Weekly round-up: From peers under pressure to wildcat strikes

Here’s a selection of articles from the political blogosphere and Fleet Street commentariat that have caught my eye over the last seven days. It’s the merest sliver of what’s out there – please post any other links you’d like to share with NextLeft readers in the comments below.

Lord Toby Harris was the fifth Labour peer approached by undercover Sunday Times journalists setting up the splash that sent shockwaves around Westminster - although he declined to meet the “lobbyists” and was not named in the paper’s story. Over on his blog he describes the “unpleasant” experience of being targeted by the sting – which he nevertheless accepts was in the public interest, at least in light of hopeful reform initiated by Lords Leader Jan Royall in response to the story. Meanwhile, BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson cites “informed sources” dismissing the prospect of a police investigation into the peers’ conduct, at least on the back of what the Sunday Times has printed so far. That seems to have got a few of his readers’ backs up….

“Is this the week that Labour lost the election?” poses the Guardian’s Patrick Wintour, in a report depicting growing gloom within the ranks of the PLP; the Observer’s Toby Helm took his own pessimistic soundings after a round of PMQs dominated by increasingly entrenched positions over responding to the recession. Earlier off-the-record chatter – this time from within No 10 – found its way into Rachel Sylvester’s column in the Times, and went on to form part of Cameron’s attack. As ever, Prezza is there to urge a stiffening of Labour spines – and he’s had both Jon Cruddas and Matthew Taylor in his sights…

The battle over the UK fiscal stimulus continues to rage within the fourth estate. Nobel laureate Paul Krugman tells Johann Hari that the Tory approach is “pure Herbert Hoover”, while the Spectator’s Fraser Nelson continues to make the case against the Government’s economic policy. In the week of Lord Mandelson’s announcement of aid for the British car industry, Will Hutton urges more state help for employers fighting to avert redundancies. Robert Peston was on the spot in Davos – see his account of how the Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao, both “reassured and humiliated the western bankers” with an economic model he predicts to deliver 8% growth this year. But at openDemocracy Paul Rogers points to the IMF’s lower growth forecast of 6.7% for the Chinese economy and includes the Communist-run country among a list of those experiencing threatened or real social unrest amid the global economic turmoil. With its unhappy prognosis for Britain in mind, Labour blogger Hopi Sen urges a note of caution over the IMF’s record of prediction. Meanwhile, Dagenham MP Jon Cruddas sees the wildcat strikes that started at the Total refinery in Lincolnshire as a kicking out against the manifestation of an EU-facilitated “race to the bottom” over workers’ rights, not xenophobia...

Fabian General Secretary Sunder Katwala has already blogged here with the case for forging a Lib-Lab coalition in advance of the next general election. In case you’ve missed the reaction on Liberal Democrat Voice, it’s here – generating in the comments some historical soul searching about the genesis of the Lib Dems in the SDP/Liberal Alliance. At Labourlist, Lucy Powell, Labour PPC for the Lib Dem-held marginal of Manchester Withington re-states Labour’s commitment to targeting such seats, in the face of Nick Clegg's threats of a campaign to inflict 'northern discomfort' on Labour...

Briefly elsewhere, Middle East analyst Marc Lynch suggests Obama hit a home run with his al-Arabiya interview, but argues that “without some form of Hamas buy-in Obama's peace initiative will fall back into the same Clinton and Bush traps”... Read more...

Weekly round-up: From peers under pressure to wildcat strikes

Here’s a selection of articles from the political blogosphere and Fleet Street commentariat that have caught my eye over the last seven days. It’s the merest sliver of what’s out there – please post any other links you’d like to share with NextLeft readers in the comments below.

Lord Toby Harris was the fifth Labour peer approached by undercover Sunday Times journalists setting up the splash that sent shockwaves around Westminster - although he declined to meet the “lobbyists” and was not named in the paper’s story. Over on his blog he describes the “unpleasant” experience of being targeted by the sting – which he nevertheless accepts was in the public interest, at least in light of hopeful reform initiated by Lords Leader Jan Royall in response to the story. Meanwhile, BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson cites “informed sources” dismissing the prospect of a police investigation into the peers’ conduct, at least on the back of what the Sunday Times has printed so far. That seems to have got a few of his readers’ backs up….

“Is this the week that Labour lost the election?” poses the Guardian’s Patrick Wintour, in a report depicting growing gloom within the ranks of the PLP; the Observer’s Toby Helm took his own pessimistic soundings after a round of PMQs dominated by increasingly entrenched positions over responding to the recession. Earlier off-the-record chatter – this time from within No 10 – found its way into Rachel Sylvester’s column in the Times, and went on to form part of Cameron’s attack. As ever, Prezza is there to urge a stiffening of Labour spines – and he’s had both Jon Cruddas and Matthew Taylor in his sights…

The battle over the UK fiscal stimulus continues to rage within the fourth estate. Nobel laureate Paul Krugman tells Johann Hari that the Tory approach is “pure Herbert Hoover”, while the Spectator’s Fraser Nelson continues to make the case against the Government’s economic policy. In the week of Lord Mandelson’s announcement of aid for the British car industry, Will Hutton urges more state help for employers fighting to avert redundancies. Robert Peston was on the spot in Davos – see his account of how the Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao, both “reassured and humiliated the western bankers” with an economic model he predicts to deliver 8% growth this year. But at openDemocracy Paul Rogers points to the IMF’s lower growth forecast of 6.7% for the Chinese economy and includes the Communist-run country among a list of those experiencing threatened or real social unrest amid the global economic turmoil. With its unhappy prognosis for Britain in mind, Labour blogger Hopi Sen urges a note of caution over the IMF’s record of prediction. Meanwhile, Dagenham MP Jon Cruddas sees the wildcat strikes that started at the Total refinery in Lincolnshire as a kicking out against the manifestation of an EU-facilitated “race to the bottom” over workers’ rights, not xenophobia...

Fabian General Secretary Sunder Katwala has already blogged here with the case for forging a Lib-Lab coalition in advance of the next general election. In case you’ve missed the reaction on Liberal Democrat Voice, it’s here – generating in the comments some historical soul searching about the genesis of the Lib Dems in the SDP/Liberal Alliance. At Labourlist, Lucy Powell, Labour PPC for the Lib Dem-held marginal of Manchester Withington re-states Labour’s commitment to targeting such seats, in the face of Nick Clegg's threats of a campaign to inflict 'northern discomfort' on Labour...

Briefly elsewhere, Middle East analyst Marc Lynch suggests Obama hit a home run with his al-Arabiya interview, but argues that “without some form of Hamas buy-in Obama's peace initiative will fall back into the same Clinton and Bush traps”... Read more...

Breaking a glacier ceiling for gay rights

Iceland’s new Social Democratic Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir is to lead a coalition government with the left-green party, and to seek a mandate for European Union membership in a General Election in May.

Over at LiberalConspiracy, I note that Eurosceptic MEP Dan Hannan is still giving Iceland advice, and wonder whether they might have stopped listening by now.

Sigurdardottir will be Iceland’s first female prime minister and the first openly gay or lesbian premier anywhere in the world (excepting a very brief caretaker premiership for a couple of hours in Norway apparently). That must be a historic moment worth marking, though Icelanders think of it as a "non-issue" and so would prefer us to do so without too much Obamaesque fuss, according to a profile on PinkNews:

A country of only 300.000 with a gay scene that is largely embedded into mainstream culture, Iceland is considered one of the safest places in the world to be gay. Because of its small size Reykjavik’s gay scene co-exists to a greater extent within mainstream night life than in Britain and the rest of Europe. This is one reason why the Icelandic gay scene is so widely accepted as normal and a non-issue by the public.

Read more...

Breaking a glacier ceiling for gay rights

Iceland’s new Social Democratic Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir is to lead a coalition government with the left-green party, and to seek a mandate for European Union membership in a General Election in May.

Over at LiberalConspiracy, I note that Eurosceptic MEP Dan Hannan is still giving Iceland advice, and wonder whether they might have stopped listening by now.

Sigurdardottir will be Iceland’s first female prime minister and the first openly gay or lesbian premier anywhere in the world (excepting a very brief caretaker premiership for a couple of hours in Norway apparently). That must be a historic moment worth marking, though Icelanders think of it as a "non-issue" and so would prefer us to do so without too much Obamaesque fuss, according to a profile on PinkNews:

A country of only 300.000 with a gay scene that is largely embedded into mainstream culture, Iceland is considered one of the safest places in the world to be gay. Because of its small size Reykjavik’s gay scene co-exists to a greater extent within mainstream night life than in Britain and the rest of Europe. This is one reason why the Icelandic gay scene is so widely accepted as normal and a non-issue by the public.

