Scottish Labour leader Wendy Alexander has resigned. A few initial thoughts:
- I wonder if Labour will learn that the absence of internal party competition is not the same as unity. The contrast between the coverage in today's newspapers of the Labour Party in the UK and the Democrats in the US could not be more stark. On one side (east of the Atlantic) there is a centre left party which 'elected' two leaders (Brown and Alexander) without anyone standing against them. The result? Political disaster with the wrong people appointed and a legacy of resentment and opposition within the party. On the other side (west of the Atlantic) there was a 17 month, hard fought fight for leadership of the Democratic Party. The result? The winner is about 10 points ahead in the polls. Clinton is campaigning for Obama and the vast majority of her supporters have swung behind him. Labour's experience in the early 1980s appears to have left Labour with the impression that looking united on the evening news is more important that having proper internal debate. That needs to change is Labour is going to survive and prosper, north or south of the border.
- Only time will tell, but it will be interesting to see if Wendy's sudden change in policy on an early independence referendum played any role in today's events. Was Brown's previously rock solid support for Wendy undermined by her policy on a referendum and her apparent failure to consult him on it? (STOP PRESS: The BBC has just reported that Wendy resigned despite Brown's urging her to stay.) It will also be interesting to see what happens to the early referendum policy under the next leader.
- The SNP's handling of this situation, the main aim of which appeared to be to destabilise Wendy Alexander and Scottish Labour, has been executed with textbook efficiency. I wonder, however, if now might be time to tone it down. There have been moments when individual backbench nats have looked shrill and bullying. It is important that this does not infect the general perception of the party. We are not there yet but it could happen.
- Finally, I have no idea what Wendy Alexander's plans are but if she wants to make a come back to front line politics, she would have been better to use today for endless mea culpas rather than attacking her opponents. That would have started to repair her image and made anyone who attacked her look mean and small minded. Her tone today was not the first tactical mis-step of her leadership. But it was her last.
Saturday 28 June 2008
Thursday 26 June 2008
The real data losers... the investigation
Further to Monday's post: the formal investigation into HMRC's loss of discs containing the personal and bank details of half the nation's population was published yesterday. The cause (as foreshadowed on Monday) was "poor communication between management and junior staff, and low morale at the HMRC". And the response? George Osborne, as normal, missed the point. He used it as an opportunity to punish Alistair Darling but failed to address the real issues (public sector management, etc.) and how his party would seek to solve those problems.
Depressing. If someone could offer a convincing case that they could make government work, they could get on. That person certainly isn't George Osborne.
P.S. On an entirely separate matter, there has just been a great report on Channel 4 News about a new feature length documentary called Man On Wire, which is premiering at the Edinburgh Film Festival tonight. It looks like a fascinating film - and reminded me of a time when the Twin Towers were a symbol of hope not a reminder of terror.
Depressing. If someone could offer a convincing case that they could make government work, they could get on. That person certainly isn't George Osborne.
P.S. On an entirely separate matter, there has just been a great report on Channel 4 News about a new feature length documentary called Man On Wire, which is premiering at the Edinburgh Film Festival tonight. It looks like a fascinating film - and reminded me of a time when the Twin Towers were a symbol of hope not a reminder of terror.
Tuesday 24 June 2008
One itch could change the world
I know that an 8 page article on itching doesn't sound worth reading but this is genuinely fascinating. That the humble itch could herald the development of a whole new discipline in medicine is worth noting. And the experience of M... who knew you could scratch that hard?
P.S. There is a podcast discussion which accompanies the article. You can find it here.
P.S. There is a podcast discussion which accompanies the article. You can find it here.
Ships and the future of the UK
The debate surrounding the prospects for Scotland's ship building industry in an independent Scotland is (as with so much of our politics) predicable enough: unionists say it will be decimated; nationalists say it will diversify and prosper. Both sides are unconvincing.
The unionist argument fails to factor in the strategic changes that are going to take place in these islands whatever constitutional changes happen (or don't) in the coming decades. At present the UK is the second biggest defence spender on the planet. This is not sustainable, or desirable. Unfortunately our legacy as a world power commits the UK to this level of defence spending but this won't continue indefinitely. Our structural position in the international order will change beyond recognition in the coming half century (including, for example, loss of the permanent seat on the UN Security Council and changes in the UK's role in NATO). When this happens the UK won't be ordering world class aircraft carriers and, arguably, will be able to give up its nuclear deterrent. At that point the impact on what remains of the ship building industry will be dramatic.
