Whatever the right and wrongs of the Iraq invasion (would a UN resolution really changed the opinions of the soppy anti Blairite left about the invasion?). Nevertheless – we are in the ‘here and now’ and we have to deal with the situation in Iraq as it is, and not as we wish it to be.
If you are still in favour of the insurgents/terrorists in Iraq as many of the soppy liberal left appear to be, they are acting against there own declared philosophy and the interests of the people of Iraq and appear to be arguing for an undemocratic theocratic dictatorship.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Why the Euston group offers a new direction for the left
Why the Euston group offers a new direction for the left A disparate set of left-wing thinkers meeting in a London pub has reopened an essential debate on the nature of democracy Will HuttonSunday April 23, 2006The Observer
To be on the left is to be both temperamentally inclined to dissent and to be passionate about your own utopia, which can never be achieved. Condemned to disappointment, you rage at the world, your party and your leader.
Relative peace comes when the right is in power and the left temporarily sinks its differences before the greater enemy. But to survive in office, the left leader must keep utopian factionalism at bay and that means making your followers understand hard realities and tough trade-offs and selling them the ones you make yourself.
Until Iraq, Blair had been pretty effective in squaring away his various critics, but the war has overwhelmed him. Almost every strand of left utopianism has been offended, from human-rights activists to anti-American imperialists, internationalists to straightforward peaceniks. And with Iraq now on the edge of civil war, their every fear and warning has been amply validated. With no strand in the left ready to utter a word in his support, the Prime Minister has had zero leverage to fight back. Down and down he has gone in the eyes of his left-wing critics.
Which is why a small meeting of disillusioned leftist journalists, university lecturers and passionate bloggers in a London pub last year is proving a potentially important political event. Two or three internet bloggers have been arguing strongly for some months that whether it was for or against the Iraq invasion, Western liberal opinion must now stand united behind the attempt to create and entrench the panoply of democratic and human rights in Iraq and be against the religious fundamentalism propelling it down.
Western liberalism has been making a fundamental mistake in claiming that, because they spring from a war so many of us opposed, the anti-Enlightenment jihadists and insurgents are somehow Bush and Blair's responsibility. The right course now is to construct an Iraqi democracy which means backing the hated Blair and Bush.
In short, a strand on the left passionate about democracy is coming to Blair's rescue. What started as a debate among those bloggers has now flourished into a fully fledged - and very long - manifesto, signed by more than 600 people, which covers everything from the Iraq war through anti-Americanism to globalisation and equality. For the full argument, read the Euston Manifesto on www.eustonmanifesto.org.
To be on the left is to be both temperamentally inclined to dissent and to be passionate about your own utopia, which can never be achieved. Condemned to disappointment, you rage at the world, your party and your leader.
Relative peace comes when the right is in power and the left temporarily sinks its differences before the greater enemy. But to survive in office, the left leader must keep utopian factionalism at bay and that means making your followers understand hard realities and tough trade-offs and selling them the ones you make yourself.
Until Iraq, Blair had been pretty effective in squaring away his various critics, but the war has overwhelmed him. Almost every strand of left utopianism has been offended, from human-rights activists to anti-American imperialists, internationalists to straightforward peaceniks. And with Iraq now on the edge of civil war, their every fear and warning has been amply validated. With no strand in the left ready to utter a word in his support, the Prime Minister has had zero leverage to fight back. Down and down he has gone in the eyes of his left-wing critics.
Which is why a small meeting of disillusioned leftist journalists, university lecturers and passionate bloggers in a London pub last year is proving a potentially important political event. Two or three internet bloggers have been arguing strongly for some months that whether it was for or against the Iraq invasion, Western liberal opinion must now stand united behind the attempt to create and entrench the panoply of democratic and human rights in Iraq and be against the religious fundamentalism propelling it down.
Western liberalism has been making a fundamental mistake in claiming that, because they spring from a war so many of us opposed, the anti-Enlightenment jihadists and insurgents are somehow Bush and Blair's responsibility. The right course now is to construct an Iraqi democracy which means backing the hated Blair and Bush.
In short, a strand on the left passionate about democracy is coming to Blair's rescue. What started as a debate among those bloggers has now flourished into a fully fledged - and very long - manifesto, signed by more than 600 people, which covers everything from the Iraq war through anti-Americanism to globalisation and equality. For the full argument, read the Euston Manifesto on www.eustonmanifesto.org.
Friday, April 14, 2006
Has the media got it wrong over the NHS?
In the hunt for the NHS misspent millions the media blames the management or the politicians. Yet, these professional cynics are getting things wrong again in attributing blame. In fact even their solutions of giving power back to the nurses and doctors would make things worse for the NHS. It is simply ridiculous to suggest that the medical staff have the management skills needed to run an organisation which has an £87bn budget, has an economy equivalent to Austria, is the 33rst biggest economy in the world, and which employs over 1.3m people (as large as China’s armed forces).
Friday, March 31, 2006
To Russia with Condescention
News stories about Russia are treated by our media in a condescending and ill-informed manner.
Instead of the facts, we get the same old themes about the Kremlin acting dictatorially. We never get the detailed background behind the Kremlin’s actions. Take new Russian laws to regulate NGO’s. What is never reported is how the Russian mafia is using them to launder money or bribe politicians, yet, we in Europe, have similar regulations, to prevent such criminal activities.