Read more...

Cruddas: why don't we debate a maximum wage?

Jon Cruddas writes in The Guardian that the current strikes reflect a broader sense of working-class disempowerment, leading him to set out an expansive agenda for a new left political economy.

The left must offer a real and viable alternative. We have to reverse the years of wealth redistribution from poor to rich. We need regulation to end low pay, low skill and casualised labour. Strong trade unions are the best defence against exploitation. Work and quality of life can be improved by introducing a living wage. And why don't we discuss having a maximum income? Both can be defined by establishing a maximum ratio of difference between the most and least well-paid. We need to create new forms of economic citizenship, and bring the economy and work under greater democratic control. That should be the agenda, not "British jobs for British workers".

Could the call for 'discussing' a maximum income go anywhere? I am very sceptical -but perhaps opening the public discussion is a large part of the point. That seemed to be the mood of the Fabian New Year Conference 'dragons den' session earlier this month when Kevin Maguire of the Mirror proposed a 10-1 differential in any organisation: this was debated and backed not just by Ken Livingstone but by the audience too, including by many people who understood David Aaronovitch's argument that it was patently unworkable. One of our 'dragons den' judges, Dawn Butler, a junior member of the government, may well have best caught the mood in saying that she thought it was probably a useful public debate to have about attitudes to inequality - without in any way suggesting she would be recommending it should appear in Alastair Darling's next budget!

After all, the great shift in the multiples earned by the top 1% and top 0.1% reflect changing social norms and attitudes perhaps as much as global economic conditions. And if a maximum wage seems unlikely as a policy response, changing attitudes to progressive taxation and tax avoidance, transparency and scrutiny of bonuses and executive pay, and the creation of a Top Pay Commission to help inform public debate have all come into the mainstream of political debate.

There is some emerging evidence that public attitudes are hardening. Fabian Society and YouGov polling on attitudes towards pay, back in the summer of 2007, suggested that the public, on average, believe that pay differentials of 10 to 1 across society would be a much fairer reflection of the value of different jobs. The suggestion was that £135,000 would be a top salary in a fair pay league: the nominal figures applied may strike many people as surprisingly low.

There would be no practicable way to bring anything like that about. But differentials within the range of 20-1 are comprehensible, and that the case for differentials of 150-1 and 200-1 within companies has never been publicly made or understood. The moderate social democratic Croslandite claim 'no justified inequalities' would demand sufficient transparency and scrutiny for there to be confidence that these were rewards for success, and not rewards for failure.

In our post-crunch poll late last year, 70% agreed that "those at the top are failing to pay their fair share towards investment in public services". But it is not unusual for polling to find that the public agree to competing, and apparently contradictory, proposals - highlighting the importance of how public debates are framed. So I would not have been surprised to find a majority also agree that taxes
on high earners should be kept low so that "British companies can attract the talent they need to succeed". In fact, only 19% supported that.

One unlikely advocate of how a maximum wage proposal could meet the New Labour "what works" test is Rotherham MP Denis MacShane, a member of the Fabian Executive and widely understood to be among the most enthusiastic New Labour modernising voices. Denis warmly supported Kevin Maguire's proposal, pointing out that he had proposed this in the House of Commons back in 1994. "But then New Labour came along and the rest is history", he said in a droll contribution. I have just looked up the record from Hansard. Here is how the MacShane proposal would have worked.

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to fix the emoluments of chairpersons, chief executives and senior managers of private limited companies and public bodies so that their combined annual earnings do not exceed twenty times the average take-home pay of their non-managerial employees save if the said employees agree through a ballot of their non-managerial employees or through their union to permit salaries of their chairpersons, chief executives and senior managers to exceed a 20:1 ratio.

This model offers some interesting responses to several of the most obvious objections (partly by the 'maximum wage' being something of a misnomer for a moveable ceiling, or norm).

But one Fabian audience member offered a centre-left (archetypally Brownite) critique: 'what public services would you cut to account for the lost tax revenues?'. A good question - but the value of the maximum wage debate may well be to legitimise much greater scrutiny of whether corporations and individuals are paying their share in taxes. Polly Toynbee today promises that corporate tax avoidance will be the focus of a major Guardian investigation next week.

More interesting evidence on this subject was presented from Stewart Lansley, speaking at a Fabian discussion late last year on whether we were returning to the Victorian era of the super-rich, held as part of our project on the Webb Memorial Trust which is looking at poverty, inequality and affluence. Lansley presented evidence that, having gradually fallen to one-sixth of Victorian levels during the post-war period, the super-rich had returned to Victorian levels of affluence in 30 years since the 1980s. He found that the evidence also suggested that the Victorian super-rich could stake a much greater claim to be the 'deserving rich' than most of those on the Sunday Times Rich List today. Read more...

Cruddas: why don't we debate a maximum wage?

Jon Cruddas writes in The Guardian that the current strikes reflect a broader sense of working-class disempowerment, leading him to set out an expansive agenda for a new left political economy.

The left must offer a real and viable alternative. We have to reverse the years of wealth redistribution from poor to rich. We need regulation to end low pay, low skill and casualised labour. Strong trade unions are the best defence against exploitation. Work and quality of life can be improved by introducing a living wage. And why don't we discuss having a maximum income? Both can be defined by establishing a maximum ratio of difference between the most and least well-paid. We need to create new forms of economic citizenship, and bring the economy and work under greater democratic control. That should be the agenda, not "British jobs for British workers".

Could the call for 'discussing' a maximum income go anywhere? I am very sceptical -but perhaps opening the public discussion is a large part of the point. That seemed to be the mood of the Fabian New Year Conference 'dragons den' session earlier this month when Kevin Maguire of the Mirror proposed a 10-1 differential in any organisation: this was debated and backed not just by Ken Livingstone but by the audience too, including by many people who understood David Aaronovitch's argument that it was patently unworkable. One of our 'dragons den' judges, Dawn Butler, a junior member of the government, may well have best caught the mood in saying that she thought it was probably a useful public debate to have about attitudes to inequality - without in any way suggesting she would be recommending it should appear in Alastair Darling's next budget!

After all, the great shift in the multiples earned by the top 1% and top 0.1% reflect changing social norms and attitudes perhaps as much as global economic conditions. And if a maximum wage seems unlikely as a policy response, changing attitudes to progressive taxation and tax avoidance, transparency and scrutiny of bonuses and executive pay, and the creation of a Top Pay Commission to help inform public debate have all come into the mainstream of political debate.

There is some emerging evidence that public attitudes are hardening. Fabian Society and YouGov polling on attitudes towards pay, back in the summer of 2007, suggested that the public, on average, believe that pay differentials of 10 to 1 across society would be a much fairer reflection of the value of different jobs. The suggestion was that £135,000 would be a top salary in a fair pay league: the nominal figures applied may strike many people as surprisingly low.

There would be no practicable way to bring anything like that about. But differentials within the range of 20-1 are comprehensible, and that the case for differentials of 150-1 and 200-1 within companies has never been publicly made or understood. The moderate social democratic Croslandite claim 'no justified inequalities' would demand sufficient transparency and scrutiny for there to be confidence that these were rewards for success, and not rewards for failure.

In our post-crunch poll late last year, 70% agreed that "those at the top are failing to pay their fair share towards investment in public services". But it is not unusual for polling to find that the public agree to competing, and apparently contradictory, proposals - highlighting the importance of how public debates are framed. So I would not have been surprised to find a majority also agree that taxes
on high earners should be kept low so that "British companies can attract the talent they need to succeed". In fact, only 19% supported that.

One unlikely advocate of how a maximum wage proposal could meet the New Labour "what works" test is Rotherham MP Denis MacShane, a member of the Fabian Executive and widely understood to be among the most enthusiastic New Labour modernising voices. Denis warmly supported Kevin Maguire's proposal, pointing out that he had proposed this in the House of Commons back in 1994. "But then New Labour came along and the rest is history", he said in a droll contribution. I have just looked up the record from Hansard. Here is how the MacShane proposal would have worked.

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to fix the emoluments of chairpersons, chief executives and senior managers of private limited companies and public bodies so that their combined annual earnings do not exceed twenty times the average take-home pay of their non-managerial employees save if the said employees agree through a ballot of their non-managerial employees or through their union to permit salaries of their chairpersons, chief executives and senior managers to exceed a 20:1 ratio.

This model offers some interesting responses to several of the most obvious objections (partly by the 'maximum wage' being something of a misnomer for a moveable ceiling, or norm).

