Big Sticks and Small Carrots

Winston Churchill (may have) said that “the biggest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter”. Typical patronising Commie pinko bull…

In truth, the quotation touches on a whole series of difficult questions regarding systems of democracy and how they work. Representative democracy by definition is going to involve politicians. Unfortunately, such systems tend to generate a separate political class, a self-serving insulated elite who trust the people about as much as the people trust them. Their central interest is always likely to be persuading enough voters to elect them, something not renowned for fostering a spirit of constructive and honest debate.

All of this has created a situation in which public confidence in politicians is very low indeed. This can clearly be detrimental to the rule of law (people tend to be disinclined to voluntarily obey laws created by those they hold in such low regard) and ultimately to democracy itself. It can be argued that this is an inherent trait in representative systems and that the only way to escape this is to abolish politicians altogether.

Direct democracy, however, is not without significant problems of its own. The tyranny of the majority can be a real danger, for example. And, of course, despite the fact that it may sound patronising, it really isn’t a good idea to ask people to vote on issues they don’t have the time, inclination or intellect to fully understand.

The idea that there should be a referendum on the new EU treaty is a case in point. How many people have (or will) take the time to read through the approximately  300 hundred pages (pdf) of the treaty and then take an informed view as to whether the UK should ratify it? Not many. Not me; I lack the time, inclination and intellect. I made a half hearted attempt but the thing is virtually impenetrable.

Perhaps that’s a deliberate tactic perpetrated by the political elite precisely so that the average voter cannot make an informed judgement as to its content. On the other hand, would a treaty drawn up through some process of direct public participation involving the populations of 25 European countries be any simpler or easier to understand? It hardly seems likely. And who would create such a process of direct public participation anyway?

That’s only scratching the condensation on the lacquer on the paint on the surface of this issue but with confidence in politicians at such extraordinarily low levels, it is something which needs to be seriously discussed.

Unfortunately, rather than tackling any of this, many of our elected representatives  continue to play Punch and Judy to the audience instead. “You promised a referendum!” “Oh no I didn’t!” “Oh yes you did”". Constructive debate it most certainly is not. In the end, you have to wonder whether our elected representatives will be the architects of their own demise.

Dan Hardie: Fine Words, Shabby Deeds

Do you like reading fine words? Here is the Prime Minister on the subject of Iraqi ex-employees of the British Government, speaking in the House of Commons on October 9th, 2007: ‘I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of our civilian and locally employed staff in Iraq, many of whom have worked in extremely difficult circumstances, exposing themselves and their families to danger. I am pleased therefore to announce today a new policy which more fully recognises the contribution made by our local Iraqi staff, who work for our armed forces and civilian missions in what we know are uniquely difficult circumstances.’

Fine words. What about deeds?

A small number of Iraqis - fewer than a dozen, according to people close to the operation who are in contact with me- were removed from Iraq in the early autumn of 2007. Since the Prime Minister’s admirable declaration of October, how many Iraqi ex-employees have been evacuated from Iraq? According to all the Iraqis that I am in contact with: none.

Read the rest.

All the evidence suggests that the government will not do the right thing if left to their own devices. Public pressure may well make a difference. Please consider acting on Dan’s recommendations. For some Iraqis, it could literally be the difference between life and death.

Good News!

Really.

Back in January, I wrote about the government’s consultation on “managing protest”. Part of the consultation suggested a “harmonisation” of certain powers to control protest, “harmonisation” in this case clearly being a euphemism for “increase”.

Yesterday, in the Lords, questions were asked regarding this issue. The first, from Baroness Miller (Lib Dem), provoked no real answer. The second, however, did:

Viscount Bridgeman (Conservative): My Lords, can the Minister confirm that no measures will be taken to extend the restrictive and undemocratic powers relating to protests around Parliament to other parts of the country?

Lord West of Spithead (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Security and Counter-terrorism), Home Office): My Lords, I can confirm that we do not intend to do that. I do not know the exact timelines but when we consider the matter we will have to review the 500 responses—some of which were very robust, I am glad to say, because I understand people’s feelings and emotions about this. We have no intention whatever to change and increase the rules in regard to the rest of England and Wales.

Try as I might, I can’t see any get out clauses there. “We have no intention whatever to change and increase the rules” is about as clear a statement as you’re ever likely to get from a politician. It looks as if the government has abandoned any attempt to “harmonise” these powers. The possibility even exists that the responses to the consultation may have had some bearing on this decision.

(One word of caution. Lord West has been known to have a sudden change of heart on occasion. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that he’d make such an unequivocal statement on this without being sure he knew what he was talking about.)

All we need now is for the ridiculous laws governing protests around parliament to be scrapped and it’ll be time to have a wee celebration. In Parliament Square. Without prior permission from the police.

Now wouldn’t that be something?