The Russian - Ukrainian gas dispute, our media portrayed Russia as the big bad wolf threatening its former region. The truth seems to be that the old contract was providing cheaper fuel to Ukrainian industry than to Russian industry, and so Gazprom had to take action.
In a recent television programme, it was clear that the presenter/chairman did not comprehend the complex issues involved and pursued the media bias against the Russian government.
The British media must try to stop being condescending and try to present the underlying facts behind the story.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
PR Inaction?
PR Inaction?
What a way to run an election. Low turnout and Israel condemned to having another weak coalition government. The voters’ verdict under PR means that only by a coalition of parties can a government be formed. Very small extremist parties will again be able to determine the agenda of mainstream politics.
As for the future, Hamas must be disappointed, dealing with a weak Israeli leadership, unable to take the tough decisions so essential for negotiations. In addition, Israeli business is disappointed that the coalition will not be strong enough to implement essential economic reform. Washington meanwhile, must be in despair, whilst still acting as paymaster.
PR has many good points, but in cases like Israel, it can clearly be disastrous.
What a way to run an election. Low turnout and Israel condemned to having another weak coalition government. The voters’ verdict under PR means that only by a coalition of parties can a government be formed. Very small extremist parties will again be able to determine the agenda of mainstream politics.
As for the future, Hamas must be disappointed, dealing with a weak Israeli leadership, unable to take the tough decisions so essential for negotiations. In addition, Israeli business is disappointed that the coalition will not be strong enough to implement essential economic reform. Washington meanwhile, must be in despair, whilst still acting as paymaster.
PR has many good points, but in cases like Israel, it can clearly be disastrous.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Party Political Funding
Party Political Funding
The Westminster media village is all hot and bothered about the alleged payment for peerages. The solution is glaringly obvious – state party political funding!
This way, no political parties will have to depend on donations, dubious loans or alleged bribery for their election activities. Democracy costs money! From my campaign experience, it is obvious that voters are desperate for well-informed knowledge and plentiful information, on which to base their choice. They want to hear more, not less, arguments and debate. Dependence on old-fashioned leafleting (otherwise known as junk mail?) is ridiculous and the use of advertising, particularly the internet, is essential, so that the voter can make an informed and democratic choice. This involves, more, not less, money. Clearly, the present system is not up to it. Yes, state funding is inevitable.
The Westminster media village is all hot and bothered about the alleged payment for peerages. The solution is glaringly obvious – state party political funding!
This way, no political parties will have to depend on donations, dubious loans or alleged bribery for their election activities. Democracy costs money! From my campaign experience, it is obvious that voters are desperate for well-informed knowledge and plentiful information, on which to base their choice. They want to hear more, not less, arguments and debate. Dependence on old-fashioned leafleting (otherwise known as junk mail?) is ridiculous and the use of advertising, particularly the internet, is essential, so that the voter can make an informed and democratic choice. This involves, more, not less, money. Clearly, the present system is not up to it. Yes, state funding is inevitable.
French Strikes
On the bus to Oxford recently, I met Tom a staunch conservative of the old school. The conversation soon turned to the violent student demonstrations in Paris.
I was surprised when he argued that the French government should give in to the demonstrator’s demands. Tom thought it iniquitous of the French PM Devillepin to introduce new labour laws that that would discriminate against young workers. I pointed out that France was at a tipping point, if Devillepin surrendered on his Thatcherite reforms, France would soon turn into the sick man of Europe. I began to suspect that Tom was more concerned about the potential disruption to his planned Spring break at his Dordogne estate?
french strikes
I was surprised when he argued that the French government should give in to the demonstrator’s demands. Tom thought it iniquitous of the French PM Devillepin to introduce new labour laws that that would discriminate against young workers. I pointed out that France was at a tipping point, if Devillepin surrendered on his Thatcherite reforms, France would soon turn into the sick man of Europe. I began to suspect that Tom was more concerned about the potential disruption to his planned Spring break at his Dordogne estate?
french strikes
Thursday, March 16, 2006
European Common Energy Policy
European green paper in energy march 2006
BRUSSELS
March 8 should be celebrated as Europe’s energy independence day, when Commission President launched the EU’s Green Paper on providing the community with a Common Energy Policy. However, Europe’s energy dinosaurs greeted the prospect of the EU finally taking action to tackle the continent’s energy problems with fear and trepidation. Immediately calls for defence of national interests have been made to protect national energy companies from the threat of liberalisation of Europe’s energy markets was demanded. Energy lobbyists in both France and Spain struck up the banner of patriotism, the need to protect jobs and the local equivalent of the American dream. Little did they care for the damage such action would have on Europe’s business competitiveness, nor for the people that they were going to make unemployed or even the nightmare for pensioners living in fear of the next energy bill. Instead, their promotion of national champions will result as Commission President Barrosso says in the creation second division champions, when Europe needs Premier class champions to fight its corner in the world energy markets. To Read More http://www.oxfordprospect.co.uk/Europe%20Watch.htm
BRUSSELS
March 8 should be celebrated as Europe’s energy independence day, when Commission President launched the EU’s Green Paper on providing the community with a Common Energy Policy. However, Europe’s energy dinosaurs greeted the prospect of the EU finally taking action to tackle the continent’s energy problems with fear and trepidation. Immediately calls for defence of national interests have been made to protect national energy companies from the threat of liberalisation of Europe’s energy markets was demanded. Energy lobbyists in both France and Spain struck up the banner of patriotism, the need to protect jobs and the local equivalent of the American dream. Little did they care for the damage such action would have on Europe’s business competitiveness, nor for the people that they were going to make unemployed or even the nightmare for pensioners living in fear of the next energy bill. Instead, their promotion of national champions will result as Commission President Barrosso says in the creation second division champions, when Europe needs Premier class champions to fight its corner in the world energy markets. To Read More http://www.oxfordprospect.co.uk/Europe%20Watch.htm
Monday, February 27, 2006
Making Poverty History?