The nationalist argument is equally flawed. As a matter of pure fact, an independent Scotland would not be used to build sensitive English defence equipment (and arguments about EU rules on tendering are irrelevant - there are national security exceptions). And nor would a Scottish defence force need (or want) the amount of equipment ordered by UK forces. Diversification would make up some of the lost business but not all of it.
It is a shame that nationalists rely on these arguments rather than seeking to develop a narrative that fits in with the wider strategic choices that the UK is going to have to make in the next few decades. There is a strong case for saying a British isles of several nation-states would be better prepared to deal with the strategic threats (and the domestic political issues) of the twentieth-first century rather than a single British state. Instead they rely on an argument that nothing too much will change other than some constitutional details.
If the nats are going to win this argument, they are going to have to develop their arguments. I'll blog some more on what a convincing nationalist argument could look like in the coming weeks.
The unionist argument fails to factor in the strategic changes that are going to take place in these islands whatever constitutional changes happen (or don't) in the coming decades. At present the UK is the second biggest defence spender on the planet. This is not sustainable, or desirable. Unfortunately our legacy as a world power commits the UK to this level of defence spending but this won't continue indefinitely. Our structural position in the international order will change beyond recognition in the coming half century (including, for example, loss of the permanent seat on the UN Security Council and changes in the UK's role in NATO). When this happens the UK won't be ordering world class aircraft carriers and, arguably, will be able to give up its nuclear deterrent. At that point the impact on what remains of the ship building industry will be dramatic.
The nationalist argument is equally flawed. As a matter of pure fact, an independent Scotland would not be used to build sensitive English defence equipment (and arguments about EU rules on tendering are irrelevant - there are national security exceptions). And nor would a Scottish defence force need (or want) the amount of equipment ordered by UK forces. Diversification would make up some of the lost business but not all of it.
It is a shame that nationalists rely on these arguments rather than seeking to develop a narrative that fits in with the wider strategic choices that the UK is going to have to make in the next few decades. There is a strong case for saying a British isles of several nation-states would be better prepared to deal with the strategic threats (and the domestic political issues) of the twentieth-first century rather than a single British state. Instead they rely on an argument that nothing too much will change other than some constitutional details.
If the nats are going to win this argument, they are going to have to develop their arguments. I'll blog some more on what a convincing nationalist argument could look like in the coming weeks.
Monday 23 June 2008
The real data losers
There's been another loss of personal data in the public sector, this time by the Scottish Ambulance Service. The politics of this are entirely predicable: the opposition parties will express outrage, blame the government and, if they are having a good day, call for a minister or two to resign. We've seen this happen fairly often recently.
Now I understand the idea of ministerial responsibility but it is absurd to hold a minister responsible for a practical error by an official. Hold them accountable for policy, but for the minutiae of implementation? Be fair.
I've worked in the Civil Service and the problem is not ministerial control but the quality of leadership and management by senior officials. It is, with some honourable exceptions, dreadful. These kind of things will continue to happen until public sector management is dragged up to acceptable professional standards .
So perhaps opposition politicians should stop their histrionics and start thinking about how they can hold senior officials accountable for their managerial failings.
Now I understand the idea of ministerial responsibility but it is absurd to hold a minister responsible for a practical error by an official. Hold them accountable for policy, but for the minutiae of implementation? Be fair.
I've worked in the Civil Service and the problem is not ministerial control but the quality of leadership and management by senior officials. It is, with some honourable exceptions, dreadful. These kind of things will continue to happen until public sector management is dragged up to acceptable professional standards .
So perhaps opposition politicians should stop their histrionics and start thinking about how they can hold senior officials accountable for their managerial failings.
The politics of privacy
Another postscript on Davis/privacy/etc.: this was the BBC's lead story this morning.
Sunday 22 June 2008
Another thing on David Davis and 42 days
A quick postscript on David Davis and 42 days: I heard an interesting commentary on Davis's motivation for his decision to resign from parliament and his commitment to civil liberties. In short it is driven by his belief that habeus corpus is an important British tradition, not by a liberal commitment to civil liberties. No great surprise (he is a conservative (with a deliberately small 'c') after all) but a warning to anyone who thinks that Davis is going to be a warrior for all our liberties. He won't fight for them unless he considers any given liberty to be a British tradition.