Back in October 2007, Gordon Brown announced a review of the laws governing demonstrations in the area around parliament. He said:

While balancing the need for public order with the right to public dissent, I think it right – in consultation with the Metropolitan Police, Parliament, the Mayor of London, Westminster City Council and liberties groups – to change the laws that now restrict the right to demonstrate in Parliament Square.

Anyone even slightly familiar with ‘politician speak’ will have spotted that this is not much of a commitment. Nevertheless, before the “change” in the law, a public consultation was duly established and the deadline for replies is 17th January. Further information can be found courtesy of the repeal SOCPA website.

I’d like to draw your attention to the first two questions in the consultation paper. They are not, in fact, concerned with restrictions on demonstrations in the “designated area” around parliament; their scope is somewhat larger than that. Here they are:

1. The Government believes peaceful protest is a vital part of a democratic society, and that the police should have powers to manage public assemblies and processions to respond to the potential for disorder. Should the powers generally in relation to marches and assemblies be the same?
2. Do you agree that the conditions that can be imposed on assemblies and marches should be harmonised?

Has your internal alarm gone off yet? It should be wailing like a banshee.

First of all, remember that these questions relate to the whole country*, not just the designated area. Here’s a quick summary of the powers the police currently have to control marches.

Organisers must give six days advance notice to the police.

Organisers must specify “the date when it is intended to hold the procession, the time when it is intended to start it, its proposed route, and the name and address of the person (or one of the persons) proposing to organise it”.

The senior police officer, if he “reasonably believes” the march may may result in “serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community” or “reasonably believes” that “the purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or do an act they have a right not to do”, can impose wide ranging conditions on the march.

If the senior police officer “reasonably believes” that the imposition of conditions would not prevent serious public disorder, he can apply to the relevant council to prohibit a march. (In London, the application is made directly to the Home Secretary.)

The laws on assembly (two or more persons in a public place in the open air) are not quite so far reaching. Yet.

Outside the “designated area” the law does not require that the police are given six days notice of an assembly.

The senior police officer may impose limited conditions on these static demonstrations if he “reasonably believes” all that stuff as above about “serious public disorder” etc..

The authorities currently do not have the power to prohibit static demonstrations.

If I was to ask in which direction you think the government wants to move in order to “harmonise” these powers, I’d just be being facetious. A relaxation of the laws on the control of processions is clearly not what they are after. No, the sweet harmony they want to play is to introduce wide ranging new powers to control demonstrations throughout the country. If they succeed, many of the absurdities of the current SOCPA laws regarding demonstrations in the “designated area” would apply much more widely. “Harmonisation” would mean that two Amnesty International volunteers trying to raise awareness and attract new members on your local high street on a Saturday afternoon would have to give the police six days notice of their intentions.

The government probably does intend to make some small adjustments to the SOCPA restrictions. A minor relaxation of the outrageously heavy handed SOCPA regulations might just interest the media enough to distract them from the government’s sweeping new controls. “Brown Champions Freedom” will be the entirely inaccurate message the government will be hoping to sell.

All the details on the public consultation are here and you can email submissions so there’s still time to have your say. (Not much mind. The consultation closes on the 17th.) If you’ve never taken part in a public consultation, I recommend you do it now. You know, while it’s still legal for you to express your opinion at all…

* To be entirely honest, I’ve not managed to work out whether this includes Scotland. I believe it does but don’t quote me on that. At the very least, it covers England and Wales.

Gordon Brown made his last major public appearance before the Christmas break at his monthly press conference earlier today.

Although it annoys me immensely that politics has become so shallow and trivial, this needs to be said: Gordon Brown should NOT smile in public. Ever.

To see Brown switch on and off that smile, if you can even call it a smile, is an unsettling and slightly frightening experience. I can imagine children all over the country scurrying behind the sofa in terror after catching a glimpse of the PM’s unique rictus on the Six O’Clock News. Either that, or they’ll be expecting Doctor Who to appear and unmask the alien imposter and rescue the real PM.

For the sake of the children if for no other reason, please don’t smile Gordon.

Anyway, Brown’s line today is that:

Many of the things that have been written about for the last few weeks would be forgotten quickly

Is it just me or is that very dangerous attitude to express publicly? It may be a cliché but isn’t it possible that this could be looked back on as his Jim Callaghan moment? Crisis, what crisis?

Brown didn’t say those exact words, of course, but neither did Callaghan. It woz the Sun whot spun it. It’ll be interesting to see how the Sun report Brown’s comments tomorrow.

On the plus side for Brown, for all the economic worries, the doom-mongering and the opportunistic spin from the Tories, the UK in 2007 is nothing like the UK in 1978-79. They had proper great big disastrous crises in those days. (And when we got home, our father would slice us in two with a bread knife. If we we’re lucky!)