Making Poverty History?
By Nicholas Newman
Hi! Don’t you agree that just forgiving third world debt is not the solution to tackling the poverty suffered by the poor in the third world, which the rich and famous like Dawn French and Bono would have us believe?
All it will do is reward the money grabbing elites that misrule those countries. Angola and Nigeria are major oil and gas producers, but they remain large debtors. In Angola, Global Witness reports that a quarter of oil revenue is unaccounted for each year, and one in four children dies in infancy. The poor in those countries remain poor despite the oil wealth. Debt, by itself, is not the principal cause of poverty in many economically failing states, but bad governance, incompetence and corruption. “Ordinary citizens in oil producing states of Angola, Equatorial Guinea or Kazakhstan have no information on what is happening to that money" Gavin Hayman of Global Witness told the BBC's Today programme. "The international community spends $200m each year trying to feed one million people in Angola who are critically dependent on international food aid," said Mr Hayman.
"Now given that $1.5bn is going missing from the treasury, there is a lot more they could be doing for their citizens."
All debt forgiveness or rescheduling does is to delay the day when such countries will need to make the painful process to reform their economic, governmental and political systems. The 1996 World Bank Report argues “Aid may have unintentionally encouraged misrule that led to collapse and civil conflict”. Almost all civil governance and public development in Africa is paid for by foreign aid, enabling African despots to wage wars on their neighbours.
Ethiopia is a good example of a failed state, a country fashionably popular with our rich and famous. In 2004 AFP reports, this much troubled land bought a new fleet of Sukhoi SU-27 fighter planes and military helicopters, costing millions of dollars, while two million citizens remain dependent on humanitarian food aid. Marti Ahtisaari, the UN special envoy for the Humanitarian Crisis in the Horn of Africa, blames current Ethiopian government policies in two key areas environmental and population polices as the cause of the country’s cycle of catastrophes.
Did you know debt forgiveness or rescheduling increases the cost of future borrowing - as such a process worsens the credit rating of such a state. Indonesia has rescheduled three times and the cost of borrowing has gone up each time. That explains why many third world states including Laos and Vietnam are against such proposals reports the World Bank
.Debt forgiveness or rescheduling is unfair on those countries that have made the effort to pay off their debts like India and Russia; in fact Russia will become a net creditor in a few years time, notes the OECD. Incidentally, there is a strong correlation between states that meet their repayments and later long term strong financial performance.
According to the OECD, did you know that almost every African country has witnessed a systematic regression of economic capacity over the last 30 years? The majority had better economic capacity at independence than they now possess. This poor economic performance is due to many reasons including absence of incentives for the private sector, government control of the economy, and discouraging investment laws., and, of course, corruption.
Having a simple regime change is not the solution; all you will do is replace one corrupt, incompetent, money grubbing elite with another. What is needed is a cultural change through economic, political and governmental reform, which will encourage the majority to work hard to transform their country into a modern prosperous state.
The oft sited mantra ‘that the only solution is to let such countries solve their problems themselves’ is now wearing thin according to often exasperated experts in the aid industry.
It looks like countries like Kenya need outside pressure to force significant change. When President Mwai Kibaki was elected three years ago, he promised Western aid donors and end to corruption by appointing the Kenya's National Anti-Corruption Campaign. Instead, his government has continued the two traditions of African governments, continued as before while paying lip service to Aid donors. This body was kept chronically under funded and blocked at every turn and its steering committee has resigned in disgust reports the Kenya’s Standard earlier this month. This together with the allegations of the Kenyan government ministers involved in a series of dodgy procurement deals worth millions of dollars reports the Kenya’s Sunday Standard.
Whilst Kenya’s Standard complains that ‘The government’s credibility in the fight against corruption has been in freefall in recent weeks, following a barbed attack by British High Commissioner Sir Edward Clay. Mr. Clay’s statement was followed shortly thereafter by the withdrawal of funding for the government’s anti-graft effort by the United States government and, on Friday, (18 February, 2005) by the German government’. It looks like the West is learning, letting Africa solve its own problems does not work - a more hands on, project by project, approach is certainly needed.
Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush are right to encourage democracy as part of the solution to turning round such basket cases. Simply throwing more aid to prop up corrupt incompetent regimes who neglect their countries duties to develop their countries for the benefit of the majority of its citizens is not the answer.
