Why we wuz robbed at Wembley

What to do if offered a ticket for your team's first FA Cup final for fourteen years while on paternity leave is one of those existential dilemmas for which there is no correct answer. So I can't offer any particular rationalisation of how I found myself escaping for a few hours to be at Wembley on Saturday. It was a great day out, with a disappointing result for Evertonians.

The Sunday papers agreed that this was one of the better Cup finals of recent years and all noted just how much Everton's fans brought to the occasion - outsinging Chelsea even in the minute after the final whistle blew- but the team could not hold on to their first minute lead, and Chelsea were clearly the stronger side after going 2-1 ahead.

That Everton were universally billed as plucky underdogs and unlikely finalists, despite having finished 5th in the league for the second season in a row, offered a striking illustration of the stratification into a new caste system. The bookies (sensibly) offered odds of 2:1 on Cup final morning against the Cup going to Merseyside.

You can see why when Chelsea's victory means that the 'big four' end up winning 19 of the 20 League titles and FA Cups this decade, denied a clean sweep only by Portsmouth's FA Cup victory in 2008. Five clubs have won the major domestic trophies in this decade - the most predictable and least broadly contested in English football history - yet twelve clubs shared those 20 trophies in the 1970s, when there were six league champions and nine different FA Cup winners.

The Fabian Society's research into football's collapsed social mobility also showed how the pool of FA Cup winners has narrowed. The Cup winners have, on average, finished third in the league in this last decade, compared to 11th in the 1970s and 8th in the 1980s. (The first final I remember - and among the greatest ever - was in 1981 between Spurs and Man City sides who had finished 10th and 12th in the league).

The Times had an interesting factoid yesterday morning: that 11 of the last 13 finals have been won by the team finishing higher in the league. Tellingly, the only exceptions were the victories of Chelsea (2nd) over Manchester United in 2007, and Liverpool (3rd) over Arsenal (2nd) in 2001.

This may explain why great Cup finals are now so few and far between: those finals with the potential to emulate historic upsets having too often turned into mismatches. Indeed, there has been only one classic in the Premiership years: the West Ham-Liverpool game in 2006. By contrast, in the previous two decades, the Cup finals of 1973, 1976, 1979, 1981, 1983, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1991 were among those which could all stake reasonable claims to the all-time classics list.

The issue of predictability and stratification is increasingly dominant in the sports pages. Both Mark Reason in The Sunday Telegraph and Rod Liddle in the Sunday Times wrote about predictability killing the Cup on Sunday.

As Reason wrote:

OK, so occasionally miracles do happen. Last year, Portsmouth beat Cardiff City in the final. But that was a freak of nature – 17 of the previous 19 Cup finals have been won by Chelsea, Manchester United, Arsenal or Liverpool. Predictability kills nostalgia.
Who can really, truly remember much about those past 19 finals? ... If Saha's goal had proved the winner, if apples were oranges we might still have a smidgeon of faith. But a lot of us are now atheists as far as the FA Cup is concerned.

I was among those (mildly) offended by ITV's marketing of a "week of finals" to cross-promote the European Cup and FA Cup finals with the grand final of Britain's Got Talent.

Sacrilege.

Yet unlike the Wembley showpiece, the talent show did provide the kind of last minute giant-killing shock for which the FA Cup was once famous. Read more...

Why we wuz robbed at Wembley

What to do if offered a ticket for your team's first FA Cup final for fourteen years while on paternity leave is one of those existential dilemmas for which there is no correct answer. So I can't offer any particular rationalisation of how I found myself escaping for a few hours to be at Wembley on Saturday. It was a great day out, with a disappointing result for Evertonians.

The Sunday papers agreed that this was one of the better Cup finals of recent years and all noted just how much Everton's fans brought to the occasion - outsinging Chelsea even in the minute after the final whistle blew- but the team could not hold on to their first minute lead, and Chelsea were clearly the stronger side after going 2-1 ahead.

That Everton were universally billed as plucky underdogs and unlikely finalists, despite having finished 5th in the league for the second season in a row, offered a striking illustration of the stratification into a new caste system. The bookies (sensibly) offered odds of 2:1 on Cup final morning against the Cup going to Merseyside.

You can see why when Chelsea's victory means that the 'big four' end up winning 19 of the 20 League titles and FA Cups this decade, denied a clean sweep only by Portsmouth's FA Cup victory in 2008. Five clubs have won the major domestic trophies in this decade - the most predictable and least broadly contested in English football history - yet twelve clubs shared those 20 trophies in the 1970s, when there were six league champions and nine different FA Cup winners.

The Fabian Society's research into football's collapsed social mobility also showed how the pool of FA Cup winners has narrowed. The Cup winners have, on average, finished third in the league in this last decade, compared to 11th in the 1970s and 8th in the 1980s. (The first final I remember - and among the greatest ever - was in 1981 between Spurs and Man City sides who had finished 10th and 12th in the league).

The Times had an interesting factoid yesterday morning: that 11 of the last 13 finals have been won by the team finishing higher in the league. Tellingly, the only exceptions were the victories of Chelsea (2nd) over Manchester United in 2007, and Liverpool (3rd) over Arsenal (2nd) in 2001.

This may explain why great Cup finals are now so few and far between: those finals with the potential to emulate historic upsets having too often turned into mismatches. Indeed, there has been only one classic in the Premiership years: the West Ham-Liverpool game in 2006. By contrast, in the previous two decades, the Cup finals of 1973, 1976, 1979, 1981, 1983, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1991 were among those which could all stake reasonable claims to the all-time classics list.

The issue of predictability and stratification is increasingly dominant in the sports pages. Both Mark Reason in The Sunday Telegraph and Rod Liddle in the Sunday Times wrote about predictability killing the Cup on Sunday.

As Reason wrote:

OK, so occasionally miracles do happen. Last year, Portsmouth beat Cardiff City in the final. But that was a freak of nature – 17 of the previous 19 Cup finals have been won by Chelsea, Manchester United, Arsenal or Liverpool. Predictability kills nostalgia.
Who can really, truly remember much about those past 19 finals? ... If Saha's goal had proved the winner, if apples were oranges we might still have a smidgeon of faith. But a lot of us are now atheists as far as the FA Cup is concerned.

I was among those (mildly) offended by ITV's marketing of a "week of finals" to cross-promote the European Cup and FA Cup finals with the grand final of Britain's Got Talent.

Sacrilege.

Yet unlike the Wembley showpiece, the talent show did provide the kind of last minute giant-killing shock for which the FA Cup was once famous. Read more...

MP couldn't see wood for the trees

It can hard for Westminster villagers to admit that political pressure is local as well as national and global. But MPs who fail to acknowledge the role of their local paper in tuning into neighbourhood affairs can find they have less chance of making friends and influencing people.

In these days of a 24-hour news drip via Sky, the internet and digital signals that allow you to tune into Australian outback radio (should you so desire), the generally held view is the local newspapers are doomed, doomed, Mr Mainwaring.

Sales have been falling for years, and this year, under the guise of responding to the recession, local newspaper bosses have decided to make public those swingeing cuts they were planning away - but scything through the ranks of reporting staff; leaving those left with the less than edifying role of never getting out of the office, sitting around rewriting PA copy, and turning around a press release.

But the MPs expenses news riot has shown just how influential local newspapers can be in tapping into local concerns, matching them with an expenses story and then exerting pressure.

For some months the Eastern Daily Press has been following the constituency work of South Norfolk MP Christopher Fraser and his willingness to talk to the local media and appear at constituency events with a rather critical eye.

The former MP for Mid Dorset and North Poole -- with a family farm in Dorset - was picked as Tory candidate for the Norfolk seat over many local opponents, but the paper has felt his commitment to the constituency has been less than obvious, and has taken to publishing statements about his unavailablity to comment with increasing fury.

Not as mundane as you might imagine. Yesterday's "not available to comment" was found rather bizarrely in bold in a picture caption under a large photo of said MP.

Hours later the MP - who had claimed on expenses for cherry trees to be planted around his Norfolk home to add  a somewhat unusual security cordon - had decided to stand down. 

Were the two matters related? The support of his local paper might have made a huge difference in whether Fraser continued to battle on. 

In the same issue of the EDP, Norwich MP Ian Gibson, who has strong local credentials and a reputation for working hard in the constituency, was being defended by North Norfolk LibDem Norman Lamb. While not condoning Gibson's decision to sell his London flat, formerly claimed for on his second home allowance, to his daughter at less than the market rate, Lamb felt Gibson was being dealt with too harshly by the Labour star chamber.

