. I have never agreed with his politics but I have always admired his honesty and integrity. You can check his expense claims (and those of other MPs) at http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
It has been a badly kept secret for years that some MPs were milking a system designed by them for their own benefit, policed by them, and protected by them from all previous attempts to reform it.
However, I doubt that many were aware of the practice of "flipping". Or, worse, the ability to claim allowances for a designated second home yet when selling it claim to the Inland Revenue it was the primary residence thus avoiding capital gains tax (described as "near fraudulent" by former standards committee chief Sir Alistair Graham).
But the real sickener is the hipocrisy of minister after minister saying "we know the system is wrong and we must change it". The system hasn't suddenly become wrong - it has been wrong and corrupting for years during which time they and it seems many other MPs have been happy to benefit from it.
Incidentally, there has been no mention of the MPs who have never ripped the public off in this way. Dennis Skinner comes to mind. I have never agreed with his politics but I have always admired his honesty and integrity. You can check his expense claims (and those of other MPs) at http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
