Petitions have played an important role in our Parliament for the best part of a millennium. Petitions have two main uses, firstly for people to show they support a particular view on an issue, and secondly to let those in power know they feel strongly about an issue, they feel isn't being addressed.
That, at least is how most people to view them, but they are much more far reaching than that. Take for example the Petition of Right which was enacted in 1628. This wasn't a document in which the public lobbied parliament for something, this was parliament stating to the King, Charles I, what they believed they were entitled to. It was, in fact, a declaration that there was to be no taxation without representation, or to quote:
"(T)hat no tallage or aid shall be laid or levied by the King or his heirs in this realm, without the goodwill and assent of the Archbishops, Bishops, Earls, Barons, Knights, Burgesses, and other freemen of the commonalty of this realm: and by authority of Parliament"
Charles, of course, although assenting at first, because he wanted money, had his own solution, and dissolved Parliament the following year, and ruled on his own for twelve years.
However, petitions have a long and noble history, from the Barons forcing John to the table at Runnymede, William Wilberforce's petition signed by over 100,000 people, to those presented most evening in the House by MPs on behalf of constituents.
The petition therefore, has a place of pride in our society, as a way of getting issues aired. The last government made it a lot easier for ordinary members of the public to create petitions, and get them to the countries leaders, in 2006 with the creation of the Number Ten site. Those that gained over 500 signatures would then receive a response.
As long ago as 2007 David Cameron had said:
"I would like to see a system whereby, if enough people sign an online petition in favour of a particular motion, then a debate is held in Parliament, followed by a vote - so that the public know what their elected representatives actually think about the issues that matter to them,"
So he is consistent, and in February last year had first mentioned the 100,000 figure, and that those gaining a million, would give the petitioners the right to actually put forward legislation on it, which MPs had to vote on.
In that light, it did seem odd when the Coalition originally took office, they said they would not be carrying forward those on the site that had not received a response. However, by the middle of June they'd changed their mind, and reverted, at least partly to the original position, so managed two u-turns in the first month. Obviously they liked it so much, they thought they'd carry on turning, but that's another issue.
So when the new e-petitions site was launched today, the government are in fact just carrying on with the system the Labour government started, with a couple of tweaks. Indeed, if you look at the site, the list of petitions is just a continuation.
The publicity today surrounded Paul Staines, otherwise known as Guido Fawkes the right wing blogger, and his one (of many) to seek a return of the death penalty. He is confident that he'll gain the 100,000 signatures required to get it debated, though we'll have to see.
Sir George Young has said that the government will monitor the situation, and see if the number of signatories needs to be lowered or raised. The issue I have is not that it is easier for the public to make their concerns known, and although I would never support the return of the death penalty, it's a subject many feel strongly about. Mine is whether a government should guarantee the subject is debated, as this could lead to some very strange debates. Remember, it was only in 2001 that an online campaign was successful in getting Jedi put by a large number of people as a religion, thereby somewhat skewing the figures.
The big problem is that this is yet another ill-thought through idea by this government. They take an idea that already existed (I'm sure it would have been tweaked over time), and not only tried to claim it as their own, but turned it into a publicity stunt. The committee that will decide which ones get debated, so that already means many will feel disappointment as they believe the 100,000 will lead to automatic debate, will only meet for 35 days a year, and will easily get sidelined by other, more pressing matters.
As Natasha Engel said in today's Financial Times:
“This isn’t as well thought through as it could have been, and my concern is that the government is raising demand and expectations they may not be able to deliver on...there’s so much other business parked up for debate – the operations in Libya, huge defence issues..It’s in danger of becoming a bit gimmicky.”
The government is yet again making a rod for its own back by making such a big thing out of this. The likes of Staines will use it for their own agenda, but also the public will quickly become disenchanted with yet another government idea (this one or the last) which fails to do what it said it would.
A good idea, which has been in existence for five years to enable the public to make its concerns known, is in danger of being thrown into disrepute by spurious petitions. The government might think it has covered itself by creating the committee, but it won't be long before people start grumbling that their petition is being suppressed, and that debate is being avoided.
So, I am not going to criticise the government for trying, but once again they haven't really thought an idea through, because they went for the one that looked good on a press release.
Thursday, 4 August 2011
Tuesday, 19 July 2011
Committed to finding the truth?
When Rebekah Brooks, Rupert Murdoch, and James Murdoch appear before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee today, they will have a lot of questions to answer. The role of the News of the World, and its parent company, News International, is one that requires careful investigation.
The committee will also need to be very wary as it questions the trio, as there is now a big political element to this story, but that is largely irrelevant to the scope of the committee, and Lord Leveson's inquiry.
The members of the committee have been very aware of their responsibilities, John Whittingdale and Tom Watson especially, and have steered clear of making cheap party political points. Both Ed Miliband and David Cameron have made it clear recently that they have both been too close to News International, and the media in general, so it strikes me that, whilst an important debate, it is not one for this particular case.
The biggest political story surrounding all this, is David Cameron's employment of Andy Coulson as his Director of Communications. Whilst many people, on both left and right, would like to see Cameron put under scrutiny for this, it is not relevant to the inquiry, unless (and I consider this unlikely) evidence emerges he knew what had been going on. There are plenty of legitimate questions to be asked regarding his judgement, but this is a political issue, to unfold on a different field.
Indeed, to a large extent, our leaders have kept this free of party points scoring. People mustn't confuse the back and forth over judgement, which has been happening from both sides, over who should employ whom, with the way they've approached the whole issue. David Cameron was indeed a little slow in fully agreeing to hold the inquiries, but like Gordon Brown in 2009, perhaps he was a little too reluctant to upset the media if he could avoid it. However, he has now set up these inquiries, and we must let the story unfold. The reason that so much headway has been made in a short time, is because politics has largely been absent, and its allowed the inquiries to be set up relatively quickly, and that is to the credit of Ed Miliband and David Cameron.
In the last few days there have been three high profile resignations, Rebekah Brooks, Sir John Stephenson and John Yates, but yesterday the latest victim may have been claimed with the death of Sean Hoare, the former News of the World entertainment corespondent who first raised the whole issue of phone hacking. Currently there is, according to the police, nothing suspicious about his death, but the stress and profile of the case recently, can take a toll on someone whose health is already damaged.
So, as the committee meets the protagonists today (Stephenson and Yates appear before the Home Affairs Committee) they will have to stick strictly to the issue of hacking, and what they knew. Anybody who tries to make this a political issue will be in danger of turning the event into even more of a circus than it is, and making that the story, when there are a lot of serious questions to be answered.
The committee will also need to be very wary as it questions the trio, as there is now a big political element to this story, but that is largely irrelevant to the scope of the committee, and Lord Leveson's inquiry.
The members of the committee have been very aware of their responsibilities, John Whittingdale and Tom Watson especially, and have steered clear of making cheap party political points. Both Ed Miliband and David Cameron have made it clear recently that they have both been too close to News International, and the media in general, so it strikes me that, whilst an important debate, it is not one for this particular case.
The biggest political story surrounding all this, is David Cameron's employment of Andy Coulson as his Director of Communications. Whilst many people, on both left and right, would like to see Cameron put under scrutiny for this, it is not relevant to the inquiry, unless (and I consider this unlikely) evidence emerges he knew what had been going on. There are plenty of legitimate questions to be asked regarding his judgement, but this is a political issue, to unfold on a different field.
Indeed, to a large extent, our leaders have kept this free of party points scoring. People mustn't confuse the back and forth over judgement, which has been happening from both sides, over who should employ whom, with the way they've approached the whole issue. David Cameron was indeed a little slow in fully agreeing to hold the inquiries, but like Gordon Brown in 2009, perhaps he was a little too reluctant to upset the media if he could avoid it. However, he has now set up these inquiries, and we must let the story unfold. The reason that so much headway has been made in a short time, is because politics has largely been absent, and its allowed the inquiries to be set up relatively quickly, and that is to the credit of Ed Miliband and David Cameron.
In the last few days there have been three high profile resignations, Rebekah Brooks, Sir John Stephenson and John Yates, but yesterday the latest victim may have been claimed with the death of Sean Hoare, the former News of the World entertainment corespondent who first raised the whole issue of phone hacking. Currently there is, according to the police, nothing suspicious about his death, but the stress and profile of the case recently, can take a toll on someone whose health is already damaged.
So, as the committee meets the protagonists today (Stephenson and Yates appear before the Home Affairs Committee) they will have to stick strictly to the issue of hacking, and what they knew. Anybody who tries to make this a political issue will be in danger of turning the event into even more of a circus than it is, and making that the story, when there are a lot of serious questions to be answered.
Thursday, 14 July 2011
Will the lessons be learned?
David Cameron has been under a lot of pressure recently, and the irony is, that is a decision he took in opposition that is causing it. It must be remembered that Andy Coulson left his position as Communications Director in January, so had only served him as Prime Minister for eight months.