Lamb's comments were given a good show, next to the story of Fraser, the cherry trees and the no comment.

Is there an argument here that local papers who know the ins and outs of the lives and work of their local MPs have chosen this moment to out some of the long-running issues and complaints and add fuel to the fire? Perhaps.

Whether this will in any sense save local newspapers reporting staff from the impending axe is less clear.

Read more...

MP couldn't see wood for the trees

It can hard for Westminster villagers to admit that political pressure is local as well as national and global. But MPs who fail to acknowledge the role of their local paper in tuning into neighbourhood affairs can find they have less chance of making friends and influencing people.

In these days of a 24-hour news drip via Sky, the internet and digital signals that allow you to tune into Australian outback radio (should you so desire), the generally held view is the local newspapers are doomed, doomed, Mr Mainwaring.

Sales have been falling for years, and this year, under the guise of responding to the recession, local newspaper bosses have decided to make public those swingeing cuts they were planning away - but scything through the ranks of reporting staff; leaving those left with the less than edifying role of never getting out of the office, sitting around rewriting PA copy, and turning around a press release.

But the MPs expenses news riot has shown just how influential local newspapers can be in tapping into local concerns, matching them with an expenses story and then exerting pressure.

For some months the Eastern Daily Press has been following the constituency work of South Norfolk MP Christopher Fraser and his willingness to talk to the local media and appear at constituency events with a rather critical eye.

The former MP for Mid Dorset and North Poole -- with a family farm in Dorset - was picked as Tory candidate for the Norfolk seat over many local opponents, but the paper has felt his commitment to the constituency has been less than obvious, and has taken to publishing statements about his unavailablity to comment with increasing fury.

Not as mundane as you might imagine. Yesterday's "not available to comment" was found rather bizarrely in bold in a picture caption under a large photo of said MP.

Hours later the MP - who had claimed on expenses for cherry trees to be planted around his Norfolk home to add  a somewhat unusual security cordon - had decided to stand down. 

Were the two matters related? The support of his local paper might have made a huge difference in whether Fraser continued to battle on. 

In the same issue of the EDP, Norwich MP Ian Gibson, who has strong local credentials and a reputation for working hard in the constituency, was being defended by North Norfolk LibDem Norman Lamb. While not condoning Gibson's decision to sell his London flat, formerly claimed for on his second home allowance, to his daughter at less than the market rate, Lamb felt Gibson was being dealt with too harshly by the Labour star chamber.

Lamb's comments were given a good show, next to the story of Fraser, the cherry trees and the no comment.

Is there an argument here that local papers who know the ins and outs of the lives and work of their local MPs have chosen this moment to out some of the long-running issues and complaints and add fuel to the fire? Perhaps.

Whether this will in any sense save local newspapers reporting staff from the impending axe is less clear.

Read more...

52 Lords not leaping

Martin Kettle has a curious little scoopette in this commentary piece which has also sees the Guardian columnist in unusual territory co-bylining a news report with Nicholas Watt.

{Update: the news report is in fact the front-page splash on Friday's Guardian}

In the clearest indication to date that increasing numbers of Labour figures believe the party is heading for a heavy defeat at the hands of David Cameron, the Guardian has learned that at least 52 MPs have formally approached Downing Street to be given places in the upper house.

The MPs include current chairs of select committees as well as past and serving middle and junior ranking ministers, according to Labour sources. They account for a seventh of those elected at the last election

The information is as curiously precise as it is lightly sourced. It has clearly not been generated by a ring-round of the backbenchers, to see how many will want to let The Guardian know about that.

It would seem that it could only come from somebody who is keeping a list of such requests - perhaps in Downing Street itself, or perhaps from somebody in the Whips Office who might have the ear of the premier.

It could be true. Or it could be black arts and misinformation. But whether true or false, what is entirely baffling is what the motive behind revealing it. The likely spin would be Labour MPs fear defeat and looking to bottle out.

Perhaps it can be read as reminding the backbenchers where the power of patronage lies - in the event that anybody is considering contributing to a headless chicken act on June 4th. (But perhaps not. As a threat, it depends on retaining the power of patronage, which could not provide inoculation in the actual event of a coup. Nor does that theory quite fit with the warning in the report that the desires for Ermine are unlikely to be met by the PM).

Another Labour figure said the keen interest in the Lords shown by the party's MPs highlighted how disconnected senior figures are from the prime minister.

"They should look at how many peers Gordon has created – he is no fan of the upper house," one former minister said.

Moreover, the recipient of the scoop is very much not a fan of the PM.

Curiouser and curiouser.

I admit I am baffled.

But the best way to prove that it is nonsense would be to include a swift move to an elected second chamber in the government's plans for restoring trust to politics.

(PS: Tom Harris has already posted on this, and is also sceptical, noting there he is not aware of any way to "formally apply" for the Lords. Unless its on a need-to-know basis and Tom has missed his Ermine fitting). Read more...

52 Lords not leaping

Martin Kettle has a curious little scoopette in this commentary piece which has also sees the Guardian columnist in unusual territory co-bylining a news report with Nicholas Watt.

{Update: the news report is in fact the front-page splash on Friday's Guardian}

In the clearest indication to date that increasing numbers of Labour figures believe the party is heading for a heavy defeat at the hands of David Cameron, the Guardian has learned that at least 52 MPs have formally approached Downing Street to be given places in the upper house.

The MPs include current chairs of select committees as well as past and serving middle and junior ranking ministers, according to Labour sources. They account for a seventh of those elected at the last election

The information is as curiously precise as it is lightly sourced. It has clearly not been generated by a ring-round of the backbenchers, to see how many will want to let The Guardian know about that.

It would seem that it could only come from somebody who is keeping a list of such requests - perhaps in Downing Street itself, or perhaps from somebody in the Whips Office who might have the ear of the premier.

It could be true. Or it could be black arts and misinformation. But whether true or false, what is entirely baffling is what the motive behind revealing it. The likely spin would be Labour MPs fear defeat and looking to bottle out.

Perhaps it can be read as reminding the backbenchers where the power of patronage lies - in the event that anybody is considering contributing to a headless chicken act on June 4th. (But perhaps not. As a threat, it depends on retaining the power of patronage, which could not provide inoculation in the actual event of a coup. Nor does that theory quite fit with the warning in the report that the desires for Ermine are unlikely to be met by the PM).

Another Labour figure said the keen interest in the Lords shown by the party's MPs highlighted how disconnected senior figures are from the prime minister.

"They should look at how many peers Gordon has created – he is no fan of the upper house," one former minister said.

Moreover, the recipient of the scoop is very much not a fan of the PM.

Curiouser and curiouser.

I admit I am baffled.

But the best way to prove that it is nonsense would be to include a swift move to an elected second chamber in the government's plans for restoring trust to politics.

(PS: Tom Harris has already posted on this, and is also sceptical, noting there he is not aware of any way to "formally apply" for the Lords. Unless its on a need-to-know basis and Tom has missed his Ermine fitting). Read more...

Is Cameron having a Laffer?

While the MP expenses scandal is outrageous, it’s dominating the news cycle to an extent that isn’t really healthy.

No-one denies the expenses system needs a complete overhaul. People are rightly angry with the liberties our elected representatives have taken, and the fact that some of them are still apparently living in the 15th century (claiming for moats and, um, quarters for one’s servants).

Cameron’s proposed Parliamentary reforms - as Nick Clegg, Simon Jenkins and Sunder Katwala argue - add up to, well, nowt much really. Putting political debates on YouTube and having text alerts for legislative bills is all very well, but does not a reformed Parliament make.

No doubt if Cameron becomes Prime Minister, Parliament will be so thrillingly modern that PMQ’s will be conducted entirely through Twitter, while Cabinet reshuffles will simply be done via text message (Ken u r now Mnstr 4 Trade lol!)

But there are other pressing matters to consider. Let’s not get so het up over subsidising a politician’s predilection for Ginger Crinkle biscuits that we forget to ask exactly where our £37bn of bailout money is going. Let’s also not neglect other little things, such as examining what our politicians actually believe in.

For example, it’s slightly worrying that the leader of the opposition in this country sincerely believes in the Laffer Curve economic theory.