But one Fabian audience member offered a centre-left (archetypally Brownite) critique: 'what public services would you cut to account for the lost tax revenues?'. A good question - but the value of the maximum wage debate may well be to legitimise much greater scrutiny of whether corporations and individuals are paying their share in taxes. Polly Toynbee today promises that corporate tax avoidance will be the focus of a major Guardian investigation next week.

More interesting evidence on this subject was presented from Stewart Lansley, speaking at a Fabian discussion late last year on whether we were returning to the Victorian era of the super-rich, held as part of our project on the Webb Memorial Trust which is looking at poverty, inequality and affluence. Lansley presented evidence that, having gradually fallen to one-sixth of Victorian levels during the post-war period, the super-rich had returned to Victorian levels of affluence in 30 years since the 1980s. He found that the evidence also suggested that the Victorian super-rich could stake a much greater claim to be the 'deserving rich' than most of those on the Sunday Times Rich List today. Read more...

Barack, Your New Sales Rep

In an unprecedented move for a new President, Obama chose to give his first interview to a Saudi channel. The speed which he did this even surprised Arab officials. Obama’s reiteration of open but firm themes from his inaugural speech to a new Muslim audience is hugely positive and decisive. It also sends out a message that he will act right away on his inaugural words and will not just concentrate on his domestic problems.
The Financial Times editorial on 28 January believes the interview was all about tone, with the word ‘respect’ or ‘respectfully’ being repeated over and over again. Obama highlighted the peace plan put forward by King Abdullah of full Arab recognition of Israel if Israel withdraws and allows an independent Palestinian state. Whether this has any realistic chance of getting off the ground in the current climate of anger is another matter, but looking to an Arab solution is perhaps the only way. The editorial concludes by suggesting there is some hope because Obama is not only a statesman but also a salesman with the persuasive skills to achieve the impossible.
The name Obama is just a name. But, any proposal backed by Barack Hussein Obama has much more chance of finding a solution than one backed by Bill or Ted (sorry I meant George). The Middle East may seem like a totally intractable problem, but you have only to see the film Hunger to remember the total hatred and complete lack of dialogue in Northern Ireland thirty years ago. That was a problem that had existed for four hundred years and many of the best politicians had lost their reputation failing to solve it. What is needed to solve a conflict is a set of circumstances and fresh personalities – preferably ones with the energy and mandate of a first term. Sometimes actually a solution can be found when the situation seems to have become so bad there is no escape route. At that moment, the skilled salesman can step in. Read more...

Barack, Your New Sales Rep

In an unprecedented move for a new President, Obama chose to give his first interview to a Saudi channel. The speed which he did this even surprised Arab officials. Obama’s reiteration of open but firm themes from his inaugural speech to a new Muslim audience is hugely positive and decisive. It also sends out a message that he will act right away on his inaugural words and will not just concentrate on his domestic problems.
The Financial Times editorial on 28 January believes the interview was all about tone, with the word ‘respect’ or ‘respectfully’ being repeated over and over again. Obama highlighted the peace plan put forward by King Abdullah of full Arab recognition of Israel if Israel withdraws and allows an independent Palestinian state. Whether this has any realistic chance of getting off the ground in the current climate of anger is another matter, but looking to an Arab solution is perhaps the only way. The editorial concludes by suggesting there is some hope because Obama is not only a statesman but also a salesman with the persuasive skills to achieve the impossible.
The name Obama is just a name. But, any proposal backed by Barack Hussein Obama has much more chance of finding a solution than one backed by Bill or Ted (sorry I meant George). The Middle East may seem like a totally intractable problem, but you have only to see the film Hunger to remember the total hatred and complete lack of dialogue in Northern Ireland thirty years ago. That was a problem that had existed for four hundred years and many of the best politicians had lost their reputation failing to solve it. What is needed to solve a conflict is a set of circumstances and fresh personalities – preferably ones with the energy and mandate of a first term. Sometimes actually a solution can be found when the situation seems to have become so bad there is no escape route. At that moment, the skilled salesman can step in. Read more...

The case for a Lab-Lib coalition

I make the argument in a commentary in this week's New Statesman, illustrated by an all-smiling triumvirate of Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg and Vince Cable.

Despite a growing sense of Conservative triumphalism, It may well be very difficult for either major party to win a clear majority at the next General Election. The Conservatives will clearly outperform how they did in 2005 under Michael Howard. But they remain very much untested as a government in waiting; and require a very large and possibly double-digt lead on election day to win any majority at all. Labour's electoral coalition was badly fractured in its weak 2005 result, and the economic crisis makes incumbency more difficult, even if the government can make a strong case that it has the better response.

A hung Parliament must be a real possibility. But I set out why I don't think that would lead to either a Tory-LibDem or Labour-LibDem coalition, but rather a David Cameron minority Tory administration.

However, my argument is that there may still be one chance to address the 'progressive dilemma' of the 20th century so brilliantly articulated by David Marquand back in the early 1990s. It depends on forming a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition now, to govern for a year ahead of a General Election. It sounds unlikely: but I set out the terms of a deal which I think would be worth doing on both sides.

Labour supporters will believe the party can still bounce back and win. I agree. Labour are the underdogs but nothing is certain in politics.

Were such a coalition possible, I also think it would be a better government. It could reinvigorate the centre-left, test the Tories properly, provide a broader basis for a politics of fairness to respond to the recession, and make possible the deeper reform of British politics through a new constitutional settlement which has always eluded centre-left governments over the last century.

Many may say that Labour would not offer such a deal, or that the LibDems would not accept it if they did.

But what if they could? Read more...

The case for a Lab-Lib coalition

I make the argument in a commentary in this week's New Statesman, illustrated by an all-smiling triumvirate of Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg and Vince Cable.

Despite a growing sense of Conservative triumphalism, It may well be very difficult for either major party to win a clear majority at the next General Election. The Conservatives will clearly outperform how they did in 2005 under Michael Howard. But they remain very much untested as a government in waiting; and require a very large and possibly double-digt lead on election day to win any majority at all. Labour's electoral coalition was badly fractured in its weak 2005 result, and the economic crisis makes incumbency more difficult, even if the government can make a strong case that it has the better response.

A hung Parliament must be a real possibility. But I set out why I don't think that would lead to either a Tory-LibDem or Labour-LibDem coalition, but rather a David Cameron minority Tory administration.

However, my argument is that there may still be one chance to address the 'progressive dilemma' of the 20th century so brilliantly articulated by David Marquand back in the early 1990s. It depends on forming a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition now, to govern for a year ahead of a General Election. It sounds unlikely: but I set out the terms of a deal which I think would be worth doing on both sides.

Labour supporters will believe the party can still bounce back and win. I agree. Labour are the underdogs but nothing is certain in politics.

Were such a coalition possible, I also think it would be a better government. It could reinvigorate the centre-left, test the Tories properly, provide a broader basis for a politics of fairness to respond to the recession, and make possible the deeper reform of British politics through a new constitutional settlement which has always eluded centre-left governments over the last century.

Many may say that Labour would not offer such a deal, or that the LibDems would not accept it if they did.

But what if they could? Read more...

The Politics of Limits

Many of the middle classes lucky enough remain secure in their jobs may actually benefit from the recession. A university lecturer told me recently he has £300 a month more disposable income after his mortgage repayments plummeted along with interest rates.

He is one example of a fortunate few whose lives may well improve as the lives of others decline. Given this new spending power, the "politics of limits" urged by Sir John Harman in the recently published Fabian pamphlet, "The Green Crunch", may not be of interest.

The environmental challenge facing this country, and the world, is an urgent one and how best to approach it is a complex issue, Harman argues. But if much ecological damage is caused by excess consumerism, addressing the problem now would seem to have the advantage of killing two birds with one stone. (Peter Mandelson’s rescue bid for the car industry has certainly taken this approach, in tone at least.).

But the environment is not on most people’s list of personal priorities and it will take a dramatic shift to put it there.

At the top, that increased disposable income may be spent on extra luxuries- a break away from all this gloom perhaps- not 'going green'. At the bottom, those battling poverty may not be able to afford the greener alternative, and with more personal struggles on their mind, may not care.

It was suggested during yesterday’s lunchtime discussion of “The Green Crunch” that the increasing need for financial restraint demanded by the economic crisis may actually come as a relief to some who now have an excuse for not keeping up with the Joneses or who find their families living closer.

Advocacy International's Ann Pettifor claimed: “We have turned people into consumers and they find themselves wandering down supermarket aisles lost and lonely”. A new “politics of limits” that brings us “back to basics” and a sense of fairness not felt since war rationing may help us reconnect with what’s really important once again. And living simpler lives, or at least more efficient ones, will help save the planet.