The whole phone hacking scandal came to light in 2006 when the News of the World's royal editor, Clive Goodman, and a private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire were arrested, then subsequently gaoled for intercepting voicemails. Since then a large number of other allegations have arisen, most notably the hacking of, and deleting voicemails of Milly Dowler, a thirteen year old girl murdered in 2002.
The editor at the time the original story broke was Andy Coulson, who maintains that he knew nothing about what was going on, and it perhaps should be noted that Milly's death occurred in 2002, whilst Coulson did not become editor until 2003. However, he had been deputy editor under Rebekah Wade since 2000. As Wade (now Rebekah Brooks), also denies any knowledge, you have to ask who was actually in charge of the News of the World during the period 2000-2007, when Coulson resigned?
A big question surrounding this whole issue is when did the hacking start, and when did it end? It certainly appears to have occurred between 2002 and 2005,when Milly Dowler's voicemails were hacked, with some deleted, and (if the allegations turn out to be true) that the families of victims of the 7/7 bombings had their phones hacked. Was it an ongoing process when Wade and Coulson joined, and they were either kept in the dark, or did nothing to stop it, or did it begin under their watch, in which case, why didn't they know? Did they suspect information was being gained by underhand methods, but didn't ask the right questions?
A police investigation was launched under the leadership of Andy Hayman, and this subsequently failed to turn up any new information, beyond that already known around the activities of Goodman and Mulcaire. Hayman himself was a policeman of some repute, having first led the Special Branch's anti-terrorism group, and was in charge of the investigation into the 7/7 bombings in 2005. However, was resigned in December 2007 surrounding allegations regarding expenses, and relationships with fellow officers and a member of the IPCC.
Hayman appeared before the Home Affairs Committee earlier this week, in which he admitted receiving hospitality from people he was investigating, though he didn't consider this unusual, especially as operational matters weren't discussed. Whilst there is nothing to show that Hayman's relationship with News International employees affected the investigation, his subsequent employment by News International, perhaps indicates his relationship with them was too close to be in charge of such an important investigation.
An inevitable question arises which is, why didn't the Labour government in 2007 order an investigation into the hacking of the Royal family's voicemails? This is a perfectly legitimate question to ask, and the responses in the last few days haven't really cleared up the issue.
On July 6th, during the emergency debate, Alan Johnson, who was Home Secretary 2009-10 said that Commissioner John Yates (whose own appearnace before the media committee last week raised many questions) said it was just the obsession of a single newspaper, The Guardian, and a couple of backbenchers, Chris Bryant and Tom Watson. Johnson then added that they Home Office did look at whether there should be an independent review of the investigation, and he admitted, and John Whittingdale had already said, all the information seems to have been there. Johnson also claims that he was told that it was at that time out of the remit of the Independent press Complaints Commission, and that they should wait for the report of the DPP.
The Director of Public Prosecutions then said that based on the information given to him by the police, there was no cause for any further investigation. As Alan Johnson said that afternoon, "We were all swimming around wondering whether we were receiving the correct information." Indeed as now the issue of being seen to do something that may interfere with operational matters, and that was why they didn't act then, though he felt it right to do so now, even if it proved uncomfortable.
In the last few days it has emerged that Gordon Brown, who was Prime Minister at the time, did wish to hold an inquiry, but seems to have claimed he was blocked by Sir Gus O'Donnell the Cabinet Secretary. However, Sir Gus has released the memorandum he sent to Gordon Brown and refuted the claims he blocked an inquiry.
In his speech on Wednesday Gordon Brown said that the formal advice rejected an inquiry, and that whilst new facts existed and the News International had a culture of illegal activity, the select committee did not believe such activities still went on, and therefore were not urgent, particularly as those involved had been punished. he also said that, the memo said, "there was no evidence of systemic failure in the police, and anyway all their decisions had been checked with the Crown Prosecution Service;" and that the prominence of a general election would lead to accusations of political motivation. Brown also went to say that it warned that if there was a appeal made about a judicial inquiry it might succeed, and there was no case for reopening it in any form.
Today Sir Gus O'Donnell authorised the release of his original advice to Gordon Brown when he was Prime Minister regarding the issues raised in his speech. On reading it seems to me quite clear that Sir Gus was not blocking any attempt to hold an inquiry, even if he had the power to do so. The advice is certainly weighted against holding an inquiry, but to my mind, all his arguments are reasonable.
It would seem to me the all parties here were seriously misled by the police especially on what they had discovered in their investigation, including the committee, which is why Sir Gus read their report as he did.
It appears that if he had really wanted to Gordon Brown could have ordered an inquiry to begin, and I'm sure that if he had consulted David Cameron, and possibly Nick Clegg, they could have avoided making it a political issue, and it would have continued after the election, as they have with Chilcot.
I don't think Gordon Brown has told any untruths here, but his interpretation of Sir Gus O'Donnell's advice did avoid causing any ructions with News International in the period leading up to the General Election. Therefore, I think subconsciously it suited the Prime Minister not to start investigating this issue at the time, and that it was in reality a political decision which I believe was mistaken, as by now we would have a clear picture of what had happened, and people facing retribution for their crimes.
Here is Sir Gus O'Donnell's advice so you can make up your own mind http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/cabinet-secretary-advice-judicial.pdf
Following his resignation from the News of the World in 2007, Andy Coulson went to work for David Cameron, when leader of the opposition, as his Communications Director in July that year, only two weeks before he appeared before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee where he denied any knowledge of hacking.
It appears now that David Cameron was given a number of warnings that employing Coulson could well turn out to be a mistake. Cameron was himself doubtful, but sought reassurances from Murdoch and it appears that George Osborne also very strongly put his case.
Despite occasional rumblings, the subject seemed to be largely dying down until after the General Election of May 2010. Despite further warnings from Paddy Ashdown and possibly Nick Clegg, Coulson followed Cameron to Downing Street.
In December last year new allegations emerged surrounding the hacking of celebrity phones, particularly the actress Sienna Miller, and this made Coulson's position and in January this year Coulson stepped down from his position, citing similar reasons to Alastair Campbell, in regard to him becoming the story and distracting from the government's business.
As more and more revelations have since appeared, the whole News International Empire, especially its British holdings, have come under increased scrutiny. Rebekah brooks, now Chief Executive at news International has faced demands that she stand down, including from Ed Miliband, David Cameron and Nick Clegg.
In the last couple of weeks the Labour Party have seen a transformed Ed Miliband as he has found a new confidence. He has led from the front on this issue, calling for inquiries, not only into the News of the World, but also into wider media practices as it became apparent that News International weren't the only ones engaged in nefarious activities.
Although a little slow to follow suit, to his credit David Cameron has come fully on board and is setting up an inquiry under a judge, Lord Leveson, to investigate the whole issue. Instead of having two inquiries, this will be in two parts, firstly investigating wider media activities, and make recommendations for a, "more effective policy and regulatory regime which supports the integrity and freedom of the press, the plurality of the media and its independence from government, while encouraging the highest ethical and professional standards".
Lord Leveson's remit also covers investigating the whole phone hacking scandal, including the the first police investigation, including whether police officers received corrupt payments. I think this is a sensible way to go, as two separate inquiries would inevitably have crossed paths, whereas this will save money, but be a more efficient evidence collecting, and collating mechanism.
In the light of all this, there have inevitably been questions surrounding David Cameron's judgement in employing Andy Coulson, who has recently been arrested and bailed over the new allegations, and some people believing it could lead to his resignation.
I feel that this is unlikely to happen, although Cameron will be weakened for a while by the fallout. It is true that he did make a severe error of judgement in taking Coulson into government, it seems that he made the mistake of just putting too much faith in the opinions of others, as well as his desire, like many others, to stay onside with the Murdoch empire. Indeed Ed Miliband himself has admitted that he too was mistaken in trying to get close to them, and in his statement yesterday, Cameron said it was a natural thing for opposition leaders to do, to try and get media backing.
The prime Minister has had a lot of bad press this year, as the economy struggles to get going, inflation stays stubbornly high, and there have been a number of policy u-turns and delays. Yet he currently keeps a firm grip on his party, and is its main spokesman. Whenever a big policy announcement is made, it seems to be Cameron fronting it, and without him, the Conservatives, and probably the government, would have no effective spokesman at all.
There is also no likely successor on the horizon, as the only cabinet minister of sufficient stature, William Hague, has already had the job, and other possibles, George Osborne and Theresa May don't have the public image needed in modern politics.
In the end nobody is going to come out of this whole scandal with much credit. Although individuals such as Ed Miliband may gain some kudos for the way he went about pushing for the inquiries, and to his credit, kept party politics by and large out of it, he too had tried to cosy up to Murdoch.
The important thing now is to ensure that all inquiries, the Murdochs and Rebekah Brooks will appear before the media committee next Tuesday, though whether this will reveal anything new I am doubtful, but hopefully some accountability and explanation for previous actions (Brooks previously admitted to knowing about hacking) will be sought, are able to investigate and reach their conclusions unmolested.
