Are we any closer to an Iraq inquiry?

LibDem foreign affairs spokesman Ed Davey thinks that George Bush's expression of regret about the Iraq intelligence failures strengthens the case for an Iraq inquiry in Britain, and wants an announcement in the Queen's speech.

The Prime Minister accepted the principle of the need for an inquiry in correspondence with me last March.

I agree with you that there is a need to learn all possible lessons from the military action in Iraq and its aftermath. This Government has already acknowledged that there will come a time when it is appropriate to hold an inquiry. But whilst the whole effort of the Government and the armed forces is directed towards supporting the people and Government of Iraq as they forge a future based on reconciliation, democracy, prosperity and security, we believe that is not now.

This was widely reported as a significant development at the time.

There have been no public developments on the government's position on an inquiry since.

It could well have been thought inappropriate to make any major statement during the closing stages of a US General Election campaign. With the election now over, an announcement soon would make sense. Read more...

Are we any closer to an Iraq inquiry?

LibDem foreign affairs spokesman Ed Davey thinks that George Bush's expression of regret about the Iraq intelligence failures strengthens the case for an Iraq inquiry in Britain, and wants an announcement in the Queen's speech.

The Prime Minister accepted the principle of the need for an inquiry in correspondence with me last March.

I agree with you that there is a need to learn all possible lessons from the military action in Iraq and its aftermath. This Government has already acknowledged that there will come a time when it is appropriate to hold an inquiry. But whilst the whole effort of the Government and the armed forces is directed towards supporting the people and Government of Iraq as they forge a future based on reconciliation, democracy, prosperity and security, we believe that is not now.

This was widely reported as a significant development at the time.

There have been no public developments on the government's position on an inquiry since.

It could well have been thought inappropriate to make any major statement during the closing stages of a US General Election campaign. With the election now over, an announcement soon would make sense. Read more...

Philip Hammond - secret Fabian?

Or, at least, the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury is a man who seems to be prepared to admit some uncomfortable truths for his own party.

The Financial Times seems to be the only paper to report his speech to the think-tank Reform yesterday - in which he warned his party that a Tory government would not be able to cut government spending, and could not try to do more than restrict its growth (while, in passing, signalling that they will not reverse a new top rate of tax either).

But I wonder how many Tories agree that reducing the size of the state would be 'gesture' politics.

As the FT reports:

Thatcherite MPs and activists would like the Tories to reverse some of Labour’s perceived profligacy, using a reduction in the size of the state to fund tax cuts.

But Mr Hammond suggested this “smaller state” argument failed to address the upwards pressures on spending. Speaking at a seminar convened by Reform, the think-tank, he said a cut to the overall spending level would be a “gesture” only, given trends such as the ageing population. He warned that it would also be “politically extremely difficult – I don’t think it’s ever been done for a sustained period”.

"I don't think its ever been done" is very interesting indeed. How rare it is to find anybody on the right who will face up to and engage with why neither Margaret Thatcher nor Ronald Reagan managed to cut government spending or rolled back the state: a cause which is no much less popular than the right thinks.

Challenging that foundational myth of the small state right could pave the way for the centre-right's genuine 'clause four' moment - returning the tribute paid by Bill Clinton in now acknowledging that 'the era of smaller government is over'.

The problem is that, in doing so, Hammond returns to accepting what Keith Joseph argued against - the "ratchet effect" through which 'status quo conservatism' would accept that the centre of political gravity would move, over time, to the left.

And yet it was this ability to retreat which was, to a large extent, the great secret of conservatism's 20th century survival and success: Conservatives argued against change as unnecessary but, crucially, it adapted and absorbed change once it happened, and could at once defend the new status quo. (Dispositional conservatives could always argue, in the final line of Oakeshott's famous inaugural lecture at the LSE in 1951 that "the world is the best of all possible worlds and everything in it is a necessary evil").

And that was a very successful electoral and political strategy. But, for Joseph, this meant that all Conservatives between 1951 and 1974 effectively were forced to govern as if moderate social democrats. (Margaret Thatcher's record on introducing comprehensive schools being just one example). Hence Joseph's famous statement in Reversing the Trend that:

"It was only in April 1974 that I was converted to Conservatism. (I had thought I was a Conservative but I now see that I was not really one at all.

"‘I was at that time a statist’, he confessed. ‘I went along with the then fashionable policies".