For the uninitiated, the Laffer Curve is based on ‘trickle-down’ economics. The theory, sketched out on a restaurant napkin by Arthur Laffer (probably after having one too many beers) proposes that lowering taxation can actually increase government tax revenues.

Now, regardless of whether you’re on the left or right of the political spectrum, almost everyone agrees that the theory is nonsense. George Bush Sr mocked it as being ‘voodoo economics’. (Ronald Reagan nevertheless got out his best shaman gear as President, put it into practice and subsequently saw the federal deficit balloon from $900 billion to over $5 trillion on his watch).

So despite the fact that the Laffer Curve has about as much credibility as a rehab programme run by Shane MacGowan, Cameron thinks it’s the way to go.

Will the media press Cameron on this?

Don’t hold your breath. Read more...

Is Cameron having a Laffer?

While the MP expenses scandal is outrageous, it’s dominating the news cycle to an extent that isn’t really healthy.

No-one denies the expenses system needs a complete overhaul. People are rightly angry with the liberties our elected representatives have taken, and the fact that some of them are still apparently living in the 15th century (claiming for moats and, um, quarters for one’s servants).

Cameron’s proposed Parliamentary reforms - as Nick Clegg, Simon Jenkins and Sunder Katwala argue - add up to, well, nowt much really. Putting political debates on YouTube and having text alerts for legislative bills is all very well, but does not a reformed Parliament make.

No doubt if Cameron becomes Prime Minister, Parliament will be so thrillingly modern that PMQ’s will be conducted entirely through Twitter, while Cabinet reshuffles will simply be done via text message (Ken u r now Mnstr 4 Trade lol!)

But there are other pressing matters to consider. Let’s not get so het up over subsidising a politician’s predilection for Ginger Crinkle biscuits that we forget to ask exactly where our £37bn of bailout money is going. Let’s also not neglect other little things, such as examining what our politicians actually believe in.

For example, it’s slightly worrying that the leader of the opposition in this country sincerely believes in the Laffer Curve economic theory.

For the uninitiated, the Laffer Curve is based on ‘trickle-down’ economics. The theory, sketched out on a restaurant napkin by Arthur Laffer (probably after having one too many beers) proposes that lowering taxation can actually increase government tax revenues.

Now, regardless of whether you’re on the left or right of the political spectrum, almost everyone agrees that the theory is nonsense. George Bush Sr mocked it as being ‘voodoo economics’. (Ronald Reagan nevertheless got out his best shaman gear as President, put it into practice and subsequently saw the federal deficit balloon from $900 billion to over $5 trillion on his watch).

So despite the fact that the Laffer Curve has about as much credibility as a rehab programme run by Shane MacGowan, Cameron thinks it’s the way to go.

Will the media press Cameron on this?

Don’t hold your breath. Read more...

David Cameron's McCain moment

"I'm not sure. I'll have to check with my staff" was John McCain's response to an inquiry about how many houses he owned during the last US election campaign.

Johann Hari's Independent column yesterday noted an uncannily similar uncertainty from David Cameron in a recent interview.

This was part of a long Who is David Cameron? interview with Ginny Dougary in The Times, published the weekend before last, and which seems to have been largely overlooked because of expenses-gate.

The relevant section is here.

The four properties thing is rubbish. Touching that you believe everything you read in the newspapers!”

You patronising git, I exclaim.

“I don’t mean it like that, but…” So how many properties do you own? “I own a house in North Kensington which you’ve been to and my house in the constituency in Oxfordshire and that is, as far as I know, all I have.”

A house in Cornwall? “No, that is, Samantha used to have a timeshare in South Devon but she doesn’t any more.” And there isn’t a fourth? “I don’t think so – not that I can think of.” Please don’t say, “Not that I can think of.” “You might be… Samantha owns a field in Scunthorpe but she doesn’t own a house…”

The rest of the interview was punctuated with Cameron’s nagging anxiety about how this exchange was going to make him sound: “I was wondering how that will come across as a soundbite”; “‘Not that I can think of’ makes me sound… I am really worried about that…”; “I am still thinking about this house thing”; and his parting shot was: “Do not make me sound like a prat for not knowing how many houses I’ve got.”

(Hat tip to Liberal Conspiracy for the source).

As Hari writes

The fact that David and Samantha Cameron are worth an almost-entirely-inherited £30m, according to financial expert Philip Beresford, isn’t in itself damning. Franklin Roosevelt was very rich, but became a great crusader for the poor. But Cameron is advocating policies that will benefit his tiny class of super-rich Trustafarians at the expense of the rest of us. He is committed to spending billions on a massive tax cut for the richest inheritees, paid for by the bottom 94 percent of us – and now he has announced his enthusiasm for a bogus economic theory that will justify shovelling far more of our money their way.

Read more...

David Cameron's McCain moment

"I'm not sure. I'll have to check with my staff" was John McCain's response to an inquiry about how many houses he owned during the last US election campaign.

Johann Hari's Independent column yesterday noted an uncannily similar uncertainty from David Cameron in a recent interview.

This was part of a long Who is David Cameron? interview with Ginny Dougary in The Times, published the weekend before last, and which seems to have been largely overlooked because of expenses-gate.

The relevant section is here.

The four properties thing is rubbish. Touching that you believe everything you read in the newspapers!”

You patronising git, I exclaim.

“I don’t mean it like that, but…” So how many properties do you own? “I own a house in North Kensington which you’ve been to and my house in the constituency in Oxfordshire and that is, as far as I know, all I have.”

A house in Cornwall? “No, that is, Samantha used to have a timeshare in South Devon but she doesn’t any more.” And there isn’t a fourth? “I don’t think so – not that I can think of.” Please don’t say, “Not that I can think of.” “You might be… Samantha owns a field in Scunthorpe but she doesn’t own a house…”

The rest of the interview was punctuated with Cameron’s nagging anxiety about how this exchange was going to make him sound: “I was wondering how that will come across as a soundbite”; “‘Not that I can think of’ makes me sound… I am really worried about that…”; “I am still thinking about this house thing”; and his parting shot was: “Do not make me sound like a prat for not knowing how many houses I’ve got.”

(Hat tip to Liberal Conspiracy for the source).

As Hari writes

The fact that David and Samantha Cameron are worth an almost-entirely-inherited £30m, according to financial expert Philip Beresford, isn’t in itself damning. Franklin Roosevelt was very rich, but became a great crusader for the poor. But Cameron is advocating policies that will benefit his tiny class of super-rich Trustafarians at the expense of the rest of us. He is committed to spending billions on a massive tax cut for the richest inheritees, paid for by the bottom 94 percent of us – and now he has announced his enthusiasm for a bogus economic theory that will justify shovelling far more of our money their way.

Read more...

Jowell backs Labour primaries

Stuart White's post against open primaries for candidate selection has generated some interesting discussion on the pros and cons.

The Guardian today - trailing a speech she will give at Demos after the European Elections - reports that Tessa Jowell will call for Labour to open candidate selection to party supporters as well as members. (It sounds as though Jowell is advocating is what Anthony Painter calls 'closed primaries' though perhaps something like 'supporter primaries' would be a better description).

The newspaper reports that Jowell will quote Ben Brandzel's argument in the recent Fabian pamphlet 'The Change We Need.

She has been inspired by the writing of the political activist Ben Brandzel, a veteran of US progressive politics. She will quote him as saying: "Mass movements open to anyone … will always be pulled towards the commonsense centre. It's why Wikipedia can self-police for accuracy, why Obama's open forums never seriously embarrassed the candidate and why the London citizens' agenda called for things like ensuring the Olympic Village creates public housing – not erecting statues to Che."

This was the issue on which I disagreed with Luke Akehurst's fear that "the Trots" will kill a Labour party which tries to open up. This leads to a fear of change among the top-down tendency in New Labour. Jowell will back Brandzel's argument that "it is through widening the circle of participation, not narrowing it, that we best guard against such risks". Read more...

Jowell backs Labour primaries

Stuart White's post against open primaries for candidate selection has generated some interesting discussion on the pros and cons.

The Guardian today - trailing a speech she will give at Demos after the European Elections - reports that Tessa Jowell will call for Labour to open candidate selection to party supporters as well as members. (It sounds as though Jowell is advocating is what Anthony Painter calls 'closed primaries' though perhaps something like 'supporter primaries' would be a better description).

The newspaper reports that Jowell will quote Ben Brandzel's argument in the recent Fabian pamphlet 'The Change We Need.