Since many of these poor states are victims of their corrupt governments, one possible solution would be for the EU adopt Robert Wheelan Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) proposal. This proposes that the West should privatise the governance of such countries to EU approved multinationals to run such states under a profit sharing deal for a 21 year period, with the aim to rebuild, regenerate and develop these countries economies for the benefit of the majority of these countries citizens.
Somehow I don’t see Dawn French or her Vicar of Dibley persona starting a campaign to support Wheelan’s proposal?
By Nicholas Newman
Hi! Don’t you agree that just forgiving third world debt is not the solution to tackling the poverty suffered by the poor in the third world, which the rich and famous like Dawn French and Bono would have us believe?
All it will do is reward the money grabbing elites that misrule those countries. Angola and Nigeria are major oil and gas producers, but they remain large debtors. In Angola, Global Witness reports that a quarter of oil revenue is unaccounted for each year, and one in four children dies in infancy. The poor in those countries remain poor despite the oil wealth. Debt, by itself, is not the principal cause of poverty in many economically failing states, but bad governance, incompetence and corruption. “Ordinary citizens in oil producing states of Angola, Equatorial Guinea or Kazakhstan have no information on what is happening to that money" Gavin Hayman of Global Witness told the BBC's Today programme. "The international community spends $200m each year trying to feed one million people in Angola who are critically dependent on international food aid," said Mr Hayman.
"Now given that $1.5bn is going missing from the treasury, there is a lot more they could be doing for their citizens."
All debt forgiveness or rescheduling does is to delay the day when such countries will need to make the painful process to reform their economic, governmental and political systems. The 1996 World Bank Report argues “Aid may have unintentionally encouraged misrule that led to collapse and civil conflict”. Almost all civil governance and public development in Africa is paid for by foreign aid, enabling African despots to wage wars on their neighbours.
Ethiopia is a good example of a failed state, a country fashionably popular with our rich and famous. In 2004 AFP reports, this much troubled land bought a new fleet of Sukhoi SU-27 fighter planes and military helicopters, costing millions of dollars, while two million citizens remain dependent on humanitarian food aid. Marti Ahtisaari, the UN special envoy for the Humanitarian Crisis in the Horn of Africa, blames current Ethiopian government policies in two key areas environmental and population polices as the cause of the country’s cycle of catastrophes.
Did you know debt forgiveness or rescheduling increases the cost of future borrowing - as such a process worsens the credit rating of such a state. Indonesia has rescheduled three times and the cost of borrowing has gone up each time. That explains why many third world states including Laos and Vietnam are against such proposals reports the World Bank
.Debt forgiveness or rescheduling is unfair on those countries that have made the effort to pay off their debts like India and Russia; in fact Russia will become a net creditor in a few years time, notes the OECD. Incidentally, there is a strong correlation between states that meet their repayments and later long term strong financial performance.
According to the OECD, did you know that almost every African country has witnessed a systematic regression of economic capacity over the last 30 years? The majority had better economic capacity at independence than they now possess. This poor economic performance is due to many reasons including absence of incentives for the private sector, government control of the economy, and discouraging investment laws., and, of course, corruption.
Having a simple regime change is not the solution; all you will do is replace one corrupt, incompetent, money grubbing elite with another. What is needed is a cultural change through economic, political and governmental reform, which will encourage the majority to work hard to transform their country into a modern prosperous state.
The oft sited mantra ‘that the only solution is to let such countries solve their problems themselves’ is now wearing thin according to often exasperated experts in the aid industry.
It looks like countries like Kenya need outside pressure to force significant change. When President Mwai Kibaki was elected three years ago, he promised Western aid donors and end to corruption by appointing the Kenya's National Anti-Corruption Campaign. Instead, his government has continued the two traditions of African governments, continued as before while paying lip service to Aid donors. This body was kept chronically under funded and blocked at every turn and its steering committee has resigned in disgust reports the Kenya’s Standard earlier this month. This together with the allegations of the Kenyan government ministers involved in a series of dodgy procurement deals worth millions of dollars reports the Kenya’s Sunday Standard.
Whilst Kenya’s Standard complains that ‘The government’s credibility in the fight against corruption has been in freefall in recent weeks, following a barbed attack by British High Commissioner Sir Edward Clay. Mr. Clay’s statement was followed shortly thereafter by the withdrawal of funding for the government’s anti-graft effort by the United States government and, on Friday, (18 February, 2005) by the German government’. It looks like the West is learning, letting Africa solve its own problems does not work - a more hands on, project by project, approach is certainly needed.
Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush are right to encourage democracy as part of the solution to turning round such basket cases. Simply throwing more aid to prop up corrupt incompetent regimes who neglect their countries duties to develop their countries for the benefit of the majority of its citizens is not the answer.
Since many of these poor states are victims of their corrupt governments, one possible solution would be for the EU adopt Robert Wheelan Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) proposal. This proposes that the West should privatise the governance of such countries to EU approved multinationals to run such states under a profit sharing deal for a 21 year period, with the aim to rebuild, regenerate and develop these countries economies for the benefit of the majority of these countries citizens.
Somehow I don’t see Dawn French or her Vicar of Dibley persona starting a campaign to support Wheelan’s proposal?