The Conservative dilemma today is that Keith Joseph and Margaret Thatcher seemed to provide tantalising proof that Conservatives could do more than adapt: the clock could be turned back (albeit less dramatically than they had hoped). And this enabled them to give the Conservative Party something rather new and dangerous: an ideology.

This is David Cameron's dilemma. He is in many ways a dispositional Conservative, recognisable from the era of Macmillan and Douglas-Home. I do not think he would have many problems accepting and adapting to the New Labour settlement if that is the price of power.

But he is also a post-Thatcherite Conservative. And he does not lead Macmillan's party but a post-Thatcherite party which does now believe in something more than gradual retreat. What it believes in above all is a smaller state. Some are aware that it is an ideology which has done the party more harm than good since 1990, but it remains what they believe.

It could be that some (but not all) in the leadership would like the party to believe in something else. But I don't think that they have yet worked out what that might be. Read more...

Philip Hammond - secret Fabian?

Or, at least, the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury is a man who seems to be prepared to admit some uncomfortable truths for his own party.

The Financial Times seems to be the only paper to report his speech to the think-tank Reform yesterday - in which he warned his party that a Tory government would not be able to cut government spending, and could not try to do more than restrict its growth (while, in passing, signalling that they will not reverse a new top rate of tax either).

But I wonder how many Tories agree that reducing the size of the state would be 'gesture' politics.

As the FT reports:

Thatcherite MPs and activists would like the Tories to reverse some of Labour’s perceived profligacy, using a reduction in the size of the state to fund tax cuts.

But Mr Hammond suggested this “smaller state” argument failed to address the upwards pressures on spending. Speaking at a seminar convened by Reform, the think-tank, he said a cut to the overall spending level would be a “gesture” only, given trends such as the ageing population. He warned that it would also be “politically extremely difficult – I don’t think it’s ever been done for a sustained period”.

"I don't think its ever been done" is very interesting indeed. How rare it is to find anybody on the right who will face up to and engage with why neither Margaret Thatcher nor Ronald Reagan managed to cut government spending or rolled back the state: a cause which is no much less popular than the right thinks.

Challenging that foundational myth of the small state right could pave the way for the centre-right's genuine 'clause four' moment - returning the tribute paid by Bill Clinton in now acknowledging that 'the era of smaller government is over'.

The problem is that, in doing so, Hammond returns to accepting what Keith Joseph argued against - the "ratchet effect" through which 'status quo conservatism' would accept that the centre of political gravity would move, over time, to the left.

And yet it was this ability to retreat which was, to a large extent, the great secret of conservatism's 20th century survival and success: Conservatives argued against change as unnecessary but, crucially, it adapted and absorbed change once it happened, and could at once defend the new status quo. (Dispositional conservatives could always argue, in the final line of Oakeshott's famous inaugural lecture at the LSE in 1951 that "the world is the best of all possible worlds and everything in it is a necessary evil").

And that was a very successful electoral and political strategy. But, for Joseph, this meant that all Conservatives between 1951 and 1974 effectively were forced to govern as if moderate social democrats. (Margaret Thatcher's record on introducing comprehensive schools being just one example). Hence Joseph's famous statement in Reversing the Trend that:

"It was only in April 1974 that I was converted to Conservatism. (I had thought I was a Conservative but I now see that I was not really one at all.

"‘I was at that time a statist’, he confessed. ‘I went along with the then fashionable policies".

The Conservative dilemma today is that Keith Joseph and Margaret Thatcher seemed to provide tantalising proof that Conservatives could do more than adapt: the clock could be turned back (albeit less dramatically than they had hoped). And this enabled them to give the Conservative Party something rather new and dangerous: an ideology.

This is David Cameron's dilemma. He is in many ways a dispositional Conservative, recognisable from the era of Macmillan and Douglas-Home. I do not think he would have many problems accepting and adapting to the New Labour settlement if that is the price of power.

But he is also a post-Thatcherite Conservative. And he does not lead Macmillan's party but a post-Thatcherite party which does now believe in something more than gradual retreat. What it believes in above all is a smaller state. Some are aware that it is an ideology which has done the party more harm than good since 1990, but it remains what they believe.

It could be that some (but not all) in the leadership would like the party to believe in something else. But I don't think that they have yet worked out what that might be. Read more...

Welfare reform: conditionality is conditional

There is quite a political storm brewing over the government's latest welfare reform proposals which will see a tightening of work-related conditions for certain groups such as single-parents.