She has been inspired by the writing of the political activist Ben Brandzel, a veteran of US progressive politics. She will quote him as saying: "Mass movements open to anyone … will always be pulled towards the commonsense centre. It's why Wikipedia can self-police for accuracy, why Obama's open forums never seriously embarrassed the candidate and why the London citizens' agenda called for things like ensuring the Olympic Village creates public housing – not erecting statues to Che."

This was the issue on which I disagreed with Luke Akehurst's fear that "the Trots" will kill a Labour party which tries to open up. This leads to a fear of change among the top-down tendency in New Labour. Jowell will back Brandzel's argument that "it is through widening the circle of participation, not narrowing it, that we best guard against such risks". Read more...

An open letter to the BBC Complaints Department

Last week Guy Aitchison of openDemocracy and Defend Peaceful Protest and I published a letter of complaint we sent to the BBC concerning the coverage by BBC News of the policing of the G20 protests. We sent the letter on Thursday, May 21, and received a reply by Philip Boyce of the BBC's Complaints Department the following day. Philip Boyce's reply to our original letter is included at the bottom of this post.

We do not think the reply adequately addresses the complaints set out in our original letter. Some of the specific complaints we made are ignored. Therefore, we have written again to the BBC requesting answers to very specific questions about BBC News' reporting of the events. Because we think this correspondence raises important issues about the quality of BBC journalism we are, once again, publishing our letter simultaneously here at Next Left and at OurKingdom.

Open letter to the BBC Complaints Department

Dear Philip Boyce,

in our letter of Thursday May 21 we set out a number of complaints about the BBC News' coverage of the policing of the G20 protests.

We are writing again in response to your reply of Friday May 22.

In your reply, you failed to address (either at all or adequately) a number of complaints made in our original letter. We therefore feel obliged to ask you again to consider these complaints. As with our original letter, we will publish this letter on two websites, that of openDemocracy and Next Left (affiliated with the Fabian Society) so that the wider public is able to judge the adequacy and seriousness of your response.

We appreciate that you are probably busy with many complaints, so we will restate the complaints you have not addressed (or addressed adequately) as briefly as possible.

We will ask you some direct questions relating to these complaints to which we would appreciate direct answers.

(1) Grossly inaccurate article on kettling. In our original letter, we explained in detail why an article by Julian Joyce on the issues surrounding so-called kettling posted on the BBC News website on April 16 was factually incorrect on the most elementary question of what kettling is.

We pointed out that it is the duty of the BBC to get information on a debate of such basic importance to our civil liberties accurate, and to quickly correct any mistakes.

Your response of May 22 completely ignores this specific complaint.

So, we would ask you to answer the following question: Do you accept that the article in question was inaccurate and therefore misleading, and that the BBC failed in its duty to properly inform public debate by publishing this article and, in addition, by failing to publish a correction?

(2) Lack of investigative impetus. Our original letter raised a complaint specifically about the alleged initial disinterest of the BBC Newsroom in the breaking news around police involvement in the death of Ian Tomlinson.

You have ignored this complaint.

So, we would ask you: Is the allegation true? If so, do you accept that this was a grave error of judgment, reflecting a very distorted sense of priorities in the BBC Newsroom?

(3) Inaccurate and misleading reportage of the Climate Camp. In our original letter, we complained that the BBC News reporting failed sufficiently to distinguish the Climate Camp from other events at the G20 protests and, in consequence, failed to acknowledge any distinctive issues about policing which the kettling of the Climate Camp raises.

Your response of May 22 ignores this complaint.

Your response does point out that the BBC News did include one report on the Climate Camp on April 1. However, our complaint was not merely about the failure to mention the Climate Camp, but the failure to distinguish it, and the issues raised by its policing, from other events at the protests.

As we pointed out in our letter, the report on the evening of April 19 which discussed the Camp included the footage of the smashing of windows at RBS, encouraging the viewer to associate one with the other, creating a false impression that the Climate Camp was a somewhat violent event.

So, we ask: Do you accept that the BBC News failed to distinguish the Climate Camp from the other events at the G20 protests, in particular to indicate clearly its peaceful intent and character?

Do you accept that use of the window-smashing footage at RBS in the context of a report about the Climate Camp - without any explanation that one event was unrelated to the other - could have created a false impression that the Camp was not a peaceful event?

(4) Further on lack of investigative impetus. Aside from the complaints about the alleged initial treatment of breaking news about the circumstances of Ian Tomlinson's death (covered in (2) above), our original letter made a broader complaint about a lack of investigative impetus on the issues surrounding G20 policing.

We do not think that your response of May 22 adequately addresses this complaint.

You do point out that many BBC reporters were active around the G20 protests on the day. You also refer, and we are grateful for it, to the report by Daniel Boettcher on the police action to clear the Climate Camp on the night of April 1.

However, it remains the case that the major stories concerning police violence were not broken by BBC News. It is also the case that there have been many such stories. So if the BBC News had lots of reporters on the ground, they do not seem to have done a very good investigative job.

So we ask: Given that the BBC News had so many reporters on the ground, why did the BBC News play so little role in breaking any of the major revelations about police violence which emerged in the days and weeks after April 1? Does this not constitute a failure to carry out real investigative journalism?

These are straightforward questions. We expect equally straightforward answers.

We await your reply with interest, and we very much hope that given the time and effort we have put into detailing our complaints, on what is surely a serious constitutional issue, you will give our complaints more thorough consideration than the first time round.

Yours sincerely,

Guy Aitchison, openDemocracy
Stuart White, Jesus College, Oxford

Letter from Philip Boyce, BBC Complaints Department

Thank you for your e-mail regarding our coverage of police tactics at the G20 protests.

I understand you felt we didn't sufficiently cover the tactics deployed by the police on the days in question and that you feel this amounted to poor reporting.

The G20 was a challenging story to cover as there were so many issues surrounding the event. There was the conference itself, the receptions at Downing Street and Buckingham Palace, the various protests taking place in the City and of course the death of Ian Tomlinson.

Daniel Boettcher was live in Bishopsgate as police moved in to disperse the Climate Camp protestors later on in the evening. The News Channel showed live pictures and Daniel described the scenes as he witnessed them. He pointed out that the protestors had been sitting on the ground as the police dragged them away and we have reported on the criticism of the tactics used by police at the Camp on the BBC News website.

The website also had the live text and map pages featuring messages, pictures and video from BBC reporters, producers and correspondents, and from the public relaying events as they unfolded all over London.

More recently, we have reported on the wider concerns about the tactics used by police during the protests. For example, the video footage of Ian Tomlinson's contact with police prior to his death has featured heavily on BBC News, as has the footage of Nicola Fisher.

In closing, I'd like to further assure you that your comments regarding our G20 coverage have been registered on our audience log, an internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily and is available for viewing by all our staff. This includes all our journalists, news editors, commissioning executives and also their senior management. It ensures your points, along with all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.

Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.

Regards,

Philip Boyce
BBC Complaints Read more...

An open letter to the BBC Complaints Department

Last week Guy Aitchison of openDemocracy and Defend Peaceful Protest and I published a letter of complaint we sent to the BBC concerning the coverage by BBC News of the policing of the G20 protests. We sent the letter on Thursday, May 21, and received a reply by Philip Boyce of the BBC's Complaints Department the following day. Philip Boyce's reply to our original letter is included at the bottom of this post.

We do not think the reply adequately addresses the complaints set out in our original letter. Some of the specific complaints we made are ignored. Therefore, we have written again to the BBC requesting answers to very specific questions about BBC News' reporting of the events. Because we think this correspondence raises important issues about the quality of BBC journalism we are, once again, publishing our letter simultaneously here at Next Left and at OurKingdom.

Open letter to the BBC Complaints Department

Dear Philip Boyce,

in our letter of Thursday May 21 we set out a number of complaints about the BBC News' coverage of the policing of the G20 protests.

We are writing again in response to your reply of Friday May 22.

In your reply, you failed to address (either at all or adequately) a number of complaints made in our original letter. We therefore feel obliged to ask you again to consider these complaints. As with our original letter, we will publish this letter on two websites, that of openDemocracy and Next Left (affiliated with the Fabian Society) so that the wider public is able to judge the adequacy and seriousness of your response.

We appreciate that you are probably busy with many complaints, so we will restate the complaints you have not addressed (or addressed adequately) as briefly as possible.