The problem is how to make this happen. Lucy Siegle, who is charged with trying to get the environmental message across everyday on the BBC’s The One Show, knows how difficult the job can be.

There is still a sense that environmental concerns are a middle class niche, she said. Although she also pointed out that 20% of people produce 80% of the country’s emissions. Presumably this is the same minority who consume the lion's share of resources, i.e. the wealthy, and so it is perhaps right that they should take the greater responsibility.

Scientists and economists must work together, Harman urgued, to "balance the economics of nature with the economics of man" as the present partnership is unmanageable.

Disaster will inevitably strike, but we need a better message than that: political kudos must be separated from materialism if the government is to make any headway.

The environment is not natural Labour territory, he went on, it could belong to any party, but as everyone at the discussion agreed it needs to be seized and made centre ground for everyone.

It is time for the government to start asking what it is they have to. More importantly, it is time they start doing it.

Read more...

The Politics of Limits

Many of the middle classes lucky enough remain secure in their jobs may actually benefit from the recession. A university lecturer told me recently he has £300 a month more disposable income after his mortgage repayments plummeted along with interest rates.

He is one example of a fortunate few whose lives may well improve as the lives of others decline. Given this new spending power, the "politics of limits" urged by Sir John Harman in the recently published Fabian pamphlet, "The Green Crunch", may not be of interest.

The environmental challenge facing this country, and the world, is an urgent one and how best to approach it is a complex issue, Harman argues. But if much ecological damage is caused by excess consumerism, addressing the problem now would seem to have the advantage of killing two birds with one stone. (Peter Mandelson’s rescue bid for the car industry has certainly taken this approach, in tone at least.).

But the environment is not on most people’s list of personal priorities and it will take a dramatic shift to put it there.

At the top, that increased disposable income may be spent on extra luxuries- a break away from all this gloom perhaps- not 'going green'. At the bottom, those battling poverty may not be able to afford the greener alternative, and with more personal struggles on their mind, may not care.

It was suggested during yesterday’s lunchtime discussion of “The Green Crunch” that the increasing need for financial restraint demanded by the economic crisis may actually come as a relief to some who now have an excuse for not keeping up with the Joneses or who find their families living closer.

Advocacy International's Ann Pettifor claimed: “We have turned people into consumers and they find themselves wandering down supermarket aisles lost and lonely”. A new “politics of limits” that brings us “back to basics” and a sense of fairness not felt since war rationing may help us reconnect with what’s really important once again. And living simpler lives, or at least more efficient ones, will help save the planet.

The problem is how to make this happen. Lucy Siegle, who is charged with trying to get the environmental message across everyday on the BBC’s The One Show, knows how difficult the job can be.

There is still a sense that environmental concerns are a middle class niche, she said. Although she also pointed out that 20% of people produce 80% of the country’s emissions. Presumably this is the same minority who consume the lion's share of resources, i.e. the wealthy, and so it is perhaps right that they should take the greater responsibility.

Scientists and economists must work together, Harman urgued, to "balance the economics of nature with the economics of man" as the present partnership is unmanageable.

Disaster will inevitably strike, but we need a better message than that: political kudos must be separated from materialism if the government is to make any headway.

The environment is not natural Labour territory, he went on, it could belong to any party, but as everyone at the discussion agreed it needs to be seized and made centre ground for everyone.

It is time for the government to start asking what it is they have to. More importantly, it is time they start doing it.

Read more...

Anger at bankers' bonuses ... at Davos

There have been one or two comments that the entertaining Dragon's Den-style final plenary session 'One Idea to Make Britain Fairer' at the Fabian conference veered too dramatically off to the left. The conference audience favoured the more radical proposals: a large increase in the state pension, and a cap on the number of privately educated pupils at Oxford and Cambridge, while I enjoyed David Lammy's spirited chairing included asking the audience if there were still any New Labour types wanting to knock down Kevin Maguire's maximum wage proposals.

While the proposals are not likely to be heading straight into an election manifesto, we are not the only ones. Indeed, there may be some danger of the left being outflanked by the Masters of the Universe, according to a fascinating Davos blog from Telegraph economics editor Edmund Conway.

As the discussion went on it became clear that for many of the delegates, “sorry” simply wasn’t enough. They wanted actual retribution, in the form of jail sentences for the executives who were responsible for the ultimate losses, and through clawbacks of bonuses awarded to the masters of the universe in the fat years.

Rather remarkably (this is the World Economic Forum - the home of billionaire capitalism, after all), comments such as these generated a large round of applause throughout the auditorium. The tide truly has turned against finance. Thus it was that, at the end of the debate, when asked for a show of hands over who would support clawbacks of bonuses, the verdict was a resounding “yes”.

That bonuses should be paid back when companies fail won majority support in our recent Fabian poll. The Davos discussion is reflecting a public mood where proposals like those made by David Coats, for a Top Pay Commission and for a tax regime which disincentivises short-term bonuses would be both effective and popular.

I was interested too to see that the Principal of Cheltenham Ladies College wrote to The Independent, responding to Ellie Levenson's column about the conference debate, to say that capping places is 'well worth consideration'. Read more...

Anger at bankers' bonuses ... at Davos

There have been one or two comments that the entertaining Dragon's Den-style final plenary session 'One Idea to Make Britain Fairer' at the Fabian conference veered too dramatically off to the left. The conference audience favoured the more radical proposals: a large increase in the state pension, and a cap on the number of privately educated pupils at Oxford and Cambridge, while I enjoyed David Lammy's spirited chairing included asking the audience if there were still any New Labour types wanting to knock down Kevin Maguire's maximum wage proposals.

While the proposals are not likely to be heading straight into an election manifesto, we are not the only ones. Indeed, there may be some danger of the left being outflanked by the Masters of the Universe, according to a fascinating Davos blog from Telegraph economics editor Edmund Conway.

As the discussion went on it became clear that for many of the delegates, “sorry” simply wasn’t enough. They wanted actual retribution, in the form of jail sentences for the executives who were responsible for the ultimate losses, and through clawbacks of bonuses awarded to the masters of the universe in the fat years.

Rather remarkably (this is the World Economic Forum - the home of billionaire capitalism, after all), comments such as these generated a large round of applause throughout the auditorium. The tide truly has turned against finance. Thus it was that, at the end of the debate, when asked for a show of hands over who would support clawbacks of bonuses, the verdict was a resounding “yes”.

That bonuses should be paid back when companies fail won majority support in our recent Fabian poll. The Davos discussion is reflecting a public mood where proposals like those made by David Coats, for a Top Pay Commission and for a tax regime which disincentivises short-term bonuses would be both effective and popular.

I was interested too to see that the Principal of Cheltenham Ladies College wrote to The Independent, responding to Ellie Levenson's column about the conference debate, to say that capping places is 'well worth consideration'. Read more...

The latest news as it happens from The Guardian

Strangely, a report covering what happened in an episode of University Challenge on Monday evening seems to have turned up as page 5 lead story in today's Guardian. Should we assume it was a very light news day? The thrust of the story seems to be that Exeter University lost to an Oxbridge college in a rather embarassing defeat.
As a University Challenge fan, who actually watched the pre-recorded show when it was broadcast on Monday, I am slightly bemused by the prominence given to this story, two days after the event.
This scoop of comments from the programme pushed back stories on government moves to restart the car industy, the cabinet being ordered to disclose records on Iraq, and a report on a major social attitudes study on the environment.
What's going over there? I think we should be told. Read more...

The latest news as it happens from The Guardian

Strangely, a report covering what happened in an episode of University Challenge on Monday evening seems to have turned up as page 5 lead story in today's Guardian. Should we assume it was a very light news day? The thrust of the story seems to be that Exeter University lost to an Oxbridge college in a rather embarassing defeat.
As a University Challenge fan, who actually watched the pre-recorded show when it was broadcast on Monday, I am slightly bemused by the prominence given to this story, two days after the event.
This scoop of comments from the programme pushed back stories on government moves to restart the car industy, the cabinet being ordered to disclose records on Iraq, and a report on a major social attitudes study on the environment.
What's going over there? I think we should be told. Read more...

Hope not hate

Hope not hate is the impressive new online campaigning home of Searchlight's bid to stop the BNP winning seats in this June's European elections.

You can sign up to the campaign at action.hopenothate.org.uk/defeatthebnp

Nick Lowles of Searchlight is running a very active campaign blog on the site.

