Posts
All Comments
Still-here President Bush speaking to ABC News.
I'll be frank with you. I don't spend a lot of time really worrying about short-term history. I guess I don't worry about long-term history, either, since I'm not going to be around to read it -- (laughter) -- but, look, in this job you just do what you can.
Still-here President Bush speaking to ABC News.
I'll be frank with you. I don't spend a lot of time really worrying about short-term history. I guess I don't worry about long-term history, either, since I'm not going to be around to read it -- (laughter) -- but, look, in this job you just do what you can.
Sunder's thoughts on possible future Labour-Lib Dem coalitions prompts me to offer some not entirely tongue-in-cheek thoughts about another, long-term possibility: merger.
Of course, there are party tribalists in both parties who oppose this and they will make sure that it probably never happens. But as someone who has spent time in both parties, without any substantive change of views, I think its worth at least setting out the case for why a merger might, in the long-run, make a kind of sense.
Basically, it is hard to see what the big philosophical difference between Labour and the Lib Dems is. State socialism - a planned economy based on direct state control of economic activity - is, thankfully, no longer a Labour aspiration. Like the Liberals of old, Labour wishes to advance egalitarian objectives within the framework of a regulated market economy. Indeed, in some areas, such as 'asset-based welfare', Labour now does a much better job of advancing radical liberal economic ideas than the Lib Dems do.
On the other hand, notwithstanding the recent efforts of Clegg and co. to reposition the Lib Dems to the right on tax policy, the Lib Dems remain essentially a party of the centre-left on the economy. In short, both parties share a progressive vision on the economy which includes markets, an active state, and efforts to spread and democratise property ownership.
One might argue that there is a difference on civil liberties, and I think there is a difference in party cultures here (one which entirely favours the Lib Dems). But this difference can be overstated: the Labour government's often draconion stance on civil liberties is one that worries many Labour party members as much as it does Lib Dem members.
And, to the extent that there are differences in culture between the two parties, it is possible that merger could draw constructively on these differences. The greater Lib Dem sensitivity to civil liberties might infuse the merged party. At the same time, Labour's political culture could help infuse a merged party with a greater sensitivity to issues of class than the Lib Dems sometimes show.
So: why not merger?
Read more...
Sunder's thoughts on possible future Labour-Lib Dem coalitions prompts me to offer some not entirely tongue-in-cheek thoughts about another, long-term possibility: merger.
Of course, there are party tribalists in both parties who oppose this and they will make sure that it probably never happens. But as someone who has spent time in both parties, without any substantive change of views, I think its worth at least setting out the case for why a merger might, in the long-run, make a kind of sense.
Basically, it is hard to see what the big philosophical difference between Labour and the Lib Dems is. State socialism - a planned economy based on direct state control of economic activity - is, thankfully, no longer a Labour aspiration. Like the Liberals of old, Labour wishes to advance egalitarian objectives within the framework of a regulated market economy. Indeed, in some areas, such as 'asset-based welfare', Labour now does a much better job of advancing radical liberal economic ideas than the Lib Dems do.
On the other hand, notwithstanding the recent efforts of Clegg and co. to reposition the Lib Dems to the right on tax policy, the Lib Dems remain essentially a party of the centre-left on the economy. In short, both parties share a progressive vision on the economy which includes markets, an active state, and efforts to spread and democratise property ownership.
One might argue that there is a difference on civil liberties, and I think there is a difference in party cultures here (one which entirely favours the Lib Dems). But this difference can be overstated: the Labour government's often draconion stance on civil liberties is one that worries many Labour party members as much as it does Lib Dem members.
And, to the extent that there are differences in culture between the two parties, it is possible that merger could draw constructively on these differences. The greater Lib Dem sensitivity to civil liberties might infuse the merged party. At the same time, Labour's political culture could help infuse a merged party with a greater sensitivity to issues of class than the Lib Dems sometimes show.
So: why not merger?
Read more...
The usually insightful Jackie Ashley seems to me to get things completely wrong in her article in today's Guardian in which she takes Jacqui Smith to task for failing to stop the police interrogating Damian Green MP. Here is what Jackie Ashley says:
'[Jacqui Smith's] highest title is not, actually, home secretary. She is first a member of parliament. Her first duty is to the parliamentary democracy that sustains us all, and that means protecting the rights of elected members to do their democratic job.'
OK, so far, so good. But now consider the conclusion that Jackie Ashley goes on to draw:
'Smith should have found out what was being contemplated by the police and then intervened to stop it. Far from being 'Stalinist', that would have been the proportionate, liberal and sensible thing.'
Er, excuse me? If the police think there is evidence that an MP has broken the law, the Home Secretary should intervene to stop the police from investigating? What Jackie Ashley is suggesting is that one member of the political elite use her power to protect another member of the political elite from the equal application of the laws. This may not be 'Stalinist', but its hardly 'liberal'.
The fundamental problem is not that the police were heavy-handed, or that Jacqui Smith failed to stop them acting, but that the laws the police sought to apply are bad, undemocratic laws. The solution is not to stop the police enforcing the law, to the best of their judgment. The solution is to make better laws - laws that enable Parliamentarians to hold the government to account without wading into murky legal waters.
Read more...
The usually insightful Jackie Ashley seems to me to get things completely wrong in her article in today's Guardian in which she takes Jacqui Smith to task for failing to stop the police interrogating Damian Green MP. Here is what Jackie Ashley says:
'[Jacqui Smith's] highest title is not, actually, home secretary. She is first a member of parliament. Her first duty is to the parliamentary democracy that sustains us all, and that means protecting the rights of elected members to do their democratic job.'
OK, so far, so good. But now consider the conclusion that Jackie Ashley goes on to draw:
'Smith should have found out what was being contemplated by the police and then intervened to stop it. Far from being 'Stalinist', that would have been the proportionate, liberal and sensible thing.'
Er, excuse me? If the police think there is evidence that an MP has broken the law, the Home Secretary should intervene to stop the police from investigating? What Jackie Ashley is suggesting is that one member of the political elite use her power to protect another member of the political elite from the equal application of the laws. This may not be 'Stalinist', but its hardly 'liberal'.
The fundamental problem is not that the police were heavy-handed, or that Jacqui Smith failed to stop them acting, but that the laws the police sought to apply are bad, undemocratic laws. The solution is not to stop the police enforcing the law, to the best of their judgment. The solution is to make better laws - laws that enable Parliamentarians to hold the government to account without wading into murky legal waters.
Read more...
Nick Clegg is going to have a difficult time with several Parliamentary colleagues after thinking out loud about his next reshuffle with fellow MP and chief of staff Danny Alexander on a plane to Scotland within earshot of the Sunday Mirror.
Apart from the personal comments, his strong preference for David Laws over Steve Webb also reflects a desire to tilt the balance of party policy rightwards,
But more damaging still may be the LibDem leader's comment that he finds a Tory defeat unimaginable.
Read more...
He even revealed he would consider a coalition but, while he didn’t say which party he’d side with, he added he would only consider it if Tory David Cameron loses the next election.
“I would think about it,” he admitted. “But only if the Tories lose. And I can’t imagine that.”