We will ask you some direct questions relating to these complaints to which we would appreciate direct answers.

(1) Grossly inaccurate article on kettling. In our original letter, we explained in detail why an article by Julian Joyce on the issues surrounding so-called kettling posted on the BBC News website on April 16 was factually incorrect on the most elementary question of what kettling is.

We pointed out that it is the duty of the BBC to get information on a debate of such basic importance to our civil liberties accurate, and to quickly correct any mistakes.

Your response of May 22 completely ignores this specific complaint.

So, we would ask you to answer the following question: Do you accept that the article in question was inaccurate and therefore misleading, and that the BBC failed in its duty to properly inform public debate by publishing this article and, in addition, by failing to publish a correction?

(2) Lack of investigative impetus. Our original letter raised a complaint specifically about the alleged initial disinterest of the BBC Newsroom in the breaking news around police involvement in the death of Ian Tomlinson.

You have ignored this complaint.

So, we would ask you: Is the allegation true? If so, do you accept that this was a grave error of judgment, reflecting a very distorted sense of priorities in the BBC Newsroom?

(3) Inaccurate and misleading reportage of the Climate Camp. In our original letter, we complained that the BBC News reporting failed sufficiently to distinguish the Climate Camp from other events at the G20 protests and, in consequence, failed to acknowledge any distinctive issues about policing which the kettling of the Climate Camp raises.

Your response of May 22 ignores this complaint.

Your response does point out that the BBC News did include one report on the Climate Camp on April 1. However, our complaint was not merely about the failure to mention the Climate Camp, but the failure to distinguish it, and the issues raised by its policing, from other events at the protests.

As we pointed out in our letter, the report on the evening of April 19 which discussed the Camp included the footage of the smashing of windows at RBS, encouraging the viewer to associate one with the other, creating a false impression that the Climate Camp was a somewhat violent event.

So, we ask: Do you accept that the BBC News failed to distinguish the Climate Camp from the other events at the G20 protests, in particular to indicate clearly its peaceful intent and character?

Do you accept that use of the window-smashing footage at RBS in the context of a report about the Climate Camp - without any explanation that one event was unrelated to the other - could have created a false impression that the Camp was not a peaceful event?

(4) Further on lack of investigative impetus. Aside from the complaints about the alleged initial treatment of breaking news about the circumstances of Ian Tomlinson's death (covered in (2) above), our original letter made a broader complaint about a lack of investigative impetus on the issues surrounding G20 policing.

We do not think that your response of May 22 adequately addresses this complaint.

You do point out that many BBC reporters were active around the G20 protests on the day. You also refer, and we are grateful for it, to the report by Daniel Boettcher on the police action to clear the Climate Camp on the night of April 1.

However, it remains the case that the major stories concerning police violence were not broken by BBC News. It is also the case that there have been many such stories. So if the BBC News had lots of reporters on the ground, they do not seem to have done a very good investigative job.

So we ask: Given that the BBC News had so many reporters on the ground, why did the BBC News play so little role in breaking any of the major revelations about police violence which emerged in the days and weeks after April 1? Does this not constitute a failure to carry out real investigative journalism?

These are straightforward questions. We expect equally straightforward answers.

We await your reply with interest, and we very much hope that given the time and effort we have put into detailing our complaints, on what is surely a serious constitutional issue, you will give our complaints more thorough consideration than the first time round.

Yours sincerely,

Guy Aitchison, openDemocracy
Stuart White, Jesus College, Oxford

Letter from Philip Boyce, BBC Complaints Department

Thank you for your e-mail regarding our coverage of police tactics at the G20 protests.

I understand you felt we didn't sufficiently cover the tactics deployed by the police on the days in question and that you feel this amounted to poor reporting.

The G20 was a challenging story to cover as there were so many issues surrounding the event. There was the conference itself, the receptions at Downing Street and Buckingham Palace, the various protests taking place in the City and of course the death of Ian Tomlinson.

Daniel Boettcher was live in Bishopsgate as police moved in to disperse the Climate Camp protestors later on in the evening. The News Channel showed live pictures and Daniel described the scenes as he witnessed them. He pointed out that the protestors had been sitting on the ground as the police dragged them away and we have reported on the criticism of the tactics used by police at the Camp on the BBC News website.

The website also had the live text and map pages featuring messages, pictures and video from BBC reporters, producers and correspondents, and from the public relaying events as they unfolded all over London.

More recently, we have reported on the wider concerns about the tactics used by police during the protests. For example, the video footage of Ian Tomlinson's contact with police prior to his death has featured heavily on BBC News, as has the footage of Nicola Fisher.

In closing, I'd like to further assure you that your comments regarding our G20 coverage have been registered on our audience log, an internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily and is available for viewing by all our staff. This includes all our journalists, news editors, commissioning executives and also their senior management. It ensures your points, along with all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.

Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.

Regards,

Philip Boyce
BBC Complaints Read more...

There's no 'done deal' on Barroso

I keep reading in the media that Barroso’s second term as Commission President is a ‘done deal’.

I disagree.

It’s true that that many Governments are supporting him and so his nomination by the Council for a second term looks likely.

But the Council’s nomination is not sure. It is due to make its nomination on June 18/19 – very likely before a majority in the Parliament has been finalised. A proposal to postpone the Council until later in the month, when a new Parliamentary majority is more likely to be in place, is being resisted by guess who.

Barroso has been lobbying capitals for months if not years to give him a second term and is now is trying ensure that the Council nominates him before they know the majority in the Parliament. That’s not the behaviour of a man with a done deal.

And why the recent round of media interviews? Is this the behaviour of a man with a done deal, or the act of a man anxious to create the impression of a done deal?

Then there is the much more problematic question of the majority in the Parliament. The FT’s Wolfgang Munchau wrote “If the centre-right wins the elections to the European parliament, as everybody seems to expect, nothing can stop Mr Barroso’s bandwagon.” But whatever anyone expects the centre-right cannot ‘win’ the election. The European conservatives, who have nominated Barroso as their candidate, may say they are going to be the largest group – but even in their wildest dreams they don’t expect a majority. I can state as a matter of fact that on June 8 – the day after the European elections – the European conservatives will not have a majority on their own.

They need other political groups to support them or enter some agreement with them – and they do not have an alliance or a coalition lined up with anyone else for the next Parliament. Getting a majority is not a simple matter. It is hard to imagine the yet to be formed anti-federalist group led by British and Czech Conservatives being in a hurry to pledge their support for Barroso. And even if they were, that would still not deliver a majority. The future of other right of centre groups is uncertain.

I have already explained in a previous blog why we Socialists are much less likely in 2009 to enter an agreement with the Conservatives than we were in 2004. The Greens are supporting a campaign ‘anyone but Barroso’. And why would the Liberals rush into a deal to vote for Barroso? The Liberal former Prime Minister of Belgium, Guy Verhofstadt, who is standing in the European elections, is being touted in some quarters as an alternative to Barroso.

The Parliament looks set to vote on the President of the Commission on July 15. Neither Mr Munchau nor anybody else knows what the majority in the Parliament will be on July 15 as it will be the outcome of negotiations between groups (some of which do not even yet exist, and will take some time to come into being) following the elections. There may not even be a fixed majority.

But I wholly agree with the admirable Mr Munchau when he describes Mr Barroso as “among the weakest Commission presidents ever”.

He says the likelihood of Barroso getting a second term is “very depressing”. I might join Mr Munchau in being depressed if I believed that it’s practically a done deal.

But thankfully it isn’t – it’s spin by Barroso and his supporters. Read more...

There's no 'done deal' on Barroso

I keep reading in the media that Barroso’s second term as Commission President is a ‘done deal’.

I disagree.

It’s true that that many Governments are supporting him and so his nomination by the Council for a second term looks likely.

But the Council’s nomination is not sure. It is due to make its nomination on June 18/19 – very likely before a majority in the Parliament has been finalised. A proposal to postpone the Council until later in the month, when a new Parliamentary majority is more likely to be in place, is being resisted by guess who.

Barroso has been lobbying capitals for months if not years to give him a second term and is now is trying ensure that the Council nominates him before they know the majority in the Parliament. That’s not the behaviour of a man with a done deal.

And why the recent round of media interviews? Is this the behaviour of a man with a done deal, or the act of a man anxious to create the impression of a done deal?