Sunday, February 26, 2006
"THE EXTREMISTS WILL NEVER WIN" said Dr. Evan Harris Oxford West MP
Today (25 February), Oxford came out in support of the building of a new animal testing laboratory, Police estimate some 800 people marched through the streets of this historic university city, whilst members of the public broke out into spontaneous applause in support of the marchers as they past by, on this very cold February day. Amongst the speakers at this march were local MP Dr. Evan Harris and leading Oxford Neurosurgeon Professor Tipu Aziz.. For further information
Friday, February 24, 2006
Testing Out DAB Radios
Testing out the DAB radios what finally sold me an insatiable news junkie, was the pleasure of listening to digitally clear sound. The radio that most impressed me was the Roberts RD-14 Sports handheld digital radio. Not only is the price right at £100, it looks good and is user friendly, designed for ham fisted people like me. The graphics on the LCD display make it easy to read the scrolling text and it has an auto shut off function to save on battery life as well as an ac adapter when you don’t want to use the batteries. Like with previous radios I have purchased from Roberts the sound quality is crystal clear, good value and reliable. This will bring much pleasure to the daily grind of commuting. Though as a journalist that often works abroad, I am disappointed it cannot receive foreign digital radio stations; perhaps Roberts will include this in a later version. Buy Your DAB Radios Here
Is Cameron's honeymoon over?
Mr Cameron’s stardust is wearing off, according to two polls in today’s papers. A Mori poll in The Sun had 38 per cent of people saying that they would vote Labour if there was an election tomorrow, compared with 35 per cent for the Conservatives. This represents a 5 per cent drop for the Tories since last month. A YouGov poll for The Daily Telegraph put the Conservatives two points ahead of Labour, at 38 per cent to 36 per cent; 63 per cent of people agreed that the Tory leader “talks a good line but it is hard to know whether there is any substance behind the words”.
oxfordblog
Why is immigration being used by France's elite , as an excuse for its failure to reform?
Ah, immigration has become the bugbear of politicians all over Europe. For us in France, both the left and the right are using it as a cause for all our social ills. It is perhaps not surprising that we founding nations of the European dream have opted out of letting the mass unemployed from the east fill the jobs we do not want to do. We in France have a state that has failed its citizens, we have estates full of unemployed, and we need Tony Blair to replace our present crop of failed leaders. Instead, our political elite blame their failures to modernise France on the immigrants.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
The Battle of Brussels
THE BATTLE OF BRUSSELS
What strikes me when I visit Brussels is the sheer diversity of views on any given topic under discussion. It just goes to show how our British eurosceptic media paints a rather one-sided picture of issues in Brussels. Recently, I was in discussion with journalists from all over Europe at a conference held in Brussels, discussing the big issues that affect us all. What amazed me was the sheer variety of opinions on such topics as immigration, farming and even enlargement.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Is the Monarchy Really Necessary?
Is the Monarchy Really Necessary?
By Nicholas Newman December 2005
In these times of meritocracy, it is surprising that there are still western parliamentary democracies that still hold on to the concept of monarchy. After all, you would not choose your dentist on the hereditary principle – yet many parliamentary democracies continue to cling on to this – perhaps anachronistic tradition.
Critics of monarchy see the principle of monarchy as an expensive, unrepresentative and unnecessary office of state. In fact they argue that precedent demonstrates that the Monarch’s rights to be consulted encourage and warn her ministers, demonstrate that the office is a toothless tiger. In fact they argue that the Queen has no real power as demonstrated during the 1980’s under Thatcher. It is reported that the Queen was ignored by Thatcher over the issues of over South African sanctions [1]and the US invasion of Grenada[2] in the 1980’s.
As for the Monarch safeguarding the country’s democratic traditions, modernizers[3] suggest the monarch could do little to prevent a political extreme government from passing laws to ban the opposition, abolish elections and impose religious laws on the country. In fact all the Queen could do is perhaps delay matters.
Republicans argue that the Monarchy is a redundant office of state, it can no longer claim to be the upholder of traditions or even claim the fiction of the allegiance of the military. At the time of the Falklands War Victory Parade[4], precedent suggests the Queen takes the salute as head of state and the armed forces. Yet it was the PM Thatcher who took the salute, demonstrating again the political reality that the Monarch is Britain’s virtual leader, but the PM is the actual leader of the nation.
Supporters of the current system would argue that the office of monarchy is still a necessary function in a western parliamentary democracy; in that the Monarch may not have much actual power, but it is argued has varying degrees of influence on the branches of government.
In terms of actual power the monarch has little and what there is, is governed predominately by precedent. [5]Such as the right to be consulted and agree to a dissolution of parliament in preparation for an election, as was the case of the Major government that hat had lost an important vote on 22 July 1993 and sought approval from the Sovereign for dissolution – if it lost a vote of confidence the next day.
Monarchist claim that the Monarch acts a guardian of democracy. This it does in two main ways, in denying legitimacy to potential coup makers, as was the case of the 1981 coup in Spain when King Juan Carlos[6] denied support to insurgents, and that any other alternative as Australians conclude during their 1999 Monarchy referendum in denying the wealthy elite represented by the politicians of further powers.[7]
Apart from that past prime ministers claim that Britain’s Queen provides a useful reminder that the Prime Minister is not only responsible to just a political party, but also to the nation as whole and have claimed the Queen has proved a considerable help in their job, providing a useful experience and private audience.