There are many lessons to be learned for politicians and the media alike, with the public's trust in them having been even further eroded. Politicians were burned by the expenses scandal, and the media has been by this one, will they lead to any real changes? There may be in the relationships between the press and politicians on the surface, but they will still need each other, the press will still be looking for stories to sell their papers, and the politicians will be seeking to gain power, and ways of getting their message across.
Political pressure was sufficient to force News International to withdraw its bid for BSkyB, but it would be wrong to take too much from this. If it hadn't been for the actions of the News of the World, it is almost certain that the takeover would have been approved at some stage. It may even turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory if Murdoch decides to dump all his British media investments, which whilst causing some short-lived cheer, might have longer term consequences.
There is a long way to go on this investigation, and more revelations may yet come out. Whatever positives there are from this week, and perhaps the cross-party agreement reached, and the general tone of the debate, being the biggest, we must not think that it is all over.
The whole phone hacking scandal came to light in 2006 when the News of the World's royal editor, Clive Goodman, and a private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire were arrested, then subsequently gaoled for intercepting voicemails. Since then a large number of other allegations have arisen, most notably the hacking of, and deleting voicemails of Milly Dowler, a thirteen year old girl murdered in 2002.
The editor at the time the original story broke was Andy Coulson, who maintains that he knew nothing about what was going on, and it perhaps should be noted that Milly's death occurred in 2002, whilst Coulson did not become editor until 2003. However, he had been deputy editor under Rebekah Wade since 2000. As Wade (now Rebekah Brooks), also denies any knowledge, you have to ask who was actually in charge of the News of the World during the period 2000-2007, when Coulson resigned?
A big question surrounding this whole issue is when did the hacking start, and when did it end? It certainly appears to have occurred between 2002 and 2005,when Milly Dowler's voicemails were hacked, with some deleted, and (if the allegations turn out to be true) that the families of victims of the 7/7 bombings had their phones hacked. Was it an ongoing process when Wade and Coulson joined, and they were either kept in the dark, or did nothing to stop it, or did it begin under their watch, in which case, why didn't they know? Did they suspect information was being gained by underhand methods, but didn't ask the right questions?
A police investigation was launched under the leadership of Andy Hayman, and this subsequently failed to turn up any new information, beyond that already known around the activities of Goodman and Mulcaire. Hayman himself was a policeman of some repute, having first led the Special Branch's anti-terrorism group, and was in charge of the investigation into the 7/7 bombings in 2005. However, was resigned in December 2007 surrounding allegations regarding expenses, and relationships with fellow officers and a member of the IPCC.
Hayman appeared before the Home Affairs Committee earlier this week, in which he admitted receiving hospitality from people he was investigating, though he didn't consider this unusual, especially as operational matters weren't discussed. Whilst there is nothing to show that Hayman's relationship with News International employees affected the investigation, his subsequent employment by News International, perhaps indicates his relationship with them was too close to be in charge of such an important investigation.
An inevitable question arises which is, why didn't the Labour government in 2007 order an investigation into the hacking of the Royal family's voicemails? This is a perfectly legitimate question to ask, and the responses in the last few days haven't really cleared up the issue.
On July 6th, during the emergency debate, Alan Johnson, who was Home Secretary 2009-10 said that Commissioner John Yates (whose own appearnace before the media committee last week raised many questions) said it was just the obsession of a single newspaper, The Guardian, and a couple of backbenchers, Chris Bryant and Tom Watson. Johnson then added that they Home Office did look at whether there should be an independent review of the investigation, and he admitted, and John Whittingdale had already said, all the information seems to have been there. Johnson also claims that he was told that it was at that time out of the remit of the Independent press Complaints Commission, and that they should wait for the report of the DPP.
The Director of Public Prosecutions then said that based on the information given to him by the police, there was no cause for any further investigation. As Alan Johnson said that afternoon, "We were all swimming around wondering whether we were receiving the correct information." Indeed as now the issue of being seen to do something that may interfere with operational matters, and that was why they didn't act then, though he felt it right to do so now, even if it proved uncomfortable.
In the last few days it has emerged that Gordon Brown, who was Prime Minister at the time, did wish to hold an inquiry, but seems to have claimed he was blocked by Sir Gus O'Donnell the Cabinet Secretary. However, Sir Gus has released the memorandum he sent to Gordon Brown and refuted the claims he blocked an inquiry.
In his speech on Wednesday Gordon Brown said that the formal advice rejected an inquiry, and that whilst new facts existed and the News International had a culture of illegal activity, the select committee did not believe such activities still went on, and therefore were not urgent, particularly as those involved had been punished. he also said that, the memo said, "there was no evidence of systemic failure in the police, and anyway all their decisions had been checked with the Crown Prosecution Service;" and that the prominence of a general election would lead to accusations of political motivation. Brown also went to say that it warned that if there was a appeal made about a judicial inquiry it might succeed, and there was no case for reopening it in any form.
Today Sir Gus O'Donnell authorised the release of his original advice to Gordon Brown when he was Prime Minister regarding the issues raised in his speech. On reading it seems to me quite clear that Sir Gus was not blocking any attempt to hold an inquiry, even if he had the power to do so. The advice is certainly weighted against holding an inquiry, but to my mind, all his arguments are reasonable.
It would seem to me the all parties here were seriously misled by the police especially on what they had discovered in their investigation, including the committee, which is why Sir Gus read their report as he did.
It appears that if he had really wanted to Gordon Brown could have ordered an inquiry to begin, and I'm sure that if he had consulted David Cameron, and possibly Nick Clegg, they could have avoided making it a political issue, and it would have continued after the election, as they have with Chilcot.
I don't think Gordon Brown has told any untruths here, but his interpretation of Sir Gus O'Donnell's advice did avoid causing any ructions with News International in the period leading up to the General Election. Therefore, I think subconsciously it suited the Prime Minister not to start investigating this issue at the time, and that it was in reality a political decision which I believe was mistaken, as by now we would have a clear picture of what had happened, and people facing retribution for their crimes.
Here is Sir Gus O'Donnell's advice so you can make up your own mind http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/cabinet-secretary-advice-judicial.pdf
Following his resignation from the News of the World in 2007, Andy Coulson went to work for David Cameron, when leader of the opposition, as his Communications Director in July that year, only two weeks before he appeared before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee where he denied any knowledge of hacking.
It appears now that David Cameron was given a number of warnings that employing Coulson could well turn out to be a mistake. Cameron was himself doubtful, but sought reassurances from Murdoch and it appears that George Osborne also very strongly put his case.
Despite occasional rumblings, the subject seemed to be largely dying down until after the General Election of May 2010. Despite further warnings from Paddy Ashdown and possibly Nick Clegg, Coulson followed Cameron to Downing Street.
In December last year new allegations emerged surrounding the hacking of celebrity phones, particularly the actress Sienna Miller, and this made Coulson's position and in January this year Coulson stepped down from his position, citing similar reasons to Alastair Campbell, in regard to him becoming the story and distracting from the government's business.
As more and more revelations have since appeared, the whole News International Empire, especially its British holdings, have come under increased scrutiny. Rebekah brooks, now Chief Executive at news International has faced demands that she stand down, including from Ed Miliband, David Cameron and Nick Clegg.
In the last couple of weeks the Labour Party have seen a transformed Ed Miliband as he has found a new confidence. He has led from the front on this issue, calling for inquiries, not only into the News of the World, but also into wider media practices as it became apparent that News International weren't the only ones engaged in nefarious activities.
Although a little slow to follow suit, to his credit David Cameron has come fully on board and is setting up an inquiry under a judge, Lord Leveson, to investigate the whole issue. Instead of having two inquiries, this will be in two parts, firstly investigating wider media activities, and make recommendations for a, "more effective policy and regulatory regime which supports the integrity and freedom of the press, the plurality of the media and its independence from government, while encouraging the highest ethical and professional standards".
Lord Leveson's remit also covers investigating the whole phone hacking scandal, including the the first police investigation, including whether police officers received corrupt payments. I think this is a sensible way to go, as two separate inquiries would inevitably have crossed paths, whereas this will save money, but be a more efficient evidence collecting, and collating mechanism.
In the light of all this, there have inevitably been questions surrounding David Cameron's judgement in employing Andy Coulson, who has recently been arrested and bailed over the new allegations, and some people believing it could lead to his resignation.
I feel that this is unlikely to happen, although Cameron will be weakened for a while by the fallout. It is true that he did make a severe error of judgement in taking Coulson into government, it seems that he made the mistake of just putting too much faith in the opinions of others, as well as his desire, like many others, to stay onside with the Murdoch empire. Indeed Ed Miliband himself has admitted that he too was mistaken in trying to get close to them, and in his statement yesterday, Cameron said it was a natural thing for opposition leaders to do, to try and get media backing.