Then there is the much more problematic question of the majority in the Parliament. The FT’s Wolfgang Munchau wrote “If the centre-right wins the elections to the European parliament, as everybody seems to expect, nothing can stop Mr Barroso’s bandwagon.” But whatever anyone expects the centre-right cannot ‘win’ the election. The European conservatives, who have nominated Barroso as their candidate, may say they are going to be the largest group – but even in their wildest dreams they don’t expect a majority. I can state as a matter of fact that on June 8 – the day after the European elections – the European conservatives will not have a majority on their own.

They need other political groups to support them or enter some agreement with them – and they do not have an alliance or a coalition lined up with anyone else for the next Parliament. Getting a majority is not a simple matter. It is hard to imagine the yet to be formed anti-federalist group led by British and Czech Conservatives being in a hurry to pledge their support for Barroso. And even if they were, that would still not deliver a majority. The future of other right of centre groups is uncertain.

I have already explained in a previous blog why we Socialists are much less likely in 2009 to enter an agreement with the Conservatives than we were in 2004. The Greens are supporting a campaign ‘anyone but Barroso’. And why would the Liberals rush into a deal to vote for Barroso? The Liberal former Prime Minister of Belgium, Guy Verhofstadt, who is standing in the European elections, is being touted in some quarters as an alternative to Barroso.

The Parliament looks set to vote on the President of the Commission on July 15. Neither Mr Munchau nor anybody else knows what the majority in the Parliament will be on July 15 as it will be the outcome of negotiations between groups (some of which do not even yet exist, and will take some time to come into being) following the elections. There may not even be a fixed majority.

But I wholly agree with the admirable Mr Munchau when he describes Mr Barroso as “among the weakest Commission presidents ever”.

He says the likelihood of Barroso getting a second term is “very depressing”. I might join Mr Munchau in being depressed if I believed that it’s practically a done deal.

But thankfully it isn’t – it’s spin by Barroso and his supporters. Read more...

Cameron's constitutional caution

David Cameron shows characteristic dexterity in pitching into the Guardian's New Politics debate with a piece projected across a double-page spread with a front-page news story to preview his speech today.

But the content surely falls far short of the 'massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power' which is billed. And one does not have to read far between the lines to find that Cameron is rather keen to control what should and should not be part of the reform agenda - particularly seeking to remove the electoral system from the menu for possible reform.

A good test of proposals to redistribute power is whether any power is ceded, and by whom. I see nothing wrong with a proposal to "open up the legislative process by sending text alerts on the progress of Parliamentary Bills and by posting proceedings on YouTube". But this is better communication and presentation from Parliament. It can hardly be billed as redistributing power.

Probably, the biggest change mooted is that of fixed term Parliaments (though this is just being floated for now, with Cameron stating the pros and cons. And there is some devilling in the detail. One important caveat is that Cameron appears to be offering a get-out clause for minority governments, so that a stable minority government like that of Alex Salmond's in Scotland would be able to pick and choose when to try for a majority of its own).

Fixed term parliaments would be a good reform. It is also clever politics. It sounds like a rather big power for a would-be PM to give up. But is it really? Reviewing the history of election date decisions suggests it is rather overrated: hence my prediction last year that a major party leader would seek to win plaudits by offering to give it up. When governments have been re-elected - in 2005, 2001, 1987 and 1983 - the choice of date has tended to make little difference. Attempts to gain advantage from tactical deployment of the power - as with Heath in 1974, with Callaghan not calling an election in 1978 and the election speculation of 2007 - have tended to blow up in the face of the premier concerned.

Elsewhere, there are several useful areas of emerging consensus. The need to scrutinise the use of Royal Prerogative powers by the Executive was set out by the Fabian Monarchy Commission in 2003. Both frontbenches are now talking about this - but the question of whether scrutiny will be substantive depends on the broader parliamentary reform agenda.

Removing the powers of the whips over who is on Select Committees is another useful reform, which is suddenly turns out that everybody agrees on after all this time. But Chris Mullin makes a rather sharper point in The Times today - in noting that the size of the frontbench payroll vote is part of the problem, particularly with the extension in the number of unpaid PPS and special envoy positions. Strikingly, the Conservative website suggests that, even in opposition, David Cameron has almost 100 MPs involved in his frontbench in some way, almost exactly half of the Conservatives in the Commons. He talks a good deal about strengthening the role of backbenchers - but there need to be some credible, senior backbenchers for this to be matter.

An auction between the two major parties on political reform is to be welcomed. David Cameron is offering incremental reforms of a rather similar kind to that which has been pursued by the government, where Gordon Brown's intention of a "new constitutional settlement" has so far become something more of a tidying-up exercise of moderate reforms.

David Cameron's intervention sets out two possibilities for the next few weeks.

One is that a broad consensus is emerging on an incremental and somewhat cautious agenda of useful but piecemeal constitutional reforms of the type he sets out. This would strengthen Cameron's claim to have responded confidently to the Parliamentary crisis, though in several areas his proposals are similar to those of the government.

The alternative is that the Labour government realises that Cameron has left considerable space for a more comprehensive constitutional reform agenda, and seeks to reignite an agenda which has lost momentum since 2001.

How should the bidding be raised? Alan Johnson's intervention on an electoral reform referendum is gathering further support.

The most significant would be to move well beyond talking about responding, consultation and 'listening' to the public mood - and to cede significant power to shape the outcomes of political reform to a new constitutional convention. Read more...

Cameron's constitutional caution

David Cameron shows characteristic dexterity in pitching into the Guardian's New Politics debate with a piece projected across a double-page spread with a front-page news story to preview his speech today.

But the content surely falls far short of the 'massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power' which is billed. And one does not have to read far between the lines to find that Cameron is rather keen to control what should and should not be part of the reform agenda - particularly seeking to remove the electoral system from the menu for possible reform.

A good test of proposals to redistribute power is whether any power is ceded, and by whom. I see nothing wrong with a proposal to "open up the legislative process by sending text alerts on the progress of Parliamentary Bills and by posting proceedings on YouTube". But this is better communication and presentation from Parliament. It can hardly be billed as redistributing power.

Probably, the biggest change mooted is that of fixed term Parliaments (though this is just being floated for now, with Cameron stating the pros and cons. And there is some devilling in the detail. One important caveat is that Cameron appears to be offering a get-out clause for minority governments, so that a stable minority government like that of Alex Salmond's in Scotland would be able to pick and choose when to try for a majority of its own).

Fixed term parliaments would be a good reform. It is also clever politics. It sounds like a rather big power for a would-be PM to give up. But is it really? Reviewing the history of election date decisions suggests it is rather overrated: hence my prediction last year that a major party leader would seek to win plaudits by offering to give it up. When governments have been re-elected - in 2005, 2001, 1987 and 1983 - the choice of date has tended to make little difference. Attempts to gain advantage from tactical deployment of the power - as with Heath in 1974, with Callaghan not calling an election in 1978 and the election speculation of 2007 - have tended to blow up in the face of the premier concerned.

Elsewhere, there are several useful areas of emerging consensus. The need to scrutinise the use of Royal Prerogative powers by the Executive was set out by the Fabian Monarchy Commission in 2003. Both frontbenches are now talking about this - but the question of whether scrutiny will be substantive depends on the broader parliamentary reform agenda.

Removing the powers of the whips over who is on Select Committees is another useful reform, which is suddenly turns out that everybody agrees on after all this time. But Chris Mullin makes a rather sharper point in The Times today - in noting that the size of the frontbench payroll vote is part of the problem, particularly with the extension in the number of unpaid PPS and special envoy positions. Strikingly, the Conservative website suggests that, even in opposition, David Cameron has almost 100 MPs involved in his frontbench in some way, almost exactly half of the Conservatives in the Commons. He talks a good deal about strengthening the role of backbenchers - but there need to be some credible, senior backbenchers for this to be matter.

An auction between the two major parties on political reform is to be welcomed. David Cameron is offering incremental reforms of a rather similar kind to that which has been pursued by the government, where Gordon Brown's intention of a "new constitutional settlement" has so far become something more of a tidying-up exercise of moderate reforms.

David Cameron's intervention sets out two possibilities for the next few weeks.

One is that a broad consensus is emerging on an incremental and somewhat cautious agenda of useful but piecemeal constitutional reforms of the type he sets out. This would strengthen Cameron's claim to have responded confidently to the Parliamentary crisis, though in several areas his proposals are similar to those of the government.