Stopping the Far Right has also been an important theme for the Young Fabians, who produced a pamphlet on campaigning arguments and strategies last year, working with Searchlight and Amicus. Read more...

Hope not hate

Hope not hate is the impressive new online campaigning home of Searchlight's bid to stop the BNP winning seats in this June's European elections.

You can sign up to the campaign at action.hopenothate.org.uk/defeatthebnp

Nick Lowles of Searchlight is running a very active campaign blog on the site.

Stopping the Far Right has also been an important theme for the Young Fabians, who produced a pamphlet on campaigning arguments and strategies last year, working with Searchlight and Amicus. Read more...

Obama Week...to be continued

Last Tuesday Obama shuffled with a grim face in the tunnel before his inauguration, or should I say coronation. He looked nervous as hell, and I almost expected him to throw a shadow punch or head thin air in order to psyche himself up for the moment. But, once he started his speech he was word perfect as usual, with his outstanding pauses that add weight to every phrase.

Jonathan Raban’s fascinating article in the Guardian gave some insights and reflection on the mechanics of the speech. Raban believes that the speech included an unprecedented repudiation of the previous regime and all it stood for. It was a sober but brilliant speech that probably deliberately avoided the one-liners we’ve come to expect.*

The first week has carried on (unbelievably) where the speech ended. I would like to highlight two issues in particular:

The Guantanomo pledge was brave and ambitious and the fact that it was delivered after a couple of days is symbolic of Obama’s determination. I remember hearing Denis MacShane in a Fabian conference on Obama suggesting that he doubted an American President would dare do this with all its practical pit-falls, but Obama has. However, the luke-warm reaction from some countries is very disappointing. On Sunday I heard a radio interview with a leading Dutch minister in which he stated Guantanomo was America’s mess and America should sort it out. In one way he (the Dutch minister) is right, but surely at this time Europe should support Obama and encourage him in his tough internal battles, rather than under-mine him in any way. The Guantanomo problem may be made in America but it has world-wide implications, so it is in our interests that it should be solved. The response from Portugal and Switzerland is much more encouraging, and I hope Brown follows suit.

The second news story I would like to highlight is from The Guardian apparantly done very quietly by Obama, but is perhaps just as important as his public stance on Guantanomo. Not only is it important for the health of women and human rights, but it crucially shows that Obama has the guts to go against the Christian right. Hopefully, this is just the start of a rational regime which will lead to stem cell research and drop abstinence education and creationism. Doing this on the quiet may be a very clever tactical move.

Here’s hoping for more weeks like the first.


* I was particularly pleased when Obama mentioned 'non-believers' and felt this was significant. My reaction was confirmed by Raban when he stated Obama was the first American president to acknowledge us in his inauguration. Read more...

Obama Week...to be continued

Last Tuesday Obama shuffled with a grim face in the tunnel before his inauguration, or should I say coronation. He looked nervous as hell, and I almost expected him to throw a shadow punch or head thin air in order to psyche himself up for the moment. But, once he started his speech he was word perfect as usual, with his outstanding pauses that add weight to every phrase.

Jonathan Raban’s fascinating article in the Guardian gave some insights and reflection on the mechanics of the speech. Raban believes that the speech included an unprecedented repudiation of the previous regime and all it stood for. It was a sober but brilliant speech that probably deliberately avoided the one-liners we’ve come to expect.*

The first week has carried on (unbelievably) where the speech ended. I would like to highlight two issues in particular:

The Guantanomo pledge was brave and ambitious and the fact that it was delivered after a couple of days is symbolic of Obama’s determination. I remember hearing Denis MacShane in a Fabian conference on Obama suggesting that he doubted an American President would dare do this with all its practical pit-falls, but Obama has. However, the luke-warm reaction from some countries is very disappointing. On Sunday I heard a radio interview with a leading Dutch minister in which he stated Guantanomo was America’s mess and America should sort it out. In one way he (the Dutch minister) is right, but surely at this time Europe should support Obama and encourage him in his tough internal battles, rather than under-mine him in any way. The Guantanomo problem may be made in America but it has world-wide implications, so it is in our interests that it should be solved. The response from Portugal and Switzerland is much more encouraging, and I hope Brown follows suit.

The second news story I would like to highlight is from The Guardian apparantly done very quietly by Obama, but is perhaps just as important as his public stance on Guantanomo. Not only is it important for the health of women and human rights, but it crucially shows that Obama has the guts to go against the Christian right. Hopefully, this is just the start of a rational regime which will lead to stem cell research and drop abstinence education and creationism. Doing this on the quiet may be a very clever tactical move.

Here’s hoping for more weeks like the first.


* I was particularly pleased when Obama mentioned 'non-believers' and felt this was significant. My reaction was confirmed by Raban when he stated Obama was the first American president to acknowledge us in his inauguration. Read more...

The strange case of George O, the money and the fiduciary challenge

To George Osborne's launch of It's Your Money, a document with a name that sounds like a gameshow. But isn't. Apparently, says George, it's a "new plan for disciplined spending in government".
His soundbite on this subject is "We really do know it's your money". That's helpful then.
George is launching It's Your Money, a blueprint for more financial discipline in the public sector, at the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, where chief executive Michael Izza mentions he would have loved to respond to the document but unfortunately he wasn't offered a copy before George arrived.
Anyway Michael says there will be a response soon.
George's general pitch is that the public sector is too flabby and wasteful and not transparent, and things need to change.
He seemed to be suggesting, with very little irony, that the public sector should be moving to follow the private sector in its methods. And he occasionally threw in a number or an example to show why.
Oddly no one in the audience felt moved to raise the point that the private financial sector doesn't appear to be doing very well, with its methods generally or its financial transparency these days.
Financial records for government departments need to be more transparent and accessible to the public, George said. And he wanted a new code of fiscal discipline for civil service accountability, so senior civil servants had to take on a responsibility to manage the budgets in the best interest of us all.
But when asked if they would be sacked if they didn't met financial performance standards, George was less clear, he hinted that their career in the civil service might not be very "successful" in such a scenario.
When George set out the Shadow Cabinet's plans for a new career path for these more powerful, better qualified financial directors for whom there would be new pay scales, it all sounded good news for qualified accountants, some of whom might have been in the room, who might be looking to move out of a shrinking private sector.
There was a hint too that the Conservatives might be looking to set up an "independent organisation with power to dig into wasteful spending": a watchdog in all but name, something like the FSA for the public sector. Ah yes, the FSA.
Many of George's aims seemed reasonable. Of course, we all want to feel our tax pounds are not being wasted. We want them to be spent usefully, and certainly not used for pointless first class travel when a phone call would do.
And certainly government departments should be looking to manage their budgets to make them work as hard as they can.
But the oddness of these proposals was there seemed very little reference to the massive financial inconsistencies going on in the private banking sector right now.
Over-loaded salaries and gambles with people's hard-earned money is not right in either private or public sector, but no one in the public sector has a salary that has skyrocketed like those in the City.
And when times are bad, which feels like it is safer, and working for the public interest, the public sector or the private?
It is too easy for the Conservatives to knock the public sector, without considering all that we depend on the state for, especially when times are tough.
Yes, let's make sure our money is used wisely, but let's not pretend that the private sector has all the answers. Read more...

The strange case of George O, the money and the fiduciary challenge

To George Osborne's launch of It's Your Money, a document with a name that sounds like a gameshow. But isn't. Apparently, says George, it's a "new plan for disciplined spending in government".
His soundbite on this subject is "We really do know it's your money". That's helpful then.
George is launching It's Your Money, a blueprint for more financial discipline in the public sector, at the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, where chief executive Michael Izza mentions he would have loved to respond to the document but unfortunately he wasn't offered a copy before George arrived.
Anyway Michael says there will be a response soon.
George's general pitch is that the public sector is too flabby and wasteful and not transparent, and things need to change.
He seemed to be suggesting, with very little irony, that the public sector should be moving to follow the private sector in its methods. And he occasionally threw in a number or an example to show why.
Oddly no one in the audience felt moved to raise the point that the private financial sector doesn't appear to be doing very well, with its methods generally or its financial transparency these days.
Financial records for government departments need to be more transparent and accessible to the public, George said. And he wanted a new code of fiscal discipline for civil service accountability, so senior civil servants had to take on a responsibility to manage the budgets in the best interest of us all.
But when asked if they would be sacked if they didn't met financial performance standards, George was less clear, he hinted that their career in the civil service might not be very "successful" in such a scenario.
When George set out the Shadow Cabinet's plans for a new career path for these more powerful, better qualified financial directors for whom there would be new pay scales, it all sounded good news for qualified accountants, some of whom might have been in the room, who might be looking to move out of a shrinking private sector.
There was a hint too that the Conservatives might be looking to set up an "independent organisation with power to dig into wasteful spending": a watchdog in all but name, something like the FSA for the public sector. Ah yes, the FSA.
Many of George's aims seemed reasonable. Of course, we all want to feel our tax pounds are not being wasted. We want them to be spent usefully, and certainly not used for pointless first class travel when a phone call would do.
And certainly government departments should be looking to manage their budgets to make them work as hard as they can.
But the oddness of these proposals was there seemed very little reference to the massive financial inconsistencies going on in the private banking sector right now.
Over-loaded salaries and gambles with people's hard-earned money is not right in either private or public sector, but no one in the public sector has a salary that has skyrocketed like those in the City.
And when times are bad, which feels like it is safer, and working for the public interest, the public sector or the private?
It is too easy for the Conservatives to knock the public sector, without considering all that we depend on the state for, especially when times are tough.
Yes, let's make sure our money is used wisely, but let's not pretend that the private sector has all the answers. Read more...