The prime Minister has had a lot of bad press this year, as the economy struggles to get going, inflation stays stubbornly high, and there have been a number of policy u-turns and delays. Yet he currently keeps a firm grip on his party, and is its main spokesman. Whenever a big policy announcement is made, it seems to be Cameron fronting it, and without him, the Conservatives, and probably the government, would have no effective spokesman at all.
There is also no likely successor on the horizon, as the only cabinet minister of sufficient stature, William Hague, has already had the job, and other possibles, George Osborne and Theresa May don't have the public image needed in modern politics.
In the end nobody is going to come out of this whole scandal with much credit. Although individuals such as Ed Miliband may gain some kudos for the way he went about pushing for the inquiries, and to his credit, kept party politics by and large out of it, he too had tried to cosy up to Murdoch.
The important thing now is to ensure that all inquiries, the Murdochs and Rebekah Brooks will appear before the media committee next Tuesday, though whether this will reveal anything new I am doubtful, but hopefully some accountability and explanation for previous actions (Brooks previously admitted to knowing about hacking) will be sought, are able to investigate and reach their conclusions unmolested.
There are many lessons to be learned for politicians and the media alike, with the public's trust in them having been even further eroded. Politicians were burned by the expenses scandal, and the media has been by this one, will they lead to any real changes? There may be in the relationships between the press and politicians on the surface, but they will still need each other, the press will still be looking for stories to sell their papers, and the politicians will be seeking to gain power, and ways of getting their message across.
Political pressure was sufficient to force News International to withdraw its bid for BSkyB, but it would be wrong to take too much from this. If it hadn't been for the actions of the News of the World, it is almost certain that the takeover would have been approved at some stage. It may even turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory if Murdoch decides to dump all his British media investments, which whilst causing some short-lived cheer, might have longer term consequences.
There is a long way to go on this investigation, and more revelations may yet come out. Whatever positives there are from this week, and perhaps the cross-party agreement reached, and the general tone of the debate, being the biggest, we must not think that it is all over.
Monday, 2 May 2011
No Change, No Chance!
On Thursday May 5th Voters in the United Kingdom go to the polls to elect a Parliament in Scotland. and Assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland. There will also be council elections, as well as Mayoral ones all over England, except for London. The one common theme seems to be, ' How much can we punish the Liberal Democrats, for breaking their promises, and the role they've played in the coalition?' The principle target for this ire being the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg.
However, there is another ballot that day, which covers the whole country, and is all that Londoners will be voting on, and this is the referendum on the Alternative Vote.
This referendum is the subject of this blog today, and why I believe that many people could well find themselves regretting their decision very quickly, deciding in haste and repenting at leisure.
This is because if the current polls are correct, not only will the No camp win, but quite substantially.
Firstly, let me say, those voting No because they genuinely believe First Past The Post is the best system, I have no problem with at all. I may disagree, with them but it an honourable position. I wouldn't have an issue with Cameron's support, if he hadn't spouted the No campaign's lies as well. if he stuck to his 'FPTP is best' mantra' there wouldn't be an issue. I do not intend to go into the campaign's misinformation, as I intend to look at different issues today.
There are three main reasons why I believe most No voters will be ruing their decision in the near future.
1) A lot of Labour supporters see it as a way to give Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats a 'kicking' and that it will put the coalition under pressure. This will not happen, because not only do the Liberal Democrats need it more than the Conservatives, their only hope now lies with the economy picking up by the time the next General Election arrives, which is currently planned for 2015.
The Liberal Democrats are firm advocates of referendums, and they will have no choice but to accept the result, even (or especially) if it goes against them. Indeed, any problems within the coalition will continue regardless of the result, because it is the nature of the campaign, not being on opposite sides, that has caused rifts.
I don't think this would change even if Clegg was replaced before then as leader (perhaps taking over Jackie Ashton's job in the EU), because whatever difference there might be, survival would be the new Liberal Democrat leaders prime concern.
Therefore, a Yes win could, in my view, actually increase these rifts, because it would give Liberal Democrat cabinet members the upper hand, and the right would be after Cameron's blood.
2)I can understand the frustration of those who, like me, want to see Proportional Representation adopted for Parliamentary elections, as it is in the various Assembly elections.
However, those voting No because they believe that will make PR more likely are, in my opinion, living in dreamland. The Alternative Vote is by no means a perfect system, and has many elements of FPTP, but does give a wider choice to the electorate.
A decisive No vote will actually make PR a very distant prospect, because the campaign will claim a clear victory for the status quo, and it will take any electoral reform off the table for generations.
A Yes vote is no guarantee that PR will follow on quickly, but it will show an appetite for reform, whereas a No vote will indicate that people are happy with the system under which governments ignored the Countryside Alliance, and the anti-war protests in 2003, as well as the expenses scandal.
On a personal note, it just seems so odd to me that people spend so long complaining, then when the opportunity arises do nothing to try and change things. Another aspect that is strange about this for PR advocates, is that so many of the arguments being used against AV; cost, complexity, minor parties influence, are exactly the arguments that will be used, and worse, against PR. So if you want PR, you're shooting yourselves in the foot voting No.
However, as a friend of mine more or less said a few days ago, 'I'd rather be stuck with AV for twenty, or even forty years, than the current system for another two hundred.'
3) This reason is very much linked to point two, and that is that David Cameron, no doubt with that smug expression he seems to permanently bear, that the voters have comprehensively rejected reform.
Indeed, I believe that a decisive rejection, will give the Conservatives the confidence to massively slow down, or even abandon, other proposed reforms such an elected upper chamber (especially as he seems happy to support PR for those elections).
Cameron's line will be that there is no appetite for reform in Britain, and no matter what questions arise in the future, he will say that it has been rejected decisively.
It will also create huge problems for any new government in the future, in that even if the leader is in favour of changing the voting system, what priorities will they feel the people have?
The new boundaries will be in place for the next election, which will make it very hard for any party other than the Conservatives to gain an overall majority, and they certainly won't be seeking to change the voting system for Westminster.
If Labour were able to gain a majority, then they may well feel that there are other things they need to do, and that the public would not welcome another referendum on a subject already so decisively rejected.
However, a win for the Yes campaign (although I do agree the official one has been almost as useless as the No campaign) would put Cameron under immense pressure from within his own party.
Many on the right of the party do not like being in coalition, and believe (strange as that may seem to many) that too much has been ceded to the Liberal Democrats, including the referendum itself.
A win for Yes would put Cameron's position under threat, and enable the differences between the partners to be emphasised, as the likes of Chris Huhne's and Vince Cable's comments during the campaign are constantly repeated.
Therefore, I believe that a win for Yes in the AV referendum on Thursday will be a win, win, win, for many opponents of the coalition, and the advocates of electoral reform.
It would increase rifts within the coalition as the anti-coalition Conservatives will begin to flex their muscles, and Cameron's position will come under threat. He will have to distance himself ever further from the Liberal Democrats.
A win for Yes would demonstrate that there is an appetite for reform in Britain, whereas any other result will end any chance for many years. I'm not foolish enough to say further reform would follow quickly, but a tiny step forward, is better than a huge one back.
Finally, a Yes vote not only threatens Cameron, but also the stability of the coalition as newly confident Liberal Democrats leaders, begin to be more vocal in their criticisms.
So, I urge those of you who are thinking of voting No because you see it as a way of getting at the Liberal Democrats to think again. It might well give you short term pleasure, but the ling term prospects of a Yes vote would be more substantial, and telling.
As for my fellow supporters of PR, no change will mean no chance of further reform. A small step AV is, and it is by no means a perfect system, but it will show the powers that be, that we do want change, and that we are prepared to show it.
However, there is another ballot that day, which covers the whole country, and is all that Londoners will be voting on, and this is the referendum on the Alternative Vote.
This referendum is the subject of this blog today, and why I believe that many people could well find themselves regretting their decision very quickly, deciding in haste and repenting at leisure.
This is because if the current polls are correct, not only will the No camp win, but quite substantially.
Firstly, let me say, those voting No because they genuinely believe First Past The Post is the best system, I have no problem with at all. I may disagree, with them but it an honourable position. I wouldn't have an issue with Cameron's support, if he hadn't spouted the No campaign's lies as well. if he stuck to his 'FPTP is best' mantra' there wouldn't be an issue. I do not intend to go into the campaign's misinformation, as I intend to look at different issues today.
There are three main reasons why I believe most No voters will be ruing their decision in the near future.
1) A lot of Labour supporters see it as a way to give Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats a 'kicking' and that it will put the coalition under pressure. This will not happen, because not only do the Liberal Democrats need it more than the Conservatives, their only hope now lies with the economy picking up by the time the next General Election arrives, which is currently planned for 2015.