The alternative is that the Labour government realises that Cameron has left considerable space for a more comprehensive constitutional reform agenda, and seeks to reignite an agenda which has lost momentum since 2001.

How should the bidding be raised? Alan Johnson's intervention on an electoral reform referendum is gathering further support.

The most significant would be to move well beyond talking about responding, consultation and 'listening' to the public mood - and to cede significant power to shape the outcomes of political reform to a new constitutional convention. Read more...

Cameron's agenda: populism not republicanism?

Regular readers of Next Left will know that I am an enthusiast for something called democratic republicanism. The crisis of political representation at the moment, prompted by the scandal over MPs' expenses, has been described by Richard Reeves as a potential 'republican moment' as new possibilities open up for wide-ranging political reform. Jonathan Freedland has also written superbly on the republican potential of the crisis.

However, republicanism needs to be distinguished from something else: populism. To make the most of the republican moment, we must keep this distinction in mind.

David Cameron's article in The Guardian's 'New Politics' series, for example, might be read as putting forward a republican agenda. In fact, however, much of the agenda he sets out is populist rather than republican.

Let's clarify the difference.

Republicanism not populism: deliberative democracy

Republicans believe in the principle of popular sovereignty. They do not accept that the 'crown-in-parliament' (where Parliament itself is not fully elected) is legitimately sovereign, as is the case under the present UK constitution. So republicans are populists in the sense that they demand a basic constitutional reform that is based on popular sovereignty. (Note: there is of course no indication that David Cameron accepts this.)

But republicans do not celebrate the popular will uncritically. Popular majorites can will some pretty awful things. Republicans, following Rousseau, believe that a legitimate political system is also one in which the people is encouraged to exercise its sovereignty with an eye to justice.

Accordingly, republicans believe in what is these days called a deliberative democracy: a democracy in which political choice is framed by ongoing debate amongst citizens and their representatives over competing accounts of what justice requires. For a republican, then, the question is not simply, 'Does this reform proposal enhance popular sovereignty?' It is: 'Does this measure enhance popular sovereignty and do so in a way that promotes a deliberative politics?'

Some of the ideas which have emerged in recent weeks in response to the MPs' expenses claims fiasco are populist rather than republican in that they do not take seriously enough this deliberative aspect of republican politics.

Here are two examples, both taken from David Cameron's article:

(1) 'Let's have US-style open primaries'.

David Cameron writes: 'One of the reforms I'm most proud of is the widespread introduction of open primaries for the selection of Conservative parliamentary candidates in recent years. I want to see this continue, with much greater use of open primaries for the selection of ­parliamentary candidates – and not just in the Conservative party, but in every party.'

As I argued in an earlier post, open primaries are a really bad idea. In part, this is because open primaries can be expected to narrow the range of political debate between parties in the long-term and so impoverish the quality of public deliberation. (Anthony Painter would want me to make clear that closed primaries do not necessarily suffer from the same defect, at least to the same extent.)

(2) 'Take power from the judges and give it to the people.'

Cameron writes: '..since the advent of the Human Rights Act, judges are increasingly making our laws....we will introduce a British bill of rights to strangthen our liberties...'

From the republican point of view, this is extremely worrying. Strong bills of rights are crucial to defining the basic requirements of justice. Judicial review is an important mechanism by which society tests its laws against its own basic commitments to justice.

The idea need not be that judges get to throw out a law they judge to be unconstitutional (as in the USA). Rather, the idea is that the raw outputs of legislative decision-making get scrutinised in a way that forces law-makers to return to a law if it is judged questionable in terms of basic rights. Judicial review, operating from a strong bill of rights, is in this way an important mechanism for deepening democratic deliberation.

Now if a British bill of rights gives even stronger protection to basic rights than the European Convention of Human Rights (and in my view there are some areas, such as freedom of religion, where the ECHR is too weak), then Cameron's proposal would be welcome from a republican point of view. However, given the background of Conservative criticism of the Human Rights Act there is bound to be a big worry that Cameron's proposal would in fact weaken the underlying legal protection of basic rights. In this way, it would also weaken the extent to which public deliberation is forced to consider alleged abuses of basic rights.

Republicanism not populism: economic democracy

There is one further important difference between the republican and populist perspectives. Republicanism differs from the 'new populism' in that it sees the need to address power relationships beyond the official political sphere. The problem of arbitrary and unaccountable power in our society is not one confined to the political system in the usual sense of that term.

As some commentators have observed, the controversy over MPs' expenses has drawn attention away from the hugely important issues about irresponsible behaviour by major financial institutions. It remains crucially important that we think not only about how to make political representatives more accountable, but how to make financial institutions more accountable. The battle for democracy, for the republican, has to extend to the economic sphere as well as the officially political one.

There was one point in Cameron's article when I thought he was about to make this point. He writes:

'But the tragic truth today is that no matter how much we strengthen parliament or hold government to account, there will still be forces at work in our country that are completely unaccountable to the people of Britain – people and organisations that have huge power and control over our daily lives and yet which no citizen can actually get at.'

Yes, yes, I thought, he's about to talk about the huge, unaccountable power of major financial institutions!

Alas, not. It turns out to be a premable to a standard Tory blast at the EU and the judiciary....

Our politics has reached a potential republican moment. But we will not make the most (or anything) of this moment if we do not pay close attention to the distinction between republicanism and populism. Cameron's article is helpful in clarifying the quite distinct - and undesirable - populist agenda that could too easily emerge as an alternative to a genuinely republican one. Read more...

Cameron's agenda: populism not republicanism?

Regular readers of Next Left will know that I am an enthusiast for something called democratic republicanism. The crisis of political representation at the moment, prompted by the scandal over MPs' expenses, has been described by Richard Reeves as a potential 'republican moment' as new possibilities open up for wide-ranging political reform. Jonathan Freedland has also written superbly on the republican potential of the crisis.

However, republicanism needs to be distinguished from something else: populism. To make the most of the republican moment, we must keep this distinction in mind.

David Cameron's article in The Guardian's 'New Politics' series, for example, might be read as putting forward a republican agenda. In fact, however, much of the agenda he sets out is populist rather than republican.

Let's clarify the difference.

Republicanism not populism: deliberative democracy

Republicans believe in the principle of popular sovereignty. They do not accept that the 'crown-in-parliament' (where Parliament itself is not fully elected) is legitimately sovereign, as is the case under the present UK constitution. So republicans are populists in the sense that they demand a basic constitutional reform that is based on popular sovereignty. (Note: there is of course no indication that David Cameron accepts this.)

But republicans do not celebrate the popular will uncritically. Popular majorites can will some pretty awful things. Republicans, following Rousseau, believe that a legitimate political system is also one in which the people is encouraged to exercise its sovereignty with an eye to justice.

Accordingly, republicans believe in what is these days called a deliberative democracy: a democracy in which political choice is framed by ongoing debate amongst citizens and their representatives over competing accounts of what justice requires. For a republican, then, the question is not simply, 'Does this reform proposal enhance popular sovereignty?' It is: 'Does this measure enhance popular sovereignty and do so in a way that promotes a deliberative politics?'

Some of the ideas which have emerged in recent weeks in response to the MPs' expenses claims fiasco are populist rather than republican in that they do not take seriously enough this deliberative aspect of republican politics.

Here are two examples, both taken from David Cameron's article:

(1) 'Let's have US-style open primaries'.

David Cameron writes: 'One of the reforms I'm most proud of is the widespread introduction of open primaries for the selection of Conservative parliamentary candidates in recent years. I want to see this continue, with much greater use of open primaries for the selection of ­parliamentary candidates – and not just in the Conservative party, but in every party.'

As I argued in an earlier post, open primaries are a really bad idea. In part, this is because open primaries can be expected to narrow the range of political debate between parties in the long-term and so impoverish the quality of public deliberation. (Anthony Painter would want me to make clear that closed primaries do not necessarily suffer from the same defect, at least to the same extent.)

(2) 'Take power from the judges and give it to the people.'

Cameron writes: '..since the advent of the Human Rights Act, judges are increasingly making our laws....we will introduce a British bill of rights to strangthen our liberties...'

From the republican point of view, this is extremely worrying. Strong bills of rights are crucial to defining the basic requirements of justice. Judicial review is an important mechanism by which society tests its laws against its own basic commitments to justice.

