MPs must have begun to think they were safe. They would have thinking that the expenses scandal was starting to be replaced with other things. Yes a few of their number had been sent to prison, and perhaps one or two were yet to end up in court. But by and large, things like wars in Afghanistan and Libya, hacking scandals and riots on the streets of Britain, were now the subjects in the headlines.
It seems that they were wrong, as news of the severe sentences being handed out to participators in the riots leaked out, people began to remember the behaviour of MPs, and what had happened to them.
Theft is theft, and regardless of whether it is a bottle of water, or a flat screen television, the principle is the same. That at least is what many would argue, but judges do have a lot of discretion in the sentences they hand out. It seems that the word has gone out to them that those before them must be made an example of.
I study and teach history, and is apparent over the centuries, is that justice for the have and have nots has always been starkly different. Even when it came to executions, the rich and the nobles were beheaded, whilst the poor were sentenced to a slow death at the end of a hangman's rope.
In the modern world, people see the members of the House of Commons as the modern nobility. I know we have the Lords, and the royals etc, but in the overall scheme of things to the majority of us, MPs live in a world completely detached from what we experience.
When the expenses scandal broke, the public were astonished at what had been going on. Members had been claiming for televisions (Michael Gove and Gerald Kaufman as examples), moats, duck houses and all sorts of things the ordinary man or woman in the street would only see on programmes like 'relocation, relocation, relocation.'
On programmes like that, these people are using their own money (I presume), but MPs were trying to live the high life at the taxpayer's expense. The stories of 'house flipping' and the ludicrous claims left many of us aghast. And it wasn't just that they did it, politicians have been very low down the public's respect ladder for a long time, it was that they just seemed to get away with it.
Education Secretary Michael Gove was featured today, having been able to repay some £8,000 in expenses for a claim, and Gerald Kaufman a similar amount for a Bang & Olufsen television. These men have both resumed their careers uninterrupted, one a senior member of the government, the other the chair of a committee, and one of the most respected voices in the House.
Yet, we know that if most of us had been in the same position, we would have ended up in court, probably a criminal record, which would have had a serious effect on our future career prospects. There are many other senior politicians; Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper, David Cameron, Francis Maude, Gordon Brown who have all repaid sums, or had to admit mistakes. But as I understand it, in law, 'ignorance is no defence.'
Now Wandsworth Council is seeking to evict the family of a man charged in connection with the riots. It is his parents who are being served with the order, and if he's convicted they will seek to throw them out. This is a measure which is just going to cause problems for the council (and Manchester and Salford have similar plans), because not only will the family have to be housed somewhere, they will be given leave to appeal and I don't see it being allowed by the courts.
Ravi Govindia, the leader of Wandsworth Council, was saying this evening that tenants had contracts which stated conditions of residence. This is, of course, true, but evicting someone because their son has been convicted of a crime, sounds retrospective action to me. This is without them trying to explain what is so different about this crime to others of vandalism or robbery. Will the council be changing the terms to include all those convicted of crimes, and evicting them in the future, and the past?
David Cameron has jumped on the bandwagon, and saying they should have thought of this before commiting the crime. Now the mother of Daniel Sartain-Clarke faces an uncertain future, and many will say she should have been controlling him. He's 18, and therefore legally an adult, so what do they expect her to do about him?
Mr. Cameron was saying that those evicted would have to move into the private sector. Apart from the shortage of private rented accomodation anyway, the cost os prohibitive. especially in London. The Prime Minister has made yet another statement without having grasp of the facts, and this will come back to haunt him. As the leader of this country, he should not be making kneejerk statements, but taking the time to think this through properly.
I don't recall a single MP who flipped a house, being threatened with eviction (these houses were in the main being paid for by us, so a form of social housing), yet people who are innocent of any wrong doing are going to find themselves not only homeless, but stigmatised, and that never goes away.
So, our Members of Parliament, our Prime Minister and other public figures need to be very careful how they approach the aftermath of these events. Although a ComRes poll tonight shows strong support for punishing rioters, the same poll also said the sentences being handed out were too harsh in many cases.
Our MPs and their past are, therefore, once more in the spotlight, as Nick Clegg has discovered as his previous indiscretion of arson was raised again. He says he was drunk, and they ran away, and anyway it was only cactus.