The Liberal Democrats are firm advocates of referendums, and they will have no choice but to accept the result, even (or especially) if it goes against them. Indeed, any problems within the coalition will continue regardless of the result, because it is the nature of the campaign, not being on opposite sides, that has caused rifts.
I don't think this would change even if Clegg was replaced before then as leader (perhaps taking over Jackie Ashton's job in the EU), because whatever difference there might be, survival would be the new Liberal Democrat leaders prime concern.
Therefore, a Yes win could, in my view, actually increase these rifts, because it would give Liberal Democrat cabinet members the upper hand, and the right would be after Cameron's blood.
2)I can understand the frustration of those who, like me, want to see Proportional Representation adopted for Parliamentary elections, as it is in the various Assembly elections.
However, those voting No because they believe that will make PR more likely are, in my opinion, living in dreamland. The Alternative Vote is by no means a perfect system, and has many elements of FPTP, but does give a wider choice to the electorate.
A decisive No vote will actually make PR a very distant prospect, because the campaign will claim a clear victory for the status quo, and it will take any electoral reform off the table for generations.
A Yes vote is no guarantee that PR will follow on quickly, but it will show an appetite for reform, whereas a No vote will indicate that people are happy with the system under which governments ignored the Countryside Alliance, and the anti-war protests in 2003, as well as the expenses scandal.
On a personal note, it just seems so odd to me that people spend so long complaining, then when the opportunity arises do nothing to try and change things. Another aspect that is strange about this for PR advocates, is that so many of the arguments being used against AV; cost, complexity, minor parties influence, are exactly the arguments that will be used, and worse, against PR. So if you want PR, you're shooting yourselves in the foot voting No.
However, as a friend of mine more or less said a few days ago, 'I'd rather be stuck with AV for twenty, or even forty years, than the current system for another two hundred.'
3) This reason is very much linked to point two, and that is that David Cameron, no doubt with that smug expression he seems to permanently bear, that the voters have comprehensively rejected reform.
Indeed, I believe that a decisive rejection, will give the Conservatives the confidence to massively slow down, or even abandon, other proposed reforms such an elected upper chamber (especially as he seems happy to support PR for those elections).
Cameron's line will be that there is no appetite for reform in Britain, and no matter what questions arise in the future, he will say that it has been rejected decisively.
It will also create huge problems for any new government in the future, in that even if the leader is in favour of changing the voting system, what priorities will they feel the people have?
The new boundaries will be in place for the next election, which will make it very hard for any party other than the Conservatives to gain an overall majority, and they certainly won't be seeking to change the voting system for Westminster.
If Labour were able to gain a majority, then they may well feel that there are other things they need to do, and that the public would not welcome another referendum on a subject already so decisively rejected.
However, a win for the Yes campaign (although I do agree the official one has been almost as useless as the No campaign) would put Cameron under immense pressure from within his own party.
Many on the right of the party do not like being in coalition, and believe (strange as that may seem to many) that too much has been ceded to the Liberal Democrats, including the referendum itself.
A win for Yes would put Cameron's position under threat, and enable the differences between the partners to be emphasised, as the likes of Chris Huhne's and Vince Cable's comments during the campaign are constantly repeated.
Therefore, I believe that a win for Yes in the AV referendum on Thursday will be a win, win, win, for many opponents of the coalition, and the advocates of electoral reform.
It would increase rifts within the coalition as the anti-coalition Conservatives will begin to flex their muscles, and Cameron's position will come under threat. He will have to distance himself ever further from the Liberal Democrats.
A win for Yes would demonstrate that there is an appetite for reform in Britain, whereas any other result will end any chance for many years. I'm not foolish enough to say further reform would follow quickly, but a tiny step forward, is better than a huge one back.
Finally, a Yes vote not only threatens Cameron, but also the stability of the coalition as newly confident Liberal Democrats leaders, begin to be more vocal in their criticisms.
So, I urge those of you who are thinking of voting No because you see it as a way of getting at the Liberal Democrats to think again. It might well give you short term pleasure, but the ling term prospects of a Yes vote would be more substantial, and telling.
As for my fellow supporters of PR, no change will mean no chance of further reform. A small step AV is, and it is by no means a perfect system, but it will show the powers that be, that we do want change, and that we are prepared to show it.
Monday, 18 April 2011
Oliver Cromwell - Hero or Villain?
"It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God.
Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?
Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's
So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go! for a few pieces of money. temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone!"
No, this is not the speech Ed Miliband will make on Parliament's return, telling the coalition their time is up. It could be the voice of the people demonstrating their total distrust of all politicians. But it is that of Oliver Cromwell on April 20th 1653, when he marched the rump out of the House, and began his period of personal rule. Mind you, the more more famous version of this speech was quoted by Bulstrode Whitlocke who wrote, "You have sat too long here for any good that you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!" This version does have a little more drama about it.
Following the execution of Charles I on January 30th 1649, the Commonwealth of England was declared and was ruled by a Parliament until that fateful day, when Cromwell's loyal commanders expelled the members for the second time.
The first time had occurred in November 1648 when those MPs Cromwell believed would not support a trial and execution of the King were purged, by Colonel Thomas Pride. The remaining members were known as the Rump, and this was what Cromwell kicked out in 1653.
Abolishing the House of Lords and the monarchy, the Rump became the sole arbiter, and all the powers of the monarch became absorbed into it, and through a series of committees and commissions, carried out all administrative for central and local government.
The situation for the democratic progress looked promising, as Cromwell appeared to be getting his way, and parliament began to prepare for new elections, after Cromwell's decisive victory in the Battle of Worcester in 1651. However, complicated by the issue of war with the Dutch, and the House's seeming reluctance to dissolve itself, seems to have led Cromwell to believe the House was seeking to perpetuate itself. This is certainly the image put forward in the film 'Cromwell' starring Richard Harris.
Whatever the precise reasons, the country found itself now ruled by an elite called the 'Barebones' (after Praise-God Barbon one of its members), who were nominated by the army, and although often ridiculed as being 'inferior' was mainly made up of gentry, and lower nobility.
However, this legislature was an ineffective body, there were no lawmakers amongst its members, and there were increasing tensions between radicals (Fifth Monarchists etc), Moderates and Conservatives over religious reform. In March 1653 the radicals gained enough support to defeat a Bill supporting the status quo, the Moderates and Conservatives invited Cromwell to one again take over. For a third time, soldiers marched on parliament under Cromwell's command, to expel the 'barebones.'
Oliver Cromwell was sworn in as Lord Protector on 16th December 1653, and began a unique experiment in British constitutional history. I do not intend to make this a detailed examination of this period, this is more a celebration of that period.
Cromwell's main task, as he saw it, was to restore order and good sense to politics, and to a large extent in that he succeeded. The war with the Dutch was ended, and there were reductions in taxation.
He made a concession in 1657, which considering the times was quite remarkable. Religious intolerance was rife, especially by protestants against catholics, yet Cromwell himself within those confines was in favour of freedom of worship. There was also an economic element, in that Jews (expelled from England by Edward I) had played a substantial role in Dutch economic success, and he invited them to return.
That same year he was offered the crown, but after a period of agony, decided against accepting, and on April 13th said, “I would not seek to set up that which Providence hath destroyed and laid in the dust, and I would not build Jericho again.”
Cromwell continued to rule until his death on September 3rd 1658, and on his death was succeeded by his son Richard. However, Richard wasn't really cut out for the task, and eventually he stood down, paving the way for the return of King Charles II in 1660.
Some revenge was extracted by the new regime, and Cromwell's body was exhumed and hanged. His head after was much travelled in the following centuries, before eventually being buried at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, his old University.
It is often difficult, outside perhaps the Jewish community, to judge what Oliver Cromwell's legacy is, but many of the constitutional changes to the way parliament is run, were instigated at that time.
For Ireland his name is one of death and destruction as he suppressed their religious freedoms, and committed atrocities, especially at Drogheda in 1649, even if they didn't match the myths that subsequently grew up.
However, hero or villain, Oliver Cromwell is one of the most famous names in English history. His 'warts and all' phrase is often used (even though like most quotes, that's not quite what he said), and shows Cromwell up as a man seemingly without vanity.
To me Cromwell is a great man, and stands up for those who resist arbitrary power, and the defence of law. I don't agree with his actions in Ireland, but it is so easy to criticise at this distance in time.
As the twentieth century ended, in a poll of the ten greatest Britons Oliver Cromwell came tenth, which indicates how he has become a part of our national heritage, and British school children will still be studying him, and his legacy for years to come.
Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?
Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's
So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go! for a few pieces of money. temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone!"
No, this is not the speech Ed Miliband will make on Parliament's return, telling the coalition their time is up. It could be the voice of the people demonstrating their total distrust of all politicians. But it is that of Oliver Cromwell on April 20th 1653, when he marched the rump out of the House, and began his period of personal rule. Mind you, the more more famous version of this speech was quoted by Bulstrode Whitlocke who wrote, "You have sat too long here for any good that you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!" This version does have a little more drama about it.