So as to the question is the Monarchy really necessary, the debate is still open, having a constitutional monarchy is not the only way to preserve a western parliamentary democracy. The question that will need to be answered is finding an alternative constitutional solution that will meet the political needs of an increasingly federal style of government that Britain is becoming. But since there is no strong desire at present to abolish the Monarchy, the system is likely to continue to evolve, with perhaps as in the case of Japan, the Monarch’s only daughter becoming the heir apparent
By Nicholas Newman December 2005
In these times of meritocracy, it is surprising that there are still western parliamentary democracies that still hold on to the concept of monarchy. After all, you would not choose your dentist on the hereditary principle – yet many parliamentary democracies continue to cling on to this – perhaps anachronistic tradition.
Critics of monarchy see the principle of monarchy as an expensive, unrepresentative and unnecessary office of state. In fact they argue that precedent demonstrates that the Monarch’s rights to be consulted encourage and warn her ministers, demonstrate that the office is a toothless tiger. In fact they argue that the Queen has no real power as demonstrated during the 1980’s under Thatcher. It is reported that the Queen was ignored by Thatcher over the issues of over South African sanctions [1]and the US invasion of Grenada[2] in the 1980’s.
As for the Monarch safeguarding the country’s democratic traditions, modernizers[3] suggest the monarch could do little to prevent a political extreme government from passing laws to ban the opposition, abolish elections and impose religious laws on the country. In fact all the Queen could do is perhaps delay matters.
Republicans argue that the Monarchy is a redundant office of state, it can no longer claim to be the upholder of traditions or even claim the fiction of the allegiance of the military. At the time of the Falklands War Victory Parade[4], precedent suggests the Queen takes the salute as head of state and the armed forces. Yet it was the PM Thatcher who took the salute, demonstrating again the political reality that the Monarch is Britain’s virtual leader, but the PM is the actual leader of the nation.
Supporters of the current system would argue that the office of monarchy is still a necessary function in a western parliamentary democracy; in that the Monarch may not have much actual power, but it is argued has varying degrees of influence on the branches of government.
In terms of actual power the monarch has little and what there is, is governed predominately by precedent. [5]Such as the right to be consulted and agree to a dissolution of parliament in preparation for an election, as was the case of the Major government that hat had lost an important vote on 22 July 1993 and sought approval from the Sovereign for dissolution – if it lost a vote of confidence the next day.
Monarchist claim that the Monarch acts a guardian of democracy. This it does in two main ways, in denying legitimacy to potential coup makers, as was the case of the 1981 coup in Spain when King Juan Carlos[6] denied support to insurgents, and that any other alternative as Australians conclude during their 1999 Monarchy referendum in denying the wealthy elite represented by the politicians of further powers.[7]
Apart from that past prime ministers claim that Britain’s Queen provides a useful reminder that the Prime Minister is not only responsible to just a political party, but also to the nation as whole and have claimed the Queen has proved a considerable help in their job, providing a useful experience and private audience.
So as to the question is the Monarchy really necessary, the debate is still open, having a constitutional monarchy is not the only way to preserve a western parliamentary democracy. The question that will need to be answered is finding an alternative constitutional solution that will meet the political needs of an increasingly federal style of government that Britain is becoming. But since there is no strong desire at present to abolish the Monarchy, the system is likely to continue to evolve, with perhaps as in the case of Japan, the Monarch’s only daughter becoming the heir apparent
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Why Andrew Smith MP won't win votes by being a rebel
Why your MP won't win votes by being a Rebel
A Review of 'The Rebels' by Philip Cowley, Politico’s, £8.99.
What do you really want from your MP?
- Would you prefer him or her to be independent-minded or a party poodle?
- Do you want him or her to be involved with the big national issues of the day or to do something about the rubbish bags at the bottom of your street?
I’ll bet you opted for the first of the two options. If so, you have a funny way of expressing your wishes. The Rebels is a fascinating book by the political academic Philip Cowley, to be published soon, explodes some myths about independent MPs. Conventional wisdom has it that the era of the brave politician who voted with his conscience has been supplanted by the career politician who does what he is told.
As usual, conventional wisdom couldn’t be more wrong. There has been a dramatic revival in backbench independence, not a decline. Parliament has become more of a constraint on Government, not less.
In the 1950s, there were two years in which not a single Conservative MP defied the party whip. In other words, in every single vote, there was complete unanimity among the Government’s backbenchers. But perhaps Blair could afford to let MPs rebel because of the size of his massive majority ever, which allowed MPs in the 2001-05 Parliament to be the most rebellious since the Second World War. And the Iraq revolts were the largest mutinies of any governing party on any policy for more than 150 years.
You might think that voters would reward MPs who showed a spirited defiance against unpopular government measures. Indeed, many Labour MPs justified their defiance on these grounds. As one whip put it to Cowley: “Geraldine Smith believes the people of Morecambe will vote for her. They won’t vote for Tony Blair; they don’t trust or like Tony Blair. But they trust and like her. She thinks that by being seen as an independent spirit, she’ll save herself.”