Yet, will any of the people appearing before magistrates this week be allowed to just repay the value of goods they stole. Will they be allowed to laugh off vandalism as 'youthful indiscretions' which will not impact their future careers? As most of them are poor, it would not seem so. Now as it always was, justice will depend on who you know, and whehter you have the money to defend yourself.
So, having thought that their recent crimes were being forgotten, MPs now find them thrust back into the spotlight. Every member that talks about how examples must be made of those caught will find their past raked over, and anyone who has hoped that their 'errors' have been forgotten will find they are very much mistaken. The defence of many was that 'everyone else was doing it,' and if that's not going to work for the rioters, then it shouldn't do so for those that lead us.
Friday, 12 August 2011
Tuesday, 9 August 2011
What Yvette could say!
Yvette Cooper will have a difficult job on Thursday morning, as she makes her statements, and asks a number of questions of the Home Secretary, as parliament is recalled to debate the events in London over the last three nights. It seems David Cameron may employ the same tactic he has in debates on the hacking scandal, and have a separate Q & A before the main debate.
Indeed, by the time they meet, more occurrences may have taken place, and a young man from Croydon died today, having been shot on Monday night. There will also be discussion on the current financial crisis, though I expect Osborne and Balls to be leading the debate on this.
If I was in Yvette's position this is what I would say (though after reading it, you may well be grateful I'm not):
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and for the advance copy she sent to me. I join her in paying tribute to the police and emergency services for the courage they have shown, putting themselves on the line to protect people and property.
The Prime Minister was right to return home at this time, and to recall parliament, so we have the opportunity to debate before the people what we believe is the way forward.
However, I would like to take this opportunity to also pay tribute to the Home Secretary, her immediate return, and the calm and assured way she has dealt with events to date. She has not panicked, and has resisted calls for water cannon, rubber bullets or the army to take to the streets of London.
As we have seen unfolding, dreadful things have happened in the last few days, but it is essential that government and police remain calm in the face of such provocation. There can be no excuse for the lootings and violence that occurred over the weekend and into this week, and the police must be enabled to take any necessary measures to restore order. As my Right Honourable friend said on Tuesday afternoon, there must be no no-go areas.
As we know, there was a peaceful protest in Tottenham on Saturday afternoon, by members of the community against the shooting on Thursday of Mark Duggan, as part of an 'Operation Trident' initiative.
There are reports that initial trouble started when a sixteen year old girl was assaulted by police officers. So my first question is, what does the Home Secretary know about this, and can she confirm whether it is true or not?
Even if true, that does not of course excuse what followed, as a crowd went on a rampage through the streets of Tottenham, destroying property, putting innocent people at risk, and making many others homeless.
As we seen since, this has spread to other parts of London, and subsequently to Birmingham and Liverpool amongst others.
There have been many arrests sebsequently, with no doubt, many more to follow. The courts must be enabled to carry through due process, and the perpetrators severely punished.
These people seem to have no other motive than destruction, violence and theft. Many businesses have been destroyed, and people have lost their jobs, and untold damage has been done to the local economies.
What plans does the government have in place to help those businesses, and individuals affected by these events? Can the Prime Minister urge insurance companies to make quick payouts, so businesses can get up and running as quickly as possible.
As a sad consequence of the economic crisis, there are many properties lying empty, and therefore, could the government talk to local authorities allowing rapid relocation of businesses, and giving holidays on council taxes so they can get up and running?
There can be no justification for the events of the last few days, and if any police officers need to be brought to book over actions either in Tottenham, then the Independent Police Complaints Commission, must investigate, and act if fault is found.
We have debated in the past our different views of the impact of government cuts and policies, and we will do so again. However, this is not the time for that. Now we are fully behind the government, and police as they seek to deal with this crisis, for as long as the response stays proportionate.
Therefore, I just ask the Home Secretary these questions before I close:
What plans do the government have to help businesses ruined by the events of the last few days?
Will the government be setting up a fund to help those businesses and individuals who aren't adequately insured?