Following the execution of Charles I on January 30th 1649, the Commonwealth of England was declared and was ruled by a Parliament until that fateful day, when Cromwell's loyal commanders expelled the members for the second time.
The first time had occurred in November 1648 when those MPs Cromwell believed would not support a trial and execution of the King were purged, by Colonel Thomas Pride. The remaining members were known as the Rump, and this was what Cromwell kicked out in 1653.
Abolishing the House of Lords and the monarchy, the Rump became the sole arbiter, and all the powers of the monarch became absorbed into it, and through a series of committees and commissions, carried out all administrative for central and local government.
The situation for the democratic progress looked promising, as Cromwell appeared to be getting his way, and parliament began to prepare for new elections, after Cromwell's decisive victory in the Battle of Worcester in 1651. However, complicated by the issue of war with the Dutch, and the House's seeming reluctance to dissolve itself, seems to have led Cromwell to believe the House was seeking to perpetuate itself. This is certainly the image put forward in the film 'Cromwell' starring Richard Harris.
Whatever the precise reasons, the country found itself now ruled by an elite called the 'Barebones' (after Praise-God Barbon one of its members), who were nominated by the army, and although often ridiculed as being 'inferior' was mainly made up of gentry, and lower nobility.
However, this legislature was an ineffective body, there were no lawmakers amongst its members, and there were increasing tensions between radicals (Fifth Monarchists etc), Moderates and Conservatives over religious reform. In March 1653 the radicals gained enough support to defeat a Bill supporting the status quo, the Moderates and Conservatives invited Cromwell to one again take over. For a third time, soldiers marched on parliament under Cromwell's command, to expel the 'barebones.'
Oliver Cromwell was sworn in as Lord Protector on 16th December 1653, and began a unique experiment in British constitutional history. I do not intend to make this a detailed examination of this period, this is more a celebration of that period.
Cromwell's main task, as he saw it, was to restore order and good sense to politics, and to a large extent in that he succeeded. The war with the Dutch was ended, and there were reductions in taxation.
He made a concession in 1657, which considering the times was quite remarkable. Religious intolerance was rife, especially by protestants against catholics, yet Cromwell himself within those confines was in favour of freedom of worship. There was also an economic element, in that Jews (expelled from England by Edward I) had played a substantial role in Dutch economic success, and he invited them to return.
That same year he was offered the crown, but after a period of agony, decided against accepting, and on April 13th said, “I would not seek to set up that which Providence hath destroyed and laid in the dust, and I would not build Jericho again.”
Cromwell continued to rule until his death on September 3rd 1658, and on his death was succeeded by his son Richard. However, Richard wasn't really cut out for the task, and eventually he stood down, paving the way for the return of King Charles II in 1660.
Some revenge was extracted by the new regime, and Cromwell's body was exhumed and hanged. His head after was much travelled in the following centuries, before eventually being buried at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, his old University.
It is often difficult, outside perhaps the Jewish community, to judge what Oliver Cromwell's legacy is, but many of the constitutional changes to the way parliament is run, were instigated at that time.
For Ireland his name is one of death and destruction as he suppressed their religious freedoms, and committed atrocities, especially at Drogheda in 1649, even if they didn't match the myths that subsequently grew up.
However, hero or villain, Oliver Cromwell is one of the most famous names in English history. His 'warts and all' phrase is often used (even though like most quotes, that's not quite what he said), and shows Cromwell up as a man seemingly without vanity.
To me Cromwell is a great man, and stands up for those who resist arbitrary power, and the defence of law. I don't agree with his actions in Ireland, but it is so easy to criticise at this distance in time.
As the twentieth century ended, in a poll of the ten greatest Britons Oliver Cromwell came tenth, which indicates how he has become a part of our national heritage, and British school children will still be studying him, and his legacy for years to come.
Saturday, 19 March 2011
Cameron's first war...right or wrong?
David Cameron stated a few moments ago that British planes were now engaged in action over Libyan airspace. This is in response to the actions of the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, as he repels a rebel uprising in the country.
Unlike in Iraq, the British, french and US forces are acting under the auspices of the United Nations, with resolution 1973 being passed in the early hours of Friday. In his statement to the House of Commons later that day, David Cameron laid out the extent of the action allowed, and Labour leader Ed Miliband expressed support for the government's actions, and our forces involved.
A joint statement was published yesterday, from the British, French and US as well as Arab States:
Resolution 1973 lays out very clear conditions that must be met. The UK, US, France and Arab States agree that a cease fire must be implemented immediately. That means all attacks against civilians must stop.
Gaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull back his troops from Ajdabiyah, Misratah, and Zawiyah, and re-establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas.
Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya. These terms are not negotiable.
If Gaddafi does not comply with the Resolution, the international community will impose consequences, and this Resolution will be enforced through military action.
The beginning of operation 'Odyssey Dawn' marks a new era, and is David Cameron's first war, since he assumed office just ten months ago. Already we, along with the US, are firing tomahawk missiles at Libyan Army tanks, yet as we know all too well from the Iraq conflict, the innocent often get caught up in these matters.
Resolution 1973 is clear in its remit, and this is where the danger lies, as it won't take much to go beyond it. President Obama has quite rightly stated that American ground forces will not be used, and I would like to hear David Cameron say the same. If things move on, and the UN sanctions it, I will make my mind up then, but we have already been tainted by the stigma of regime change, which is against international law, as currently understood.
The official position is that it imposes a 'No Fly Zone' for other than planes involved in humanitarian missions, and allows for the targeting of ground forces if they are believed to be a threat. However, my fear here, is that this can be interpreted as attacking airfields and bases of troops, thought to be loyal to the regime, would be legitimate. The missile attacks seem to support this fear, and I'm very concerned that this could be seen as an act of war by surrounding states, particularly Iran.
The big question is what is the next stage if Gaddafi refuses to leave peacefully, or no one tries to overthrow him. Both Cameron and Obama have explicitly called for Gaddafi to go, and if he remains in place do they have a plan of action?
Currently the 'allies' have the support of several Arab states, but if Libyan civilians start to die in large numbers then that could quickly ebb away, and even if the majority of UN security members supported further military action, the Russians and Chinese would veto it, and the lesson of Iraq would surely prevent unilateral action by allied states.
There is also the wider issue of what seems to happening in other states in the region, as reports come in of protests in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen, with varying levels of state brutality in response.
For many of us, these should not be ignored, because they are suppliers of much of our oil, and have in the past supported us in actions in the region, as indeed did Gaddafi. We must be consistent in this, which is why the action taken over Libya presents such a problem as expectations may well be heightened as to how we will react if the authorities start stamping down on the protesters and rebels.
It is certainly apparent that Gaddafi is different from other leaders, in that there is evidence that he can act very unpredictably, and seems to be in a state of denial as to what is happening in his country. But, there have been plenty of reports of brutality and killings in Yemen and Bahrain, and the public would expect the international community to take action, if these develop along similar lines to Libya.
David Cameron did well to take the international community along with him on the 'No Fly Zone,' and the extension to enable action to protect Libyan citizens and humanitarian missions is the right one. However, he mustn't lose sight of what that objective is, and allow himself to be dragged into taking further action, without official support from the United Nations.
As hard as it would be to take, if the UN fails to support further action, for whatever reason, Cameron must accept it, and if other countries take things further, he must stay out. Harold Wilson gained a lot of credit with the British electorate when he refused to send troops into Vietnam, although he offered other types of support.
Therefore, for the moment, I am fully supportive of David Cameron, and the lead he has taken, but offer a word of caution that he must stay within the remit of Resolution 1973. That is all I ask Ed Miliband and Douglas Alexander to do, offer full support, but ask the right questions, and ensure that David Cameron is constantly reminded of his responsibilities, not only to Britain, but also our service personnel, and the wider international community.
Unlike in Iraq, the British, french and US forces are acting under the auspices of the United Nations, with resolution 1973 being passed in the early hours of Friday. In his statement to the House of Commons later that day, David Cameron laid out the extent of the action allowed, and Labour leader Ed Miliband expressed support for the government's actions, and our forces involved.
A joint statement was published yesterday, from the British, French and US as well as Arab States:
Resolution 1973 lays out very clear conditions that must be met. The UK, US, France and Arab States agree that a cease fire must be implemented immediately. That means all attacks against civilians must stop.
Gaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull back his troops from Ajdabiyah, Misratah, and Zawiyah, and re-establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas.
Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya. These terms are not negotiable.
If Gaddafi does not comply with the Resolution, the international community will impose consequences, and this Resolution will be enforced through military action.
The beginning of operation 'Odyssey Dawn' marks a new era, and is David Cameron's first war, since he assumed office just ten months ago. Already we, along with the US, are firing tomahawk missiles at Libyan Army tanks, yet as we know all too well from the Iraq conflict, the innocent often get caught up in these matters.