Some, like Minister for Work and Pensions, James Purnell, argue that the reforms reflect Labour's long tradition of work-based social justice. Others, like Compass, argue that the reforms are unjust, at least here and now, with the economy in recession. Who is right?

Here are some key points which I think we need to bear in mind.

First, conditionality is not necessarily unjust. There is a long-standing socialist tradition which emphasises the idea that, in a just society, each citizen should do their bit productively if they share in the wealth that others help to produce. In principle, conditionality can express this principle of reciprocity. 'From each according to ability...'

But, second, to enforce work in welfare in a highly unequal society risks unfairness because it impacts the welfare poor and not the rich. If it is unfair for the welfare poor to get 'something for nothing' (income without work), it is also unfair for someone who lives off unearned wealth - inheritance or unearned capital gains - to do so. But 'welfare reform' only enforces the work obligation for the poor person.

Third, to enforce work in welfare in a highly unequal society also risks unfairness because it might reduce the bargaining power of disadvantaged workers. With more pressure on the unemployed to get into jobs, the wages and working conditions of jobs will tend to be driven down, exacerbating inequality.

This third point has particular force when an economy is in recession. It might also have particular force when for-profit contractors win contracts to manage welfare-to-work schemes based on how many people they commit to getting off benefit. (This is not the same as saying that their involvement is wrong per se.)

What do these various points imply?

One view, which I think is consistent with the points, is that a social democratic government may proceed with welfare reform, of the kind which tightens work-conditionality, but only if certain further conditions are met - conditionality is conditional.

First, the government needs to do something to offset the unfairness of the asset rich getting 'something for nothing'. This means that things like inheritance taxes and capital gains taxes should go up.

Second, the government needs to do something to prevent or offset possible reduction in workers' bargaining power. This might mean giving a stronger emphasis within welfare-to-work programs to upskilling than to 'work first'. It might mean a higher minimum wage and, indeed, a whole lot of other things.

But, not least, as Polly Toynbee argues, it should mean putting the big stick of benefit cuts aside until the recession is over.

Does the government itself pass the relevant conditionality test?

If we apply the framework set out above, it doesn't look like it.... Read more...

Welfare reform: conditionality is conditional

There is quite a political storm brewing over the government's latest welfare reform proposals which will see a tightening of work-related conditions for certain groups such as single-parents.

Some, like Minister for Work and Pensions, James Purnell, argue that the reforms reflect Labour's long tradition of work-based social justice. Others, like Compass, argue that the reforms are unjust, at least here and now, with the economy in recession. Who is right?

Here are some key points which I think we need to bear in mind.

First, conditionality is not necessarily unjust. There is a long-standing socialist tradition which emphasises the idea that, in a just society, each citizen should do their bit productively if they share in the wealth that others help to produce. In principle, conditionality can express this principle of reciprocity. 'From each according to ability...'

But, second, to enforce work in welfare in a highly unequal society risks unfairness because it impacts the welfare poor and not the rich. If it is unfair for the welfare poor to get 'something for nothing' (income without work), it is also unfair for someone who lives off unearned wealth - inheritance or unearned capital gains - to do so. But 'welfare reform' only enforces the work obligation for the poor person.

Third, to enforce work in welfare in a highly unequal society also risks unfairness because it might reduce the bargaining power of disadvantaged workers. With more pressure on the unemployed to get into jobs, the wages and working conditions of jobs will tend to be driven down, exacerbating inequality.

This third point has particular force when an economy is in recession. It might also have particular force when for-profit contractors win contracts to manage welfare-to-work schemes based on how many people they commit to getting off benefit. (This is not the same as saying that their involvement is wrong per se.)

What do these various points imply?

One view, which I think is consistent with the points, is that a social democratic government may proceed with welfare reform, of the kind which tightens work-conditionality, but only if certain further conditions are met - conditionality is conditional.

First, the government needs to do something to offset the unfairness of the asset rich getting 'something for nothing'. This means that things like inheritance taxes and capital gains taxes should go up.

Second, the government needs to do something to prevent or offset possible reduction in workers' bargaining power. This might mean giving a stronger emphasis within welfare-to-work programs to upskilling than to 'work first'. It might mean a higher minimum wage and, indeed, a whole lot of other things.

But, not least, as Polly Toynbee argues, it should mean putting the big stick of benefit cuts aside until the recession is over.

Does the government itself pass the relevant conditionality test?

If we apply the framework set out above, it doesn't look like it.... Read more...

Dubya's place in history? He's not bovvered

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.

Hat-tip: Andrew Sullivan. Read more...