The police and other emergency services have done a magnificent job dealing with the violence and destruction, and it would be sensible to put cuts on hold, whilst a review is carried out in light of events. Does the Home Secretary agree?
Finally, there will be a number of inquiries initiated to investigate causes and effects of the riots, as well as what changes should come in. Whilst I do not expect the Home Secretary to preempt the outcomes of those inquiries, could she please let us know if there will be a separate government inquiry, with the remit to gather information from the others, so we can get a clear overall picture of events, to avoid repeating the errors?
As I said a short while ago, the government, and police, have our full support as they seek to deal with these events in a responsible and proportionate way.
Indeed, by the time they meet, more occurrences may have taken place, and a young man from Croydon died today, having been shot on Monday night. There will also be discussion on the current financial crisis, though I expect Osborne and Balls to be leading the debate on this.
If I was in Yvette's position this is what I would say (though after reading it, you may well be grateful I'm not):
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and for the advance copy she sent to me. I join her in paying tribute to the police and emergency services for the courage they have shown, putting themselves on the line to protect people and property.
The Prime Minister was right to return home at this time, and to recall parliament, so we have the opportunity to debate before the people what we believe is the way forward.
However, I would like to take this opportunity to also pay tribute to the Home Secretary, her immediate return, and the calm and assured way she has dealt with events to date. She has not panicked, and has resisted calls for water cannon, rubber bullets or the army to take to the streets of London.
As we have seen unfolding, dreadful things have happened in the last few days, but it is essential that government and police remain calm in the face of such provocation. There can be no excuse for the lootings and violence that occurred over the weekend and into this week, and the police must be enabled to take any necessary measures to restore order. As my Right Honourable friend said on Tuesday afternoon, there must be no no-go areas.
As we know, there was a peaceful protest in Tottenham on Saturday afternoon, by members of the community against the shooting on Thursday of Mark Duggan, as part of an 'Operation Trident' initiative.
There are reports that initial trouble started when a sixteen year old girl was assaulted by police officers. So my first question is, what does the Home Secretary know about this, and can she confirm whether it is true or not?
Even if true, that does not of course excuse what followed, as a crowd went on a rampage through the streets of Tottenham, destroying property, putting innocent people at risk, and making many others homeless.
As we seen since, this has spread to other parts of London, and subsequently to Birmingham and Liverpool amongst others.
There have been many arrests sebsequently, with no doubt, many more to follow. The courts must be enabled to carry through due process, and the perpetrators severely punished.
These people seem to have no other motive than destruction, violence and theft. Many businesses have been destroyed, and people have lost their jobs, and untold damage has been done to the local economies.
What plans does the government have in place to help those businesses, and individuals affected by these events? Can the Prime Minister urge insurance companies to make quick payouts, so businesses can get up and running as quickly as possible.
As a sad consequence of the economic crisis, there are many properties lying empty, and therefore, could the government talk to local authorities allowing rapid relocation of businesses, and giving holidays on council taxes so they can get up and running?
There can be no justification for the events of the last few days, and if any police officers need to be brought to book over actions either in Tottenham, then the Independent Police Complaints Commission, must investigate, and act if fault is found.
We have debated in the past our different views of the impact of government cuts and policies, and we will do so again. However, this is not the time for that. Now we are fully behind the government, and police as they seek to deal with this crisis, for as long as the response stays proportionate.
Therefore, I just ask the Home Secretary these questions before I close:
What plans do the government have to help businesses ruined by the events of the last few days?
Will the government be setting up a fund to help those businesses and individuals who aren't adequately insured?
The police and other emergency services have done a magnificent job dealing with the violence and destruction, and it would be sensible to put cuts on hold, whilst a review is carried out in light of events. Does the Home Secretary agree?
Finally, there will be a number of inquiries initiated to investigate causes and effects of the riots, as well as what changes should come in. Whilst I do not expect the Home Secretary to preempt the outcomes of those inquiries, could she please let us know if there will be a separate government inquiry, with the remit to gather information from the others, so we can get a clear overall picture of events, to avoid repeating the errors?
As I said a short while ago, the government, and police, have our full support as they seek to deal with these events in a responsible and proportionate way.
Sunday, 7 August 2011
Let the real voices of Tottenham speak!