Smith did keep her seat, but still suffered a swing against her.
In aggregate, Cowley found that Labour rebels did no better at the polls in the last election than their compliant colleagues. And the definitive Nuffield election study by John Curtice found that rebellions on Iraq, foundation hospitals and the prevention of terrorism made not the slightest difference to their vote. Only a mutiny on top-up fees helped a Labour candidate, and then by just three quarters of a percentage point.
What does seem to garner votes, by contrast, is an assiduous focus on local issues. Liberal Democrats have known this for years, and the party’s brand of “pavement politics”, which used to be derided by the two main parties, has now been taken up by Labour and, even more, the Tories.
Conservative Central Office, at the beginning of the last Parliament, made sure that target seats selected candidates early and got them working on the gripes that mattered most to local voters. Thus Justine Greening, the winner in Putney, started a campaign against night flights and wrote to 2,500 residents about what she was doing. It paid off.
Greg Hands, who gained Hammersmith and Fulham, fought the seat as if he were standing for the local council rather than Westminster. His leaflets said nothing about the economy or foreign policy. But he did promise an extra two carriages on the Edgware Road branch of the District Line and to deal with the rubbish blackspots around North End Road.
One Lib Dem MP admitted to me recently: “I always rush to any local meeting opposing a new phone mast even though I know that the people there have probably just bought the new 3G phones that make the mast necessary.”
So, if MPs have sold out, it’s not because they are prepared to support a national policy which they deplore; it’s because they will back any local grievance that might win them an extra vote.
Is that really all you want from them?
The Rebels by Philip Cowley, Politico’s, £8.99
Do you agree with this conclusion? And is Andrew Smith MP following this strategy?
Monday, September 19, 2005
German Election Comment
The East-West Ballot Divide
Fifteen years after German reunification, voters in the former east still poll differently to the those in the west. But their collective power at the ballot box was not enough to secure a majority.
Across much of the eastern part of Germany, Gerhard Schröder and his Social Democrats did better than any other party. And that, even in light of the raging levels of unemployment which is twice as high as in the west, and the widespread disdain for the SPD's reform package.
In the area between the Baltic coast and the state of Thuringia, Schröder's party emerged with almost 30 percent of the vote, compared to the meager 34.3 percent it achieved at a federal level -- the party's worst result in the past five decades of election history.
The Christian Democrats and the Left party equalized in the east with 25.9 percent of the vote each, in a result which was widely expected.
Left party hit in eastern Germany
The Left party, formerly the PDS, itself the successor party to the Communist SED, draws the majority of its support from the former east. Under the leadership of Gregor Gysi, who campaigned on a platform of greater opposition to social reform, the Left party garnered a total of 8.7 percent of the federal vote.
"It’s the best result ever," said Stefan Liebich, head of the Left party in Berlin. And in the capital that was certainly true. The Left party scored 29.5 percent in the former eastern part of the city, compared to just 7.2 in the west.
The Greens, who now have fewer seats in the Bundestag than the Left party, were clearly more popular with voters in the western part of the country, where they won 9 percent of the vote, double their 4.4 percent achievement in the east. In Berlin the east-west divide was 10.9 and 15.7 percent respectively.
Western electorate votes conservative
The results for the Christian Democrats and their Bavarian sister party, the Christian Socialist Union (CDU/CSU) in Berlin were a very different story. The union, which doesn't enjoy a massive following in the former east, picked up 27.9 percent of the ballot in the western part of the city, but just 13.6 percent in the east.
And at a federal level, voters in the East seemed to prefer the current poor record of the SPD to a largely uncertain future with potentially more social reform at the hands of the conservatives.
But that was not the only swaying consideration. During the heated election campaign, CSU leader, Edmund Stoiber made comments which damaged the party's chances of convincing an already skeptical eastern electorate.
Stoiber's critical contribution
In an address to a group of supporters and reporters some weeks ago, the state premier for Bavaria said, "I do not accept that the east will again decide who will be Germany's chancellor. It cannot be allowed that the frustrated determine Germany's fate."
The comment was met with anger from voters in the eastern camp and it was left up to Angela Merkel, herself from the former east, to clean up the mess. But Stoiber didn't stop there. At a rally a short while later, he reiterated his views. "The strong must sometimes carry the weak a bit. That's the way it is... I do not want the election to be decided in the east yet again," he said.
Although the party moved quickly to paste over Stoiber's critical remarks, and initial polls in their aftermath suggested the damage might not have been too monumental, with the results of Sunday's ballot now on the table, it's clear that his comments did nothing to improve the chances of a clear win for the conservatives.
Fifteen years after German reunification, voters in the former east still poll differently to the those in the west. But their collective power at the ballot box was not enough to secure a majority.
Across much of the eastern part of Germany, Gerhard Schröder and his Social Democrats did better than any other party. And that, even in light of the raging levels of unemployment which is twice as high as in the west, and the widespread disdain for the SPD's reform package.
In the area between the Baltic coast and the state of Thuringia, Schröder's party emerged with almost 30 percent of the vote, compared to the meager 34.3 percent it achieved at a federal level -- the party's worst result in the past five decades of election history.