The echos of empire
The dreadful situation in Zimbabwe (see this for today's developments) is a reminder that our world is still dominated by the British Empire, despite the fact that the Empire was consigned to history almost half a century ago.
Zim is just one example of the legacy of empire shaping our world. Almost all the major foreign policy issues that dominate news bulletins (Zimbabwe, Iraq, the Arab/Israeli conflict, conflict in India/Pakistan, Sudan) can be traced back to the effects of the various European empires and how they were wound up. There is even a reasonable case to be made that European imperialism is in part responsible for the current terrorism problem.
None of this is to say that all the effects of empire were exclusively negative - they clearly weren't. The British Empire, for example, exported the ideal of the rule of law around the globe, and the world would be an infinitely poorer place without that. Also the European empires played an important historic role by creating the infrastructure of a proper international system which has made global trade and the management of conflict possible.
But despite that, the mistakes made by white men sitting in London or Paris or the other European capitals a couple of hundred years ago continue to echo through time to today. And the biggest mistake was the creation of artificial borders which failed to reflect the cultural/tribal/political reality on the ground. Many of the problems listed above are a direct result of these borders, and our attempts to manage these conflicts will be the dominant foreign policy challenge for the foreseeable future.
Zim is just one example of the legacy of empire shaping our world. Almost all the major foreign policy issues that dominate news bulletins (Zimbabwe, Iraq, the Arab/Israeli conflict, conflict in India/Pakistan, Sudan) can be traced back to the effects of the various European empires and how they were wound up. There is even a reasonable case to be made that European imperialism is in part responsible for the current terrorism problem.
None of this is to say that all the effects of empire were exclusively negative - they clearly weren't. The British Empire, for example, exported the ideal of the rule of law around the globe, and the world would be an infinitely poorer place without that. Also the European empires played an important historic role by creating the infrastructure of a proper international system which has made global trade and the management of conflict possible.
But despite that, the mistakes made by white men sitting in London or Paris or the other European capitals a couple of hundred years ago continue to echo through time to today. And the biggest mistake was the creation of artificial borders which failed to reflect the cultural/tribal/political reality on the ground. Many of the problems listed above are a direct result of these borders, and our attempts to manage these conflicts will be the dominant foreign policy challenge for the foreseeable future.
Saturday 21 June 2008
A kingdom divided?
The Scottish Labour leader, Wendy Alexander, called again for an independence referendum in Scotland last night. That she is defying her party leader (one G Brown) and taking a huge gamble on the the very future of the United Kingdom shows that the 2007 Scottish Parliamentary elections were a very important moment in the history of these islands .
The SNP's victory in those elections was hugely significant, as was the publication of the Scottish Government's White Paper on Scotland's constitutional future. Here was one of the Queen's ministers (First Minister Alex Salmond) kicking off a process which he hopes will break up Her Kingdom. Historic, by any standard.
And extraordinary as well. There are many reasons we have reached this point, and I want to discuss some of these on this blog in the coming weeks and months. But one of the most obvious reasons is a lack of communication and understanding between England and Scotland.
I see one small sign of this every morning. I buy my daily newspaper from the newsagent inside Brixton tube. I tend to go for the Guardian but I could get almost any newspaper from Europe or North America. So today morning I could have read today's El Pais from Madrid, Le Monde from Paris or Die Welt from Berlin. (Strictly speaking I couldn't have read any of them because I am rubbish a learning languages but I could have bought them at the very least.) I could have read today's International Herald Tribune or USA Today. I could not, however, have read today's Scotsman. I could have got yesterday's edition but I'd have to wait until next week for today's copy.
Two nations part of the same state on the same island and yet it's not possible to read for me to read one of Scotland's national newspapers on the day it is published. (By the way The Herald and The Record aren't available at all.)
Why does this matter? Well on one level it doesn't - I read the papers online anyway. But the failure of communication between England and Scotland which this represents and the increasing division within the Union is going to be one of the major domestic political issues in the coming decades. And we need to understand each other if we are going to be able to navigate those issues effectively.