The police in Britain are under a great deal of scrutiny, as is the body that oversees it the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The hacking scandal, and allegations that police officers took payments for information has led to a greater public distrust of the force, especially the Metropolitan Police.
On Thursday night in Tottenham, a young man named Mark Duggan was shot dead by police, in an operation carried out under 'Operation Trident' which was set up in 1998, to investigate issues of gun crime in the black community. This followed on from an initiative originally established by members of the black community.
Information is too confused to be able to say exactly what happened, other than Mr. Duggan was killed in a minicab on Thursday night. Therefore it is the aftermath, and how we on the left should react that I intend to deal with.
On Friday there was a peaceful protest outside the police station in Tottenham against the shooting of Mark Duggan. The march started at Broadwater Farm (which has historical significance as in 1985 PC Keith Blakelock was murdered there, perhaps as an indication that the protesters were not intent on trouble.
Tottenham is a deprived area of North London, but relations between police and community had been better, especially since further riots in 1995. But on Friday night things got out of hand, as rioting broke out following the march, and a number of buildings were attacked, and police cars and a bus set alight.
Some twenty-six officers have been treated in hospital, some quite badly hurt, and a lot of damage done. However, unlike incidents in the past, there seems to be more of an element of criminality over the rioting, than a statement against alleged police violence. As I watched the riot unfold last night, one thing that struck me was, that despite Mark Duggan being black, and his killing being a part of 'Operation trident,' the perpetrators of the violence were from all backgrounds. Young, mainly, men who were intent just on destruction and robbery. Although more details will emerge over the next few days, this wasn't 1985 or 1995, this wasn't about race.
Many people have been made homeless, and shops and businesses have been destroyed, which will inevitably cost people, perhaps already suffering, their jobs. Looting of many well known chains occurred, with names such as Comet, B & Q and McDonalds affected. However, there are reports of cash machines also having been ripped out, and these would take some specialist equipment to do. Even if they turn out to be free standing ones in shops, it would indicate planning and not random events.
Reports of further looting in Enfield tonight, would seem to confirm this. It would appear that groups from outside the area, are coming in, and using the tensions as an excuse to cause criminal damage and attack the police. These are the same sort of people who jumped on peaceful protests last year and this, against rises in university tuition fees, and government cuts to create havoc.
Whilst it may not be the same people involved, it is the same mentality, as they take the legitimate protests of people, in order to advance their own agendas. Previously it was against government property, but this is just the right of ordinary people to make a living, and live peaceful lives.
It must be clearly understood these people are criminals, not protesters. The protesters on Friday were peaceful, and making a statement against the killing of one of their community by the police. Mark Duggan's family and friends have themselves condemned the violence, and Tottenham MP David Lammy said:
“The vast majority of people in Tottenham reject what has happened here last night. A community that was already hurting has now had the heart ripped out of it…by mindless, mindless people.
“What happened here on Thursday night raised huge questions and we need answers. But the response to that is not to loot, to rob. This is a disgrace… this must stop. And this is nothing like the sorts of scenes we saw in Tottenham 25 years ago. Then, there was a particular relationship with the police. This is an attack on Tottenham, on people, ordinary people, shopkeepers, women, children who are now standing on the streets homeless as a consequence…
“I’m concerned that what was a peaceful protest escalated. It seemed to go on for many hours before we saw the kind of policing that was appropriate. What were small skirmishes initially should have been stopped far quicker…
“The IPCC need to be in close contact with the family of Mark Duggan, who felt totally isolated in the initial stages after Thurs night…We don’t want 25 years of rebuilding community and trust destroyed because of mindless nonsense on the streets of London.”
That is why it has pained me to hear some prominent spokespeople on the left have taken the opportunity to make political points. Ken Livingstone, former Mayor of London and candidate for 2012, used the riots as an opportunity to blame the rioting on the government's cuts, and to take forward his election campaign.
There will be ample opportunity over the next year for him to make political points, and legitimate statements about government policy, and the performance of Boris Johnson as Mayor. But now is not the time, the Labour leadership have hitherto let David Lammy, the MP for Tottenham do the speaking on this, and they are right to do so. No doubt Ed Miliband will say something in the next day or so, but for now, it is the voices of the real people of Tottenham that need to be heard.