All the same, Brown’s words, particularly with regard to the huge data loss and the economy, could come back to haunt him.

No blogging tomorrow as I’ll be down in that London protesting against Christmas (with permission from the Metropoliticians).

Gordon Brown is now determined to build a consensus on the required length of the extension to the current 28 day limit.

That attitude conveniently overlooks the fact that the government has not made a convincing case for an extension of any sort. Lord West accidentally pointed this out yesterday. One instant audience with the Prime Minister later, he was very quickly back-pedalling.

Lord West isn’t a professional politician. He wasn’t to know that government ministers are not supposed to highlight the intellectual bankruptcy of the government’s position. He’ll learn, I suppose.

The other day, I listened to the Home Secretary attempting to make the case for an extension. It was the ridiculous hypothetical situations she grasped at which really gave the game away. I would have attempted to take on her arguments but I couldn’t find any arguments to speak of to challenge.

The one argument the government can’t make in public is the one which is really pushing this on. Gordon Brown needs to be seen to be doing something. The status quo is not an option.

It doesn’t seem like a very good reason to me.

There is clearly vital and compelling evidence of the need to extend the maximum period of detention without charge to 90, no, 28, no, 56, no, 47 days, 4 hours, 18 minutes and 29.5 seconds.

No, let’s try that again.

There is clearly vital and compelling evidence of the need to extend the maximum period of detention. I hope MPs don’t rue the day they refuse to acknowledge the vital and compelling evidence of the need extend the maximum period of detention without charge to 90, no, 28…

Drat.

One more try.

There is clearly vital and compelling evidence of the need for Gordon Brown to be seen to be doing something.

And we’re off.

According to the Guardian:

There is evidence that Gordon Brown has not yet formed any strong personal opinion and he is said to remain “genuinely open-minded” on his preferred option.

Much as I’d like to be optimistic, this is probably a reference to Brown being genuinely open-minded on the length of the extension needed, not on whether one is needed at all.*

But it’s no wonder he hasn’t made up his mind yet; there are serious issues to be considered here. Would an extra 14 days be enough to convey the sense of a competent, trusted statesman dealing responsibly with a complicated issue? Would going for an extra 28 days so soon after the last doubling add a suggestion of gravitas and decisiveness or would it look Blairish and hysterical?

It’s not an easy call.

To pass the time while Gordon decides what’s needed, feel free to submit your guesses below. There won’t be any prizes if you get it right, I’m afraid, but on the plus side, participation is unlikely to lead to entrants being imprisoned without charge for up to three, no, one, no, two months.

Every cloud and all that.

* I’d be more than happy to be proved wrong.

Check out these two, ahem, unrelated, ahem, pieces of news today.

Terror limit ‘could be doubled’

The 28-day limit on holding terror suspects without charge is likely to be doubled by the government.

Home Office Minister Tony McNulty said the government wanted to extend the limit, “probably” to 56 days.

‘Thousands’ pose UK terror threat

There are at least 2,000 people in the UK who pose a threat to national security because of their support for terrorism, the head of MI5 has said.

Jonathan Evans said there had been a rise of 400 since November 2006.

Hmm.

It appears that the new head of MI5 is participating in a co-ordinated attempt to set the news agenda in preparation for Gordon Brown’s first Queen’s speech tomorrow. And, if the news bulletins I’ve heard this evening are anything to go by, he has succeeded.

Because using the secret services to disseminate fear in order to generate support for a proposed government policy is a hallmark of a truly democratic country…

The Sunday Telegraph asks a senior British Army officer in Iraq to describe victory in Basra.

We would go down there, dressed as Robocop, shooting at people if they shot at us, and innocent people were getting hurt,” he said. “We don’t speak Arabic to explain and our translators were too scared to work for us any more. What benefit were we bringing to these people?

Break out the bunting.

There are, of course, very good reasons why Iraqi translators are too scared to work with British forces. Whatever your views on the war, the campaign to save Iraqi ex-employees of HMG is surely worthy of support.

The Telegraph goes on to report that:

Rather than fight on, they [UK Forces] have struck a deal – or accommodation, as they describe it – with the Shia militias that dominate the city, promising to stay out in return for assurances that they will not be attacked. Since withdrawing, the British have not set foot in the city and even have to ask for permission if they want to skirt the edges to get to the Iranian border on the other side…

With no presence in the city, British forces are hard pushed to keep abreast of what is going on. They say they get their information from local newspapers and from the Iraqi army, although one battalion of that force is isolated inside the city and the other battalion is in training outside. The British have already encountered much the same problem in the neighbouring Maysan province to the north east, which they handed over in April.

And that explains why the government still thinks there’s a possibility that they can spin their way out of this bloody shambles. If an Iraqi ex-employee of HMG is shot in the back of the head and there are no British troops around to hear the gunshot, does it make a sound? The government thinks not.