The SNP's victory in those elections was hugely significant, as was the publication of the Scottish Government's White Paper on Scotland's constitutional future. Here was one of the Queen's ministers (First Minister Alex Salmond) kicking off a process which he hopes will break up Her Kingdom. Historic, by any standard.
And extraordinary as well. There are many reasons we have reached this point, and I want to discuss some of these on this blog in the coming weeks and months. But one of the most obvious reasons is a lack of communication and understanding between England and Scotland.
I see one small sign of this every morning. I buy my daily newspaper from the newsagent inside Brixton tube. I tend to go for the Guardian but I could get almost any newspaper from Europe or North America. So today morning I could have read today's El Pais from Madrid, Le Monde from Paris or Die Welt from Berlin. (Strictly speaking I couldn't have read any of them because I am rubbish a learning languages but I could have bought them at the very least.) I could have read today's International Herald Tribune or USA Today. I could not, however, have read today's Scotsman. I could have got yesterday's edition but I'd have to wait until next week for today's copy.
Two nations part of the same state on the same island and yet it's not possible to read for me to read one of Scotland's national newspapers on the day it is published. (By the way The Herald and The Record aren't available at all.)
Why does this matter? Well on one level it doesn't - I read the papers online anyway. But the failure of communication between England and Scotland which this represents and the increasing division within the Union is going to be one of the major domestic political issues in the coming decades. And we need to understand each other if we are going to be able to navigate those issues effectively.
Far too long...
I'm listening to yet another discussion on Tory David Davis' resignation in protest at the Government's policy on detention on 42 days without charge for terrorist suspects. As much as it pains me to say it, I think Davis has got it right on 42 days. Why? Well the legislation is wrong in principle, in practice and there are workable alternatives.
Frankly I suspect that this whole issue was never about dealing with terrorism (why would a government pass unworkable legislation?) but about political positioning, making Brown look strong on terror while taking a 'principled' and popular stand. If this is right it is beyond cynical that any public servant would think it acceptable to trade basic civil liberties in for some political positioning, particularly in the country where habeus corpus was first codified and enforced.
But Brown should be aware that not only is using 42 days as a political ploy cynical, it could also be very foolish.
If you look at the front page of the Daily Mail on any given day, there is a strong probability that there will be a splash story about some 'big brother' public agency (a council, the NHS, etc.) 'spying' on the citizenry. The loss of privacy that these stories represent appears to have struck a cord with middle England, and has given Mail-land and the Guardianistas something to agree on.
The political consequences for Labour would be devastating if the Tories can link the 42 days issue with the general sense of a loss of privacy/freedom and turn it into a leading political issue. I don't think it is much of a stretch to imagine that happening.
- The principle: it is a foundation of our civil liberties that the state simply should not be able to hold its citizens for no clear reason for 6 weeks.
- The practice: the legislation that was passed by the House of Commons isn't workable. Former Home Secretary Charles Clarke summarises the problems very well (though he is on the other side of this argument).
- The alternative: there are other ways of resolving the problems that 42 days was meant to address (most notably that the police may need more time to investigate complex terrorist plots) and these do not appear to have been properly considered. For example, couldn't legislation be passed to allow parliament to give the police permission to continue their inquiries after suspects have been charged. Clearly this would only be used in exceptional circumstances, i.e. a national emergency as defined by the civil contingency legislation. (And while this isn't directly related, isn't it time to allow intercept evidence in terrorist trials?)
Frankly I suspect that this whole issue was never about dealing with terrorism (why would a government pass unworkable legislation?) but about political positioning, making Brown look strong on terror while taking a 'principled' and popular stand. If this is right it is beyond cynical that any public servant would think it acceptable to trade basic civil liberties in for some political positioning, particularly in the country where habeus corpus was first codified and enforced.
But Brown should be aware that not only is using 42 days as a political ploy cynical, it could also be very foolish.
If you look at the front page of the Daily Mail on any given day, there is a strong probability that there will be a splash story about some 'big brother' public agency (a council, the NHS, etc.) 'spying' on the citizenry. The loss of privacy that these stories represent appears to have struck a cord with middle England, and has given Mail-land and the Guardianistas something to agree on.
The political consequences for Labour would be devastating if the Tories can link the 42 days issue with the general sense of a loss of privacy/freedom and turn it into a leading political issue. I don't think it is much of a stretch to imagine that happening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)