The Christian Democrats and the Left party equalized in the east with 25.9 percent of the vote each, in a result which was widely expected.
Left party hit in eastern Germany
The Left party, formerly the PDS, itself the successor party to the Communist SED, draws the majority of its support from the former east. Under the leadership of Gregor Gysi, who campaigned on a platform of greater opposition to social reform, the Left party garnered a total of 8.7 percent of the federal vote.
"It’s the best result ever," said Stefan Liebich, head of the Left party in Berlin. And in the capital that was certainly true. The Left party scored 29.5 percent in the former eastern part of the city, compared to just 7.2 in the west.
The Greens, who now have fewer seats in the Bundestag than the Left party, were clearly more popular with voters in the western part of the country, where they won 9 percent of the vote, double their 4.4 percent achievement in the east. In Berlin the east-west divide was 10.9 and 15.7 percent respectively.
Western electorate votes conservative
The results for the Christian Democrats and their Bavarian sister party, the Christian Socialist Union (CDU/CSU) in Berlin were a very different story. The union, which doesn't enjoy a massive following in the former east, picked up 27.9 percent of the ballot in the western part of the city, but just 13.6 percent in the east.
And at a federal level, voters in the East seemed to prefer the current poor record of the SPD to a largely uncertain future with potentially more social reform at the hands of the conservatives.
But that was not the only swaying consideration. During the heated election campaign, CSU leader, Edmund Stoiber made comments which damaged the party's chances of convincing an already skeptical eastern electorate.
Stoiber's critical contribution
In an address to a group of supporters and reporters some weeks ago, the state premier for Bavaria said, "I do not accept that the east will again decide who will be Germany's chancellor. It cannot be allowed that the frustrated determine Germany's fate."
The comment was met with anger from voters in the eastern camp and it was left up to Angela Merkel, herself from the former east, to clean up the mess. But Stoiber didn't stop there. At a rally a short while later, he reiterated his views. "The strong must sometimes carry the weak a bit. That's the way it is... I do not want the election to be decided in the east yet again," he said.
Although the party moved quickly to paste over Stoiber's critical remarks, and initial polls in their aftermath suggested the damage might not have been too monumental, with the results of Sunday's ballot now on the table, it's clear that his comments did nothing to improve the chances of a clear win for the conservatives.
The BBC Coverage of Katrina
Tony Blair is right about the BBC. The corporation's coverage of Hurricane Katrina has indeed been tinged by an unnecessary sense of gloating, as the Prime Minister told Rupert Murdoch.
It is not that BBC correspondents have been inaccurate - although they tended to quote the figure of 10,000 dead, almost certainly an exaggeration, with relish. But, in their reports, one heard a whining undertone, like a bagpipe's drone. How could this have happened in such a rich country? Do the Americans really believe they can sort out Iraq with this in their own backyard? Will they finally learn some humility?
Even if these were legitimate sentiments, the aftermath of a tragedy would be no time to express them. Just imagine, by way of illustration, if, following the tsunami, the BBC had focused on the civil wars of Sri Lanka and Aceh, arguing that victims were, in a sense, reaping what they had sown, since those conflicts had destroyed the infrastructure that relief workers needed. Doing so would have been poor news judgment as well as poor taste. Yet the BBC dwelt endlessly on the deployment of a few hundred Louisiana guardsmen in the Gulf of Mexico.
Especially striking has been the determination of BBC correspondent Matt Frei to hang the blame around George Bush's neck. The officials who had the most direct responsibility for local services - notably the clownish mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin - were reported mainly as articulators of anger against the President, with almost no analysis of their own role.
Well said, then, Prime Minister. But why unload your frustration on Mr Murdoch? It is, after all, up to you to decide whether to renew the BBC's charter. If you really wanted to do something about its ingrained partiality, you could tell them first. Moaning behind the BBC's back to a rival news organisation is both pointless and unmanly.
It is not that BBC correspondents have been inaccurate - although they tended to quote the figure of 10,000 dead, almost certainly an exaggeration, with relish. But, in their reports, one heard a whining undertone, like a bagpipe's drone. How could this have happened in such a rich country? Do the Americans really believe they can sort out Iraq with this in their own backyard? Will they finally learn some humility?
Even if these were legitimate sentiments, the aftermath of a tragedy would be no time to express them. Just imagine, by way of illustration, if, following the tsunami, the BBC had focused on the civil wars of Sri Lanka and Aceh, arguing that victims were, in a sense, reaping what they had sown, since those conflicts had destroyed the infrastructure that relief workers needed. Doing so would have been poor news judgment as well as poor taste. Yet the BBC dwelt endlessly on the deployment of a few hundred Louisiana guardsmen in the Gulf of Mexico.
Especially striking has been the determination of BBC correspondent Matt Frei to hang the blame around George Bush's neck. The officials who had the most direct responsibility for local services - notably the clownish mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin - were reported mainly as articulators of anger against the President, with almost no analysis of their own role.
Well said, then, Prime Minister. But why unload your frustration on Mr Murdoch? It is, after all, up to you to decide whether to renew the BBC's charter. If you really wanted to do something about its ingrained partiality, you could tell them first. Moaning behind the BBC's back to a rival news organisation is both pointless and unmanly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