Could Israel's supporters help to get the BBC off the hook?

The BBC management has made a daft, damaging, mistake over the DEC Gaza appeal - already achieving the very thing (bringing its impartiality into question) which they were trying to avoid, and now presenting the problem of whether and how that mistake can be reversed now that there is widespread pressure to reverse it.

Tom Harris is right both that the decision is very difficult to understand - but also that the decision must be the BBC's to make.

Sit-ins by the Stop The War coalition make it more difficult, though bafflement at the BBC decision is very widely shared among non-partisan voices, and both government and opposition have adopted a careful tone in asking the BBC to think again. But perhaps there is still one form of outside 'pressure' which could help and not hinder a reversal of policy. It would be good to hear from more voices in Britain who were among those to support the Israeli military action and who do not believe the humanitarian appeal for Gaza has any impact on impartiality.

Iain Dale and Neil D on the robustly pro-Israel Harry's Place have been among those to argue, as strong supporters of Israel, that the BBC should broadcast the DEC appeal.

As Martin Linton MP asks on LabourHome how many supporters of Labour Friends of Israel, or indeed the Israeli Embassy, would object to the humanitarian appeal being broadcast?

UPDATE: Mark Thompson says he is standing firm, but is now focusing on not showing the DEC's film, while appearing to say the news coverage about the row is reporting and giving prominence to the appeal! Why not agree with the DEC to make a short announcement which gives out the emergency number? (Even Janet Daley, among the few voices to defend the BBC, thinks that giving the number out during news bulletins is is the "obvious compromise", and that there is no barrier to it once the BBC has ditched its concerns about the delivery of aid). Read more...

Could Israel's supporters help to get the BBC off the hook?

The BBC management has made a daft, damaging, mistake over the DEC Gaza appeal - already achieving the very thing (bringing its impartiality into question) which they were trying to avoid, and now presenting the problem of whether and how that mistake can be reversed now that there is widespread pressure to reverse it.

Tom Harris is right both that the decision is very difficult to understand - but also that the decision must be the BBC's to make.

Sit-ins by the Stop The War coalition make it more difficult, though bafflement at the BBC decision is very widely shared among non-partisan voices, and both government and opposition have adopted a careful tone in asking the BBC to think again. But perhaps there is still one form of outside 'pressure' which could help and not hinder a reversal of policy. It would be good to hear from more voices in Britain who were among those to support the Israeli military action and who do not believe the humanitarian appeal for Gaza has any impact on impartiality.

Iain Dale and Neil D on the robustly pro-Israel Harry's Place have been among those to argue, as strong supporters of Israel, that the BBC should broadcast the DEC appeal.

As Martin Linton MP asks on LabourHome how many supporters of Labour Friends of Israel, or indeed the Israeli Embassy, would object to the humanitarian appeal being broadcast?

UPDATE: Mark Thompson says he is standing firm, but is now focusing on not showing the DEC's film, while appearing to say the news coverage about the row is reporting and giving prominence to the appeal! Why not agree with the DEC to make a short announcement which gives out the emergency number? (Even Janet Daley, among the few voices to defend the BBC, thinks that giving the number out during news bulletins is is the "obvious compromise", and that there is no barrier to it once the BBC has ditched its concerns about the delivery of aid). Read more...

(Not) informing the drugs debate

Today Programme. 7.10am slot. The Deputy Chair of the Magistrates Association is on, a John Fasselfelt is on.

The Association has fully welcomed - indeed, vocally campaigned for - the government's decision to upgrade cannabis to a plan B drug, which comes into effect today. But their complaint today is about the sentencing guidelines which come with this. They aren't as serious for possession as for other class B drugs. Less cases will get into a court setting, he complains, and that's unfair. What if you were caught with cannabis and I had some other class B drug, he asks James Naughtie.

Who reasonably asks what, for information, are those other Class B drugs which he is sure cannabis must be treated identically.

"You've got me there". He hasn't got the foggiest. Not a clue. "I'm not a big user of Class B drugs", he says. (No, just an expert advocate on what drugs should and should not be in that class).

Well done.

Here they are.

The lesson: perhaps the government might listen a little more to its scientific advisors (whose advice was ignored in this case), and a little less to the chuntering magistrates.

Postscript: Must be a bad day for it. The following interview sees somebody from the UN Relief Agency give an astonishingly poor case for emergency relief to Gaza, placing the focus squarely on the funding mandates and shortfall in the agency budget. Read more...

(Not) informing the drugs debate

Today Programme. 7.10am slot. The Deputy Chair of the Magistrates Association is on, a John Fasselfelt is on.

The Association has fully welcomed - indeed, vocally campaigned for - the government's decision to upgrade cannabis to a plan B drug, which comes into effect today. But their complaint today is about the sentencing guidelines which come with this. They aren't as serious for possession as for other class B drugs. Less cases will get into a court setting, he complains, and that's unfair. What if you were caught with cannabis and I had some other class B drug, he asks James Naughtie.

Who reasonably asks what, for information, are those other Class B drugs which he is sure cannabis must be treated identically.

"You've got me there". He hasn't got the foggiest. Not a clue. "I'm not a big user of Class B drugs", he says. (No, just an expert advocate on what drugs should and should not be in that class).

Well done.

Here they are.

The lesson: perhaps the government might listen a little more to its scientific advisors (whose advice was ignored in this case), and a little less to the chuntering magistrates.

Postscript: Must be a bad day for it. The following interview sees somebody from the UN Relief Agency give an astonishingly poor case for emergency relief to Gaza, placing the focus squarely on the funding mandates and shortfall in the agency budget. Read more...

A tale of two Sunday scoops

Part of the point of Sunday newspapers is that they have all week to dig up stories that the daily newspapers and 24/7 news cycle might miss.

Yet the very best that the Mail on Sunday could do this week - judging by what the editor chose for his front-page splash - was a "Treasury Knees Up" which amounts to Treasury staff paid for a £30 a head Burns night dinner, with no free bar, which seems to have gone on as late as 11pm on a Friday night.

The report veers confusingly between various possible targets for outrage. The cavalier offensiveness at uncaring Treasury staff socialising during a recession depends, perhaps paradoxically, on their lack of consideration for public-spirited colleagues burning the midnight oil into the weekend. Attempts to convery the lavish appearance of people dressing up in kilts for an evening dinner collapse into mocking the parsinomy of the raffle prizes. What was Darling thinking of - or was he not thinking anything about it, not being there? In the end, we are left with a taxi driver ranting at the annoyance of a Scottish-themed event in London (as if Scotland were part of the United Kingdom or something).

If The Mail on Sunday wants to feel green-eyed about something, perhaps it should be the ability of the Sunday Times to carry out some actual investigative reporting, in its report and investigation into members of the House of Lords willing to boast about their ability to influence and amend policy and legislation.

With the obvious caveat that I know nothing about the individual cases beyond what is reported in the Sunday Times (and you can read the detail here), Baroness Royall is right to express "deep concern" and to promise to pursue the allegations "with the utmost vigour".

Such investigations into any form of lobbying can often contain more than a hint of the 'mark' exaggerating the influence they would exercise. The rules are rightly very clear that peers "must never accept any financial inducements as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence" and of course the reputation of Parliament depends on the spirit as well as the letter of this being seen to be observed.

That the distinction between Parlimenatary and non-Parliamentary business is flawed and open to abuse also seems clear. A more thorough overhaul of the regulation of outside interests - in both Houses - remains overdue. Read more...