Resolution 1973 is clear in its remit, and this is where the danger lies, as it won't take much to go beyond it. President Obama has quite rightly stated that American ground forces will not be used, and I would like to hear David Cameron say the same. If things move on, and the UN sanctions it, I will make my mind up then, but we have already been tainted by the stigma of regime change, which is against international law, as currently understood.
The official position is that it imposes a 'No Fly Zone' for other than planes involved in humanitarian missions, and allows for the targeting of ground forces if they are believed to be a threat. However, my fear here, is that this can be interpreted as attacking airfields and bases of troops, thought to be loyal to the regime, would be legitimate. The missile attacks seem to support this fear, and I'm very concerned that this could be seen as an act of war by surrounding states, particularly Iran.
The big question is what is the next stage if Gaddafi refuses to leave peacefully, or no one tries to overthrow him. Both Cameron and Obama have explicitly called for Gaddafi to go, and if he remains in place do they have a plan of action?
Currently the 'allies' have the support of several Arab states, but if Libyan civilians start to die in large numbers then that could quickly ebb away, and even if the majority of UN security members supported further military action, the Russians and Chinese would veto it, and the lesson of Iraq would surely prevent unilateral action by allied states.
There is also the wider issue of what seems to happening in other states in the region, as reports come in of protests in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen, with varying levels of state brutality in response.
For many of us, these should not be ignored, because they are suppliers of much of our oil, and have in the past supported us in actions in the region, as indeed did Gaddafi. We must be consistent in this, which is why the action taken over Libya presents such a problem as expectations may well be heightened as to how we will react if the authorities start stamping down on the protesters and rebels.
It is certainly apparent that Gaddafi is different from other leaders, in that there is evidence that he can act very unpredictably, and seems to be in a state of denial as to what is happening in his country. But, there have been plenty of reports of brutality and killings in Yemen and Bahrain, and the public would expect the international community to take action, if these develop along similar lines to Libya.
David Cameron did well to take the international community along with him on the 'No Fly Zone,' and the extension to enable action to protect Libyan citizens and humanitarian missions is the right one. However, he mustn't lose sight of what that objective is, and allow himself to be dragged into taking further action, without official support from the United Nations.
As hard as it would be to take, if the UN fails to support further action, for whatever reason, Cameron must accept it, and if other countries take things further, he must stay out. Harold Wilson gained a lot of credit with the British electorate when he refused to send troops into Vietnam, although he offered other types of support.
Therefore, for the moment, I am fully supportive of David Cameron, and the lead he has taken, but offer a word of caution that he must stay within the remit of Resolution 1973. That is all I ask Ed Miliband and Douglas Alexander to do, offer full support, but ask the right questions, and ensure that David Cameron is constantly reminded of his responsibilities, not only to Britain, but also our service personnel, and the wider international community.
Wednesday, 16 March 2011
What if....forming the coalition was Cameron's biggest mistake?
As we approach the local elections on May 5th, the coalition parties both face an uncertain fate, with both expecting to get 'huge kicking' from the electorate. The cuts and other policies such as tuition fees, are proving to be intensely unpopular, and dissatisfaction is high. So although David Cameron and his government have made many mistakes since taking office, was his biggest one entering into a coalition with the Liberal Democrats?
Why do I say this? It's because I believe that the coalition has given the Conservatives the confidence to go forward with their policies on cuts, and face down the protests and marches that have, and will, be coming. At the moment they seem to be protected, as the Liberal Democrats are feeling the brunt of the public's ire, but as the recent Barnsley Central by-election showed, the Conservatives themselves are vulnerable.
So, what other options did Cameron have following the May 2010 General Election, a result which left no one in charge, but the Conservatives the biggest party? The arithmetic meant the Labour Party was not in a position to form anything other than a multi-party coalition, but they felt that this wasn't really a feasible option, and the gap between them and the Liberal Democrat negotiators, particularly David Laws and Danny Alexander, was too large. So Gordon Brown ordered them to stop, and informed the Queen he would step down as soon as a new government could be formed.
Although negotiations with the Liberal Democrats had made some progress, rumblings inside David Cameron's own party, particularly over the prospect of a referendum on electoral reform, led to him thinking a full coalition would cause more problems than it solved. Therefore, a much looser 'confidence and supply' agreement was reached, in which the Liberal Democrats would support policies they felt they could live with.
Chancellor George Osborne and Chief Secretary Philip Hammond had wanted to cut very severely, in the hope of paying off the deficit within four years, and hope that the recovery in the private sector had taken off sufficiently for substantial growth to occur in the year leading up to 2015. However, they quickly realised that a budget with this aim would not get through the House, so they knew they would have to rein back.
Discussion with the Liberal Democrats revealed that they felt that Labour's plan top half the deficit in four years was their preferred option, but the Tories wanted to make deeper cuts, even if they realised that elimination was not likely. The agreement was that they would seek to halve the deficit within three years, and eliminate it totally in the first half of a new parliament, when they hoped the economy was more or less back on track, and growing strongly.
So when George Osborne's emergency budget was presented in June, he brought forward a number of policies which sounded restrained, and there was less of an emphasise on cutting, and more on how to create opportunities for growth. The Labour Party, whilst still believing the cuts were too severe, were forced to say they were pleased to see that growth was a high priority, even if they disagreed with some of the detail. Another aspect was that Osborne had been persuaded to levy the banks more than his instincts would have allowed him with a majority behind him.
There were a number of other contentious issues, which the Conservative minority government were forced to be much more circumspect on. The Building Schools for the Future fund was cut, but Education secretary Michael Gove restricted it to projects that were very early in the process of design. Although this caused disquiet in the areas affected, and accusations of Labour areas being targeted, Gove was able to assure them that once a new, more efficient, funding process had been developed, most of them would go ahead.
The Browne report on the future of university funding was published that October, and the government were debating whether to follow its recommendations. Browne had advised tuition fees should rise to £12,000, but David Cameron felt this would be too high. Business secretary David Willetts suggested £9,000, but Cameron knew he would never get this through the House, as the Liberal Democrats had pledged during the election, to vote against any rise. Yet cuts in university funding, which although not the 80% feared, at 40% were still substantial, and the gap had to be filled somehow.
Therefore, the plan put before the House was to double fees to around £6,000 a year, with the hope and expectation that most would see rises in the region of 33%, or £4,500. The sweetener in the deal was that universities that showed a commitment to students from poorer backgrounds would get additional funds in the future, once the economy had recovered. The other big change was that the fees would not be upfront, but repaid after graduation once a salary of £21,000 had been achieved. It was expected the average student would leave university with debts of around £35,000.
The Labour opposition felt this increase was too much, but supported the principle of a smaller increase, and brought forward amendments to that effect. In the end an agreement was reached on a rise in the maximum to £4,800 a year, and with the support of a large proportion of the Labour members, the bill passed, as most Liberal Democrats stuck to their pledge, though one or two, felt the rise was reasonable given the circumstances. There were a number of demonstrations by students against the rises, but these were Small and despite the noise, easily contained by the police.
A number of other measures were brought forward which were much circumscribed, Andrew Lansley's NHS reforms being the main one. It was felt within the government that as this was not something they had included in their manifesto, they would have too much difficulty getting it through, and it was quietly dropped, much to Lansley's chagrin. Lansley's constant briefing against Cameron led to him being shifted sideways to Communities at the first reshuffle, when Eric Pickles was moved to defence and Liam Fox dropped from the cabinet altogether.
Although slow, the economy continued to grow, and cuts in public services were much smaller than it was feared they would be, and councils were able to target them better, so it was felt the less well off weren't being singled out. The boundary changes bill was much amended, and in the end, the Boundaries Commission were charged with reducing the number of MPs to 600 over the next two parliaments, and should seek to equalise constituencies within a certain threshold. The Labour party were unhappy about this, but the Liberal Democrats supported it, and Labour were happy that there would still be a full consultation process, thought eh Commission's overriding target would take priority in the end.
So with the economic picture looking better, unemployment high, but not thought to be surprising considering the crisis that had occurred, and David Cameron proving to be a popular Prime Minister, and the polls showing the Conservatives to have a lead over Labour, he decided to go for an election in October 2012 following the party conferences.
The Boundaries Commission changes had not yet kicked in, so it was fought under the previous ones and the result was Conservative 327, Labour 254, Liberal Democrat60 with others gaining one extra seat, as the Greens doubled their membership. This gave the Conservatives an overall majority of two, but they continued to govern circumspectly, realising it could so easily be lost.
The 2017 General Election proved even more fruitful, as the Conservatives prudent control of public finances meant that they were returned with a majority of 60 and in a position to push on with reforms to public services, they had held back on for so many years. In 2019 David Cameron stepped down and was replaced by Fraser Nelson who had been elected in 2012, and had proved to be a brilliant Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
David Cameron had seen off two labour leaders, with Ed, and then David Miliband both failing to take Labour back into office. The Conservatives mantra that Labour had left just a huge mess behind them had taken hold, and the sensible approach the government had taken was a stark contrast to the 'tax and spend' policies of the previous government. The leader that Nelson faced was Labour's first woman leader, Stella Creasey, but that is another story.