The working soldiers of the British army are not responsible for this mess; they were asked to perform an essentially impossible task.

John Ware’s documentary “No Plan, No Peace” did raise the question as to why senior military figures didn’t make greater efforts to stop their men being sent into such a situation. It is clear that many were well aware of the US and British governments’ failure to address post-war planning and knew that it’d be by far the hardest aspect of the invasion.

You’d like to think that resignations would have been the order of the day but it didn’t happen. Asked to prioritise the value of their soldiers versus their career, I don’t remember a single senior military figure opting for the squadies. Now, about five years after it might have made a difference, general Sir Mike Jackson has courageously decided to speak out by writing a book. What class…

Ware’s documentary also included interviews with some of the academics who were belatedly brought in to advise Blair on Iraq in the run up to war. The picture which emerged was entirely consistent with similar interviews for a Peter Oborne documentary for Channel 4. The academics briefed Blair on the enormous complexity and numerous dangers which would exist in post-Saddam Iraq. Blair listened politely but was more interested in asking the academics whether they agreed that Saddam was evil.

At this point (January 2003 or there about), it seems that any critical faculties Blair might once have had had become overwhelmed by his own spin. The academics were not supportive of the war because they could see that the US and UK government’s were totally unprepared for what would come after. Blair apparently took this to mean that they were apologists for Saddam.  Instead of giving value to their accurate and informed advice, he demanded that they participate in a Will-You-Condemn-A-Thon. At such a level was policy made and expert advice dismissed.

One of the academics, Dr Tony Dodge I think, rightly pointed out that Blair’s attitude was criminally negligent. Today, the Iraqi people are paying the price for that negligence with their own blood.

Blair, however, has never been held to account for his disastrous inability and/or refusal to understand the consequences of what he was proposing. That simply is not acceptable in a supposedly democratic country.

As a footnote, the documentary also highlighted the reason why those MPs from other parties who voted for the war cannot be allowed to avoid accepting their own responsibility. I’m looking at you Dave.

On the day of the vote, evidence which made it obvious that the invasion was going to lead to disaster was available to me, an average International Relations graduate with a TV, a radio and an internet connection. Are we really being asked to believe that this evidence wasn’t available to members of Her Majesty’s official opposition?

PMQs today really was a lively affair. The report into the Scottish election fiasco has certainly put the cat among the pigeons. It’s even got me swearing a little bit.

I’ve skimmed through the report (pdf). Here are some of the issues it raises.

What is characteristic of 2007 was a notable level of party self interest evident in Ministerial decision-making (especially in regard to the timing and method of counts and the design of ballot papers). The timing and impact of policy decisions taken by Ministers also seem to be a critical factor… While prescribing all elements of electoral legislation remains a legislative function, Ministers will always need to take some decisions on elements of electoral administration. However, as in other areas of public life, these can and should be taken with the voters’ interests as the primary objective, supported by publicly available professional and expert advice. This appears not to have been the case in 2007.

Would anyone like a banana? We’ve got lots.

During our consultations with stakeholders, it became clear that both the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive were frequently focused on partisan political interests in carrying out their responsibilities, overlooking voter interests and operational realities within the electoral administration timetable.

Voters eh? They’re a bloody inconvenience, I tell you…

It has become increasingly clear that too much political debate was associated with the design of the Scottish parliamentary and local government ballot papers. Regarding the Scottish parliamentary ballot papers, months of partisan political discussion and debate wasted valuable time which could otherwise have been used to establish a ballot paper which all voters could easily understand.

Bananas in pyjamas…

The use of ‘naming strategies’ by political parties to seek an advantageous position on the regional side of the Scottish parliamentary ballot sheet was raised consistently as a problem by many electoral stakeholders and those who responded to the public consultation.

It’s democracy Jim, but not as we know it.

It is said that people get the politicians they deserve. It appears then that we Brits must be a right shower of shits.

Gordon Brown took pains to point out that the report did not allocate blame to one political party or individual and it is true that the report highlights more than just the failures of Labour ministers. The naming strategies employed by the various parties, as noted above, is one area in which other political parties played their part.

What Brown failed to mention, however, was this:

Throughout the Review, however, we have had no intention of – and, in fact, have scrupulously sought to avoid – assigning blame to individuals and institutions or questioning the legitimacy of the 3 May 2007 election results.

Allocating blame was never in the remit of the report. Isn’t it just a tiny bit disingenuous then to suggest that the report’s failure to do so somehow indicates a clean bill of health?

Have a banana. We’ve got lots.

Update

A minor correction. Brown did mention the last passage quoted above. He then, bizarrely, continued to suggest that the report somehow proved that no blame could or should be allocated by anyone else either.