A tale of two Sunday scoops

Part of the point of Sunday newspapers is that they have all week to dig up stories that the daily newspapers and 24/7 news cycle might miss.

Yet the very best that the Mail on Sunday could do this week - judging by what the editor chose for his front-page splash - was a "Treasury Knees Up" which amounts to Treasury staff paid for a £30 a head Burns night dinner, with no free bar, which seems to have gone on as late as 11pm on a Friday night.

The report veers confusingly between various possible targets for outrage. The cavalier offensiveness at uncaring Treasury staff socialising during a recession depends, perhaps paradoxically, on their lack of consideration for public-spirited colleagues burning the midnight oil into the weekend. Attempts to convery the lavish appearance of people dressing up in kilts for an evening dinner collapse into mocking the parsinomy of the raffle prizes. What was Darling thinking of - or was he not thinking anything about it, not being there? In the end, we are left with a taxi driver ranting at the annoyance of a Scottish-themed event in London (as if Scotland were part of the United Kingdom or something).

If The Mail on Sunday wants to feel green-eyed about something, perhaps it should be the ability of the Sunday Times to carry out some actual investigative reporting, in its report and investigation into members of the House of Lords willing to boast about their ability to influence and amend policy and legislation.

With the obvious caveat that I know nothing about the individual cases beyond what is reported in the Sunday Times (and you can read the detail here), Baroness Royall is right to express "deep concern" and to promise to pursue the allegations "with the utmost vigour".

Such investigations into any form of lobbying can often contain more than a hint of the 'mark' exaggerating the influence they would exercise. The rules are rightly very clear that peers "must never accept any financial inducements as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence" and of course the reputation of Parliament depends on the spirit as well as the letter of this being seen to be observed.

That the distinction between Parlimenatary and non-Parliamentary business is flawed and open to abuse also seems clear. A more thorough overhaul of the regulation of outside interests - in both Houses - remains overdue. Read more...

The BBC's Gaza confusion: stop digging

The Disasters Emergency Committee has launched a Gaza crisis appeal focused on providing food, fresh water, emergency healthcare and securing electricity supplies to deal with a "completely overwhelming" humanitarian crisis. You can donate online here.

Brendan Gormley, head of the DEC appeal has said:

"DEC agencies have a humanitarian mandate. We are not proposing to attempt to rebuild Gaza – that is not our role. But with the public’s support we can help relieve short-term needs. Agencies are already providing food, drugs and blankets as well as delivering clean water ... We work on the basis of humanitarian need and there is an urgent need in Gaza today. Political solutions are for others to resolve, but what is of major concern to us all is that many innocent people have been affected by the situation – and it is them that we seek to help.”

Very few would doubt that this is a legitimate and necessary way for this coalition of the UK's major aid agencies to fulfil their remit.

Let us hope that the unfortunate row over the BBC's refusal to air a televised appeal from the DEC has had the effect of increasing its profile and donations.

From the point of view of its stated desire to protect its impartiality, it is obvious to almost all outside the BBC (and probably, by now, to many within it) that the BBC's decision has been an avoidable mistake in three ways.

Firstly, it appears to be a clear break in this case with the established practice of the BBC when it comes to Disasters Emergency Committee appeals. The Guardian editorial notes the example of the Vietnam war where there was a much greater level of politicised, public controversy than, for example, recent appeals such as Darfur which have also been cited.

Secondly, it follows that the danger of the BBC "undermining public confidence in the BBC's impartiality" lay in refusing to broadcast the humanitarian appeal. Caroline Thompson further confused the position by placing a good deal of emphasis on the BBC's worries about whether aid would get through; something on which the BBC can bring no expertise beyond that of the Disasters Emergency Committtee. As the Archbishop of York puts it: "This situation is akin to that of British military hospitals who treat prisoners of war as a result of their duty under the Geneva convention. They do so because they identify need rather than cause. This is not an appeal by Hamas asking for arms but by the Disasters Emergency Committee asking for relief. By declining their request, the BBC has already taken sides and forsaken impartiality".

Thirdly, it is inevitable that such a novel decision would generate media, civic society, political and public discussion. If the BBC now backs down (as it should), it is rather more likely to be accused of bending to political pressure than it would have been had it simply broadcast the appeal in a routine way. And, if it does not back down, it will be accused of stubbornly sticking to a decision which has dragged it into politics and so undermines viewers' confidence.

BBC Trust Chairman Michael Lyons is concerned that the level and tone "coming close to constituting undue interference in the editorial independence of the BBC". Yet the tone of comments by Development Secretary Douglas Alexander and his Tory shadow Andrew Mitchell have been clear in requesting a rethink, yet careful to emphasise that it is the BBC's decision to make.

I strongly support the BBC's impartiality, but of course that can not entail immunity to its decisions being discussed and scrutinised within civil society. The DEC decision reflects the consensus of the thirteen major charities. ITV, Channel Four and Five will all show the appeal. Few if any of the newspaper editorials understand the BBC's logic, which The Observer calls "absurd".

There are non-partisan voices in this crisis. I have yet to hear from any who believe the BBC's decision makes sense.

Unfortunately, whatever happens now, the BBC will have quite unnecessarily brought its own impartiality into question in a way that showing the appeal in the first place would never have done. This management decision does show an unfortunate jumpiness and unnecessary lack of confidence in the BBC's news journalism.

The answer must be to stop digging, and find a means for the BBC to revisit the merits of the case. Perhaps then the BBC can find out, for itself, that it ought to broadcast a legitimate humanitarian crisis appeal just as it has done in the past. Read more...

The BBC's Gaza confusion: stop digging

The Disasters Emergency Committee has launched a Gaza crisis appeal focused on providing food, fresh water, emergency healthcare and securing electricity supplies to deal with a "completely overwhelming" humanitarian crisis. You can donate online here.

Brendan Gormley, head of the DEC appeal has said:

"DEC agencies have a humanitarian mandate. We are not proposing to attempt to rebuild Gaza – that is not our role. But with the public’s support we can help relieve short-term needs. Agencies are already providing food, drugs and blankets as well as delivering clean water ... We work on the basis of humanitarian need and there is an urgent need in Gaza today. Political solutions are for others to resolve, but what is of major concern to us all is that many innocent people have been affected by the situation – and it is them that we seek to help.”

Very few would doubt that this is a legitimate and necessary way for this coalition of the UK's major aid agencies to fulfil their remit.

Let us hope that the unfortunate row over the BBC's refusal to air a televised appeal from the DEC has had the effect of increasing its profile and donations.

From the point of view of its stated desire to protect its impartiality, it is obvious to almost all outside the BBC (and probably, by now, to many within it) that the BBC's decision has been an avoidable mistake in three ways.

Firstly, it appears to be a clear break in this case with the established practice of the BBC when it comes to Disasters Emergency Committee appeals. The Guardian editorial notes the example of the Vietnam war where there was a much greater level of politicised, public controversy than, for example, recent appeals such as Darfur which have also been cited.

Secondly, it follows that the danger of the BBC "undermining public confidence in the BBC's impartiality" lay in refusing to broadcast the humanitarian appeal. Caroline Thompson further confused the position by placing a good deal of emphasis on the BBC's worries about whether aid would get through; something on which the BBC can bring no expertise beyond that of the Disasters Emergency Committtee. As the Archbishop of York puts it: "This situation is akin to that of British military hospitals who treat prisoners of war as a result of their duty under the Geneva convention. They do so because they identify need rather than cause. This is not an appeal by Hamas asking for arms but by the Disasters Emergency Committee asking for relief. By declining their request, the BBC has already taken sides and forsaken impartiality".

Thirdly, it is inevitable that such a novel decision would generate media, civic society, political and public discussion. If the BBC now backs down (as it should), it is rather more likely to be accused of bending to political pressure than it would have been had it simply broadcast the appeal in a routine way. And, if it does not back down, it will be accused of stubbornly sticking to a decision which has dragged it into politics and so undermines viewers' confidence.

BBC Trust Chairman Michael Lyons is concerned that the level and tone "coming close to constituting undue interference in the editorial independence of the BBC". Yet the tone of comments by Development Secretary Douglas Alexander and his Tory shadow Andrew Mitchell have been clear in requesting a rethink, yet careful to emphasise that it is the BBC's decision to make.

I strongly support the BBC's impartiality, but of course that can not entail immunity to its decisions being discussed and scrutinised within civil society. The DEC decision reflects the consensus of the thirteen major charities. ITV, Channel Four and Five will all show the appeal. Few if any of the newspaper editorials understand the BBC's logic, which The Observer calls "absurd".