This is, of course, only one of many possible scenarios, but not completely without merit I believe. In this May's local elections the Liberal democrats will be hammered, but the Conservatives will also take a big hit. The drastic cuts look as though they will lead to a stagnant economy at best, and if the coalition last the full five years, the Conservatives could face a huge defeat, regardless of the boundary changes, and whichever electoral system we have in place.
The protests against the cuts are going to be widespread, and the future looks bleak. The changes to the NHS, and education are unpopular, and the public are very quickly becoming disenchanted, and the honeymoon is well and truly over.
The Liberal Democrats may well have virtually disappeared as a single party, especially if the May elections reflect the national polls, and the referendum on the Alternative Vote is badly lost.
But, more than anything, the Liberal Democrats have been seen to have betrayed many of their principles for the trappings of power, and had allowed, almost without protest, to let the Conservatives ride roughshod over the public services, with the cuts in benefits for the disabled, pregnant mothers, housing and many others.
Without the Liberal Democrats, a minority Conservative government, with Liberal democrat support on certain issues would have been forced to rein back on what it wished to do, and instead of the possibility of one term, with many more years in opposition, it could have meant nearly a decade of Conservative rule.
So, although greeted as a brave act when first proposed, and then acted upon, it is possible that creating the coalition was David Cameron's first big mistake, and the doom of the Conservatives.
Why do I say this? It's because I believe that the coalition has given the Conservatives the confidence to go forward with their policies on cuts, and face down the protests and marches that have, and will, be coming. At the moment they seem to be protected, as the Liberal Democrats are feeling the brunt of the public's ire, but as the recent Barnsley Central by-election showed, the Conservatives themselves are vulnerable.
So, what other options did Cameron have following the May 2010 General Election, a result which left no one in charge, but the Conservatives the biggest party? The arithmetic meant the Labour Party was not in a position to form anything other than a multi-party coalition, but they felt that this wasn't really a feasible option, and the gap between them and the Liberal Democrat negotiators, particularly David Laws and Danny Alexander, was too large. So Gordon Brown ordered them to stop, and informed the Queen he would step down as soon as a new government could be formed.
Although negotiations with the Liberal Democrats had made some progress, rumblings inside David Cameron's own party, particularly over the prospect of a referendum on electoral reform, led to him thinking a full coalition would cause more problems than it solved. Therefore, a much looser 'confidence and supply' agreement was reached, in which the Liberal Democrats would support policies they felt they could live with.
Chancellor George Osborne and Chief Secretary Philip Hammond had wanted to cut very severely, in the hope of paying off the deficit within four years, and hope that the recovery in the private sector had taken off sufficiently for substantial growth to occur in the year leading up to 2015. However, they quickly realised that a budget with this aim would not get through the House, so they knew they would have to rein back.
Discussion with the Liberal Democrats revealed that they felt that Labour's plan top half the deficit in four years was their preferred option, but the Tories wanted to make deeper cuts, even if they realised that elimination was not likely. The agreement was that they would seek to halve the deficit within three years, and eliminate it totally in the first half of a new parliament, when they hoped the economy was more or less back on track, and growing strongly.
So when George Osborne's emergency budget was presented in June, he brought forward a number of policies which sounded restrained, and there was less of an emphasise on cutting, and more on how to create opportunities for growth. The Labour Party, whilst still believing the cuts were too severe, were forced to say they were pleased to see that growth was a high priority, even if they disagreed with some of the detail. Another aspect was that Osborne had been persuaded to levy the banks more than his instincts would have allowed him with a majority behind him.
There were a number of other contentious issues, which the Conservative minority government were forced to be much more circumspect on. The Building Schools for the Future fund was cut, but Education secretary Michael Gove restricted it to projects that were very early in the process of design. Although this caused disquiet in the areas affected, and accusations of Labour areas being targeted, Gove was able to assure them that once a new, more efficient, funding process had been developed, most of them would go ahead.
The Browne report on the future of university funding was published that October, and the government were debating whether to follow its recommendations. Browne had advised tuition fees should rise to £12,000, but David Cameron felt this would be too high. Business secretary David Willetts suggested £9,000, but Cameron knew he would never get this through the House, as the Liberal Democrats had pledged during the election, to vote against any rise. Yet cuts in university funding, which although not the 80% feared, at 40% were still substantial, and the gap had to be filled somehow.
Therefore, the plan put before the House was to double fees to around £6,000 a year, with the hope and expectation that most would see rises in the region of 33%, or £4,500. The sweetener in the deal was that universities that showed a commitment to students from poorer backgrounds would get additional funds in the future, once the economy had recovered. The other big change was that the fees would not be upfront, but repaid after graduation once a salary of £21,000 had been achieved. It was expected the average student would leave university with debts of around £35,000.
The Labour opposition felt this increase was too much, but supported the principle of a smaller increase, and brought forward amendments to that effect. In the end an agreement was reached on a rise in the maximum to £4,800 a year, and with the support of a large proportion of the Labour members, the bill passed, as most Liberal Democrats stuck to their pledge, though one or two, felt the rise was reasonable given the circumstances. There were a number of demonstrations by students against the rises, but these were Small and despite the noise, easily contained by the police.
A number of other measures were brought forward which were much circumscribed, Andrew Lansley's NHS reforms being the main one. It was felt within the government that as this was not something they had included in their manifesto, they would have too much difficulty getting it through, and it was quietly dropped, much to Lansley's chagrin. Lansley's constant briefing against Cameron led to him being shifted sideways to Communities at the first reshuffle, when Eric Pickles was moved to defence and Liam Fox dropped from the cabinet altogether.
Although slow, the economy continued to grow, and cuts in public services were much smaller than it was feared they would be, and councils were able to target them better, so it was felt the less well off weren't being singled out. The boundary changes bill was much amended, and in the end, the Boundaries Commission were charged with reducing the number of MPs to 600 over the next two parliaments, and should seek to equalise constituencies within a certain threshold. The Labour party were unhappy about this, but the Liberal Democrats supported it, and Labour were happy that there would still be a full consultation process, thought eh Commission's overriding target would take priority in the end.
So with the economic picture looking better, unemployment high, but not thought to be surprising considering the crisis that had occurred, and David Cameron proving to be a popular Prime Minister, and the polls showing the Conservatives to have a lead over Labour, he decided to go for an election in October 2012 following the party conferences.
The Boundaries Commission changes had not yet kicked in, so it was fought under the previous ones and the result was Conservative 327, Labour 254, Liberal Democrat60 with others gaining one extra seat, as the Greens doubled their membership. This gave the Conservatives an overall majority of two, but they continued to govern circumspectly, realising it could so easily be lost.
The 2017 General Election proved even more fruitful, as the Conservatives prudent control of public finances meant that they were returned with a majority of 60 and in a position to push on with reforms to public services, they had held back on for so many years. In 2019 David Cameron stepped down and was replaced by Fraser Nelson who had been elected in 2012, and had proved to be a brilliant Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
David Cameron had seen off two labour leaders, with Ed, and then David Miliband both failing to take Labour back into office. The Conservatives mantra that Labour had left just a huge mess behind them had taken hold, and the sensible approach the government had taken was a stark contrast to the 'tax and spend' policies of the previous government. The leader that Nelson faced was Labour's first woman leader, Stella Creasey, but that is another story.
This is, of course, only one of many possible scenarios, but not completely without merit I believe. In this May's local elections the Liberal democrats will be hammered, but the Conservatives will also take a big hit. The drastic cuts look as though they will lead to a stagnant economy at best, and if the coalition last the full five years, the Conservatives could face a huge defeat, regardless of the boundary changes, and whichever electoral system we have in place.
The protests against the cuts are going to be widespread, and the future looks bleak. The changes to the NHS, and education are unpopular, and the public are very quickly becoming disenchanted, and the honeymoon is well and truly over.
The Liberal Democrats may well have virtually disappeared as a single party, especially if the May elections reflect the national polls, and the referendum on the Alternative Vote is badly lost.
But, more than anything, the Liberal Democrats have been seen to have betrayed many of their principles for the trappings of power, and had allowed, almost without protest, to let the Conservatives ride roughshod over the public services, with the cuts in benefits for the disabled, pregnant mothers, housing and many others.
Without the Liberal Democrats, a minority Conservative government, with Liberal democrat support on certain issues would have been forced to rein back on what it wished to do, and instead of the possibility of one term, with many more years in opposition, it could have meant nearly a decade of Conservative rule.
So, although greeted as a brave act when first proposed, and then acted upon, it is possible that creating the coalition was David Cameron's first big mistake, and the doom of the Conservatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)