The idea need not be that judges get to throw out a law they judge to be unconstitutional (as in the USA). Rather, the idea is that the raw outputs of legislative decision-making get scrutinised in a way that forces law-makers to return to a law if it is judged questionable in terms of basic rights. Judicial review, operating from a strong bill of rights, is in this way an important mechanism for deepening democratic deliberation.

Now if a British bill of rights gives even stronger protection to basic rights than the European Convention of Human Rights (and in my view there are some areas, such as freedom of religion, where the ECHR is too weak), then Cameron's proposal would be welcome from a republican point of view. However, given the background of Conservative criticism of the Human Rights Act there is bound to be a big worry that Cameron's proposal would in fact weaken the underlying legal protection of basic rights. In this way, it would also weaken the extent to which public deliberation is forced to consider alleged abuses of basic rights.

Republicanism not populism: economic democracy

There is one further important difference between the republican and populist perspectives. Republicanism differs from the 'new populism' in that it sees the need to address power relationships beyond the official political sphere. The problem of arbitrary and unaccountable power in our society is not one confined to the political system in the usual sense of that term.

As some commentators have observed, the controversy over MPs' expenses has drawn attention away from the hugely important issues about irresponsible behaviour by major financial institutions. It remains crucially important that we think not only about how to make political representatives more accountable, but how to make financial institutions more accountable. The battle for democracy, for the republican, has to extend to the economic sphere as well as the officially political one.

There was one point in Cameron's article when I thought he was about to make this point. He writes:

'But the tragic truth today is that no matter how much we strengthen parliament or hold government to account, there will still be forces at work in our country that are completely unaccountable to the people of Britain – people and organisations that have huge power and control over our daily lives and yet which no citizen can actually get at.'

Yes, yes, I thought, he's about to talk about the huge, unaccountable power of major financial institutions!

Alas, not. It turns out to be a premable to a standard Tory blast at the EU and the judiciary....

Our politics has reached a potential republican moment. But we will not make the most (or anything) of this moment if we do not pay close attention to the distinction between republicanism and populism. Cameron's article is helpful in clarifying the quite distinct - and undesirable - populist agenda that could too easily emerge as an alternative to a genuinely republican one. Read more...

Why open primaries are a really bad idea

In the wake of the MPs' expenses fiasco lots of ideas are in the air about how to reform not only the expenses system but the wider political system. One idea getting some air time is the idea of open primaries.

Open primaries, as I understand the term, means that the selection of party candidates for elections is determined by the general public as well as by party members. The idea is bad because it is both highly illiberal and undemocratic.

Why is it illiberal? Well, consider a case which has some parallel. Over the past weekend the Church of Scotland debated whether or not to allow an openly gay man to become a church priest. This was, properly, a decision for the church members, not the general public. The Church of Scotland is defined by certain religious beliefs. It is properly up to the members of the church, who have these beliefs, to decide what is or isn't compatible with them. It would be quite inappropriate for people outside the community of belief to decide what follows from these beliefs and, therefore, to have a say in whether an openly gay man may or may not be a priest of the Church of Scotland.

To give the wider public this power would, in effect, be to dissolve the church as a distinctive community of shared belief. It would strike a fatal blow to one of the basic freedoms of a liberal society: freedom of association. Freedom of association is meaningless without the right to disassociate from those who have different or contrary beliefs to one's own. And key to that right of disassociation is the right to limit participation in crucial areas of church decision-making to members of the church.

Political parties are also communities of shared belief. I am not a member of the Labour party because I prefer the colour red to the colours yellow, blue or green, but because I have certain values and I judge the Labour party to be the best (if highly imperfect) vehicle for bringing these values to bear on the political system. In choosing candidates for an election, party members choose someone to stand up for these values, make the case for policies that reflect these values to the wider public, and act on them if elected.

Under an open primary system, however, party members would lose the ability to choose candidates who reflect the distinctive values of the party to which they belong. If an open primary system works, it means that candidates are chosen who reflect the values of the public at large. The political party thus loses the ability to stand candidates who offer ideas to the public who express its distinctive values and beliefs. What, one might say, is then the point of having political parties? The open primary effectively undermines political parties as communities of shared belief. As such, it is also a fundamental blow to freedom of association.

That's why the open primaries proposal is illiberal. But why is it also undemocratic?

A healthy democracy is one that presents voters at elections with real choices. Political parties, as communities of distinctive shared belief, are the main institution we use to frame choice. Under an open primary system, however, meaningful choice would be under threat. If the open primary system works, then all party candidates will end up looking pretty much like the median voter. Elections will become contests between centrists, and, given the absence of real policy or philosophical difference, will be determined more by issues of personality. That is bad for democracy.

Of course, any competitive electoral system generates pressure on parties to move to the centre to maximize votes (or, in the case of the our present, dysfunctional electoral system, to move to the centre in a small number of swing constituencies). But one check on this is that candidates and party platforms do have to address the views of party members as well the median voter. Under an open primary system that check on across-the-board centrism would be removed.

There is good evidence that one of the reasons for things like falling electoral turnout in contemporary democracies is precisely that parties do not offer voters sufficient choice. The open primary, ostensibly a way of putting the political system more in touch with the voter, would be likely to accentuate this in the long-term and so actually risks worsening lack of interest and engagement in the political system.

So, open primaries: illiberal and undemocratic. A populist measure, not a genuinely democratic republican one. Read more...

Why open primaries are a really bad idea

In the wake of the MPs' expenses fiasco lots of ideas are in the air about how to reform not only the expenses system but the wider political system. One idea getting some air time is the idea of open primaries.

Open primaries, as I understand the term, means that the selection of party candidates for elections is determined by the general public as well as by party members. The idea is bad because it is both highly illiberal and undemocratic.

Why is it illiberal? Well, consider a case which has some parallel. Over the past weekend the Church of Scotland debated whether or not to allow an openly gay man to become a church priest. This was, properly, a decision for the church members, not the general public. The Church of Scotland is defined by certain religious beliefs. It is properly up to the members of the church, who have these beliefs, to decide what is or isn't compatible with them. It would be quite inappropriate for people outside the community of belief to decide what follows from these beliefs and, therefore, to have a say in whether an openly gay man may or may not be a priest of the Church of Scotland.

To give the wider public this power would, in effect, be to dissolve the church as a distinctive community of shared belief. It would strike a fatal blow to one of the basic freedoms of a liberal society: freedom of association. Freedom of association is meaningless without the right to disassociate from those who have different or contrary beliefs to one's own. And key to that right of disassociation is the right to limit participation in crucial areas of church decision-making to members of the church.

Political parties are also communities of shared belief. I am not a member of the Labour party because I prefer the colour red to the colours yellow, blue or green, but because I have certain values and I judge the Labour party to be the best (if highly imperfect) vehicle for bringing these values to bear on the political system. In choosing candidates for an election, party members choose someone to stand up for these values, make the case for policies that reflect these values to the wider public, and act on them if elected.

Under an open primary system, however, party members would lose the ability to choose candidates who reflect the distinctive values of the party to which they belong. If an open primary system works, it means that candidates are chosen who reflect the values of the public at large. The political party thus loses the ability to stand candidates who offer ideas to the public who express its distinctive values and beliefs. What, one might say, is then the point of having political parties? The open primary effectively undermines political parties as communities of shared belief. As such, it is also a fundamental blow to freedom of association.

That's why the open primaries proposal is illiberal. But why is it also undemocratic?

A healthy democracy is one that presents voters at elections with real choices. Political parties, as communities of distinctive shared belief, are the main institution we use to frame choice. Under an open primary system, however, meaningful choice would be under threat. If the open primary system works, then all party candidates will end up looking pretty much like the median voter. Elections will become contests between centrists, and, given the absence of real policy or philosophical difference, will be determined more by issues of personality. That is bad for democracy.

Of course, any competitive electoral system generates pressure on parties to move to the centre to maximize votes (or, in the case of the our present, dysfunctional electoral system, to move to the centre in a small number of swing constituencies). But one check on this is that candidates and party platforms do have to address the views of party members as well the median voter. Under an open primary system that check on across-the-board centrism would be removed.

There is good evidence that one of the reasons for things like falling electoral turnout in contemporary democracies is precisely that parties do not offer voters sufficient choice. The open primary, ostensibly a way of putting the political system more in touch with the voter, would be likely to accentuate this in the long-term and so actually risks worsening lack of interest and engagement in the political system.

So, open primaries: illiberal and undemocratic. A populist measure, not a genuinely democratic republican one. Read more...