There are non-partisan voices in this crisis. I have yet to hear from any who believe the BBC's decision makes sense.

Unfortunately, whatever happens now, the BBC will have quite unnecessarily brought its own impartiality into question in a way that showing the appeal in the first place would never have done. This management decision does show an unfortunate jumpiness and unnecessary lack of confidence in the BBC's news journalism.

The answer must be to stop digging, and find a means for the BBC to revisit the merits of the case. Perhaps then the BBC can find out, for itself, that it ought to broadcast a legitimate humanitarian crisis appeal just as it has done in the past. Read more...

Obama's speech: a beautiful statement of the republican ideal

What does Barack Obama's Inauguration speech tell us about his public philosophy as President? Does it, as some have argued, represent a repudiation of 'ideology'?

During his run for the Democratic nomination, my colleague Karma Nabulsi wrote in The Guardian of the way Obama's campaign fitted into a 'rich republican tradition' of thinking about - and practising - citizenship. Obama's Inauguration speech suggests that his philosophy of government will follow on directly from the republican approach that Karma rightly saw at work in his campaign.

This is clear from the very first line where he chooses to address his audience as 'My fellow citizens', rather than, say, 'My fellow Americans'. It is an immediate reminder that the Inauguration is an event in the life of a republic, where individual members of the state are not just individuals with a particular national identity, but participants in a particular kind of political project, with all the rights and responsibilities - the moral import - that this implies.

So what is this political project, this project of 'the republic'?

(1) Democracy is the rule of 'we the people', not of individual leaders. First, Obama reminds his fellow citizens that their state, as a democracy, is fundamentally based on popular sovereignty. The ultimate law-makers, the ultimate bearers of responsibility for the laws and welfare of the society, are not political leaders, but the people themselves. Thus, he says:

'...America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.'

(2) Democracy, rightly understood, is about ideals, not raw majority will. In this same passage, Obama also identifies himself with the view that democracy is not simply a matter of letting majorities do what they want. It is about the people governing themselves in accordance with appropriate moral ideals. There is an echo here of Jean-Jacques Rousseau who argued in The Social Contract that legitimate authority not only rests on popular sovereignty but on the people exercising that sovereignty so as to satisfy appropriate moral ideals.

What are these ideals?

(3) The core regulative ideals of democracy are the equality and freedom of individual citizens. Rousseau argues that: 'If we seek to define precisely the greatest good of all, the necessary goal of every system of legislation, we shall find that the main objectives are limited to two only: liberty and equality...' This idea passed into the US political tradition and Obama explicitly restates the idea:

'The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit...that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.'

(4) Liberty means no arbitrary state power. The republican tradition emphasises that individual liberty depends on denying the state arbitrary power. It rests on the rule of law. Obama clearly restates this republican idea when he says (with a nod to Benjamin Franklin):

'...we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to ensure the rule of law and the rights of man....Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.'

(5) Equality means not just legal equality, but a degree of economic equality. Rousseau argues that citizen equality implies some degree of economic equality: 'Under a bad government,' Rousseau says, '[citizen] equality is only apparent and illusory: it serves to keep the poor wretched and preserve the usurpations of the rich.' By contrast, a good government will work on the principle that 'the social state is advantageous to men only if all have a certain amount, and none too much.'

In line with this latter comment of Rousseau's, we find Obama saying:

'...a nation cannot prosper long when it favours only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.'

(6) The achievement of democracy's ideals depends on citizens taking active responsibility for their achievement. The republican tradition is one that emphasises the importance of active and responsible citizenship. To be a citizen is not simply to enjoy a legal status. It is to have a definite moral personality. It is to have an understanding of the society's common good, and a willingness to act to promote this. Without such commitment, then, as Rousseau argued, the republic is corrupted, a prey to elite interests. This idea permeates Obama's whole speech and it is stated very clearly when he says:

'What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.'

And then comes the sentence which sums it all up:

'This is the price and the promise of citizenship.'

Of course, Obama is a 'pragmatist'. But he is a pragmatist with a profound understanding of, and commitment to, the American political tradition and its republican underpinnings.

His Inauguration speech falls into a classic genre of republican rhetoric: the call to turn from bad, fallen ways, and make the republic a reality again. My fellow citizens, Obama says, we have fallen, corrupted, from our animating ideals; let us pick ourselves up, fight the special interests and the forces of self-interest in ourselves, and make the republic a truth again - or rather, given our history of slavery and segregation, let us make the republic a truth for the very first time.

Postscript: For a really interesting discussion of Barack Obama's Inauguration speech, I recommend the segment on bloggingheads tv by Joshua Cohen and Glenn Loury. Read more...

Obama's speech: a beautiful statement of the republican ideal

What does Barack Obama's Inauguration speech tell us about his public philosophy as President? Does it, as some have argued, represent a repudiation of 'ideology'?

During his run for the Democratic nomination, my colleague Karma Nabulsi wrote in The Guardian of the way Obama's campaign fitted into a 'rich republican tradition' of thinking about - and practising - citizenship. Obama's Inauguration speech suggests that his philosophy of government will follow on directly from the republican approach that Karma rightly saw at work in his campaign.

This is clear from the very first line where he chooses to address his audience as 'My fellow citizens', rather than, say, 'My fellow Americans'. It is an immediate reminder that the Inauguration is an event in the life of a republic, where individual members of the state are not just individuals with a particular national identity, but participants in a particular kind of political project, with all the rights and responsibilities - the moral import - that this implies.

So what is this political project, this project of 'the republic'?

(1) Democracy is the rule of 'we the people', not of individual leaders. First, Obama reminds his fellow citizens that their state, as a democracy, is fundamentally based on popular sovereignty. The ultimate law-makers, the ultimate bearers of responsibility for the laws and welfare of the society, are not political leaders, but the people themselves. Thus, he says:

'...America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.'

(2) Democracy, rightly understood, is about ideals, not raw majority will. In this same passage, Obama also identifies himself with the view that democracy is not simply a matter of letting majorities do what they want. It is about the people governing themselves in accordance with appropriate moral ideals. There is an echo here of Jean-Jacques Rousseau who argued in The Social Contract that legitimate authority not only rests on popular sovereignty but on the people exercising that sovereignty so as to satisfy appropriate moral ideals.

What are these ideals?

(3) The core regulative ideals of democracy are the equality and freedom of individual citizens. Rousseau argues that: 'If we seek to define precisely the greatest good of all, the necessary goal of every system of legislation, we shall find that the main objectives are limited to two only: liberty and equality...' This idea passed into the US political tradition and Obama explicitly restates the idea:

'The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit...that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.'

(4) Liberty means no arbitrary state power. The republican tradition emphasises that individual liberty depends on denying the state arbitrary power. It rests on the rule of law. Obama clearly restates this republican idea when he says (with a nod to Benjamin Franklin):

'...we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to ensure the rule of law and the rights of man....Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.'

(5) Equality means not just legal equality, but a degree of economic equality. Rousseau argues that citizen equality implies some degree of economic equality: 'Under a bad government,' Rousseau says, '[citizen] equality is only apparent and illusory: it serves to keep the poor wretched and preserve the usurpations of the rich.' By contrast, a good government will work on the principle that 'the social state is advantageous to men only if all have a certain amount, and none too much.'

In line with this latter comment of Rousseau's, we find Obama saying:

'...a nation cannot prosper long when it favours only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.'

(6) The achievement of democracy's ideals depends on citizens taking active responsibility for their achievement. The republican tradition is one that emphasises the importance of active and responsible citizenship. To be a citizen is not simply to enjoy a legal status. It is to have a definite moral personality. It is to have an understanding of the society's common good, and a willingness to act to promote this. Without such commitment, then, as Rousseau argued, the republic is corrupted, a prey to elite interests. This idea permeates Obama's whole speech and it is stated very clearly when he says:

'What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.'

And then comes the sentence which sums it all up:

'This is the price and the promise of citizenship.'

Of course, Obama is a 'pragmatist'. But he is a pragmatist with a profound understanding of, and commitment to, the American political tradition and its republican underpinnings.

His Inauguration speech falls into a classic genre of republican rhetoric: the call to turn from bad, fallen ways, and make the republic a reality again. My fellow citizens, Obama says, we have fallen, corrupted, from our animating ideals; let us pick ourselves up, fight the special interests and the forces of self-interest in ourselves, and make the republic a truth again - or rather, given our history of slavery and segregation, let us make the republic a truth for the very first time.

Postscript: For a really interesting discussion of Barack Obama's Inauguration speech, I recommend the segment on bloggingheads tv by Joshua Cohen and Glenn Loury. Read more...