On Thursday night in Tottenham, a young man named Mark Duggan was shot dead by police, in an operation carried out under 'Operation Trident' which was set up in 1998, to investigate issues of gun crime in the black community. This followed on from an initiative originally established by members of the black community.
Information is too confused to be able to say exactly what happened, other than Mr. Duggan was killed in a minicab on Thursday night. Therefore it is the aftermath, and how we on the left should react that I intend to deal with.
On Friday there was a peaceful protest outside the police station in Tottenham against the shooting of Mark Duggan. The march started at Broadwater Farm (which has historical significance as in 1985 PC Keith Blakelock was murdered there, perhaps as an indication that the protesters were not intent on trouble.
Tottenham is a deprived area of North London, but relations between police and community had been better, especially since further riots in 1995. But on Friday night things got out of hand, as rioting broke out following the march, and a number of buildings were attacked, and police cars and a bus set alight.
Some twenty-six officers have been treated in hospital, some quite badly hurt, and a lot of damage done. However, unlike incidents in the past, there seems to be more of an element of criminality over the rioting, than a statement against alleged police violence. As I watched the riot unfold last night, one thing that struck me was, that despite Mark Duggan being black, and his killing being a part of 'Operation trident,' the perpetrators of the violence were from all backgrounds. Young, mainly, men who were intent just on destruction and robbery. Although more details will emerge over the next few days, this wasn't 1985 or 1995, this wasn't about race.
Many people have been made homeless, and shops and businesses have been destroyed, which will inevitably cost people, perhaps already suffering, their jobs. Looting of many well known chains occurred, with names such as Comet, B & Q and McDonalds affected. However, there are reports of cash machines also having been ripped out, and these would take some specialist equipment to do. Even if they turn out to be free standing ones in shops, it would indicate planning and not random events.
Reports of further looting in Enfield tonight, would seem to confirm this. It would appear that groups from outside the area, are coming in, and using the tensions as an excuse to cause criminal damage and attack the police. These are the same sort of people who jumped on peaceful protests last year and this, against rises in university tuition fees, and government cuts to create havoc.
Whilst it may not be the same people involved, it is the same mentality, as they take the legitimate protests of people, in order to advance their own agendas. Previously it was against government property, but this is just the right of ordinary people to make a living, and live peaceful lives.
It must be clearly understood these people are criminals, not protesters. The protesters on Friday were peaceful, and making a statement against the killing of one of their community by the police. Mark Duggan's family and friends have themselves condemned the violence, and Tottenham MP David Lammy said:
“The vast majority of people in Tottenham reject what has happened here last night. A community that was already hurting has now had the heart ripped out of it…by mindless, mindless people.
“What happened here on Thursday night raised huge questions and we need answers. But the response to that is not to loot, to rob. This is a disgrace… this must stop. And this is nothing like the sorts of scenes we saw in Tottenham 25 years ago. Then, there was a particular relationship with the police. This is an attack on Tottenham, on people, ordinary people, shopkeepers, women, children who are now standing on the streets homeless as a consequence…
“I’m concerned that what was a peaceful protest escalated. It seemed to go on for many hours before we saw the kind of policing that was appropriate. What were small skirmishes initially should have been stopped far quicker…
“The IPCC need to be in close contact with the family of Mark Duggan, who felt totally isolated in the initial stages after Thurs night…We don’t want 25 years of rebuilding community and trust destroyed because of mindless nonsense on the streets of London.”
That is why it has pained me to hear some prominent spokespeople on the left have taken the opportunity to make political points. Ken Livingstone, former Mayor of London and candidate for 2012, used the riots as an opportunity to blame the rioting on the government's cuts, and to take forward his election campaign.
There will be ample opportunity over the next year for him to make political points, and legitimate statements about government policy, and the performance of Boris Johnson as Mayor. But now is not the time, the Labour leadership have hitherto let David Lammy, the MP for Tottenham do the speaking on this, and they are right to do so. No doubt Ed Miliband will say something in the next day or so, but for now, it is the voices of the real people of Tottenham that need to be heard.
Thursday, 4 August 2011
Petty Petitions
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)