Liberal Vision

Roy Jenkins: You’re too liberal!

Over the weekend I watch the first episode of the BBC’s series on the Great Offices of State, which focussed on The Home Office. At one point they had footage of Roy Jenkins visiting the wreckage of the Birmingham pub bombings. As he walked past the angry crowds, a voice (or it may have been two voices) shouted out “Bring back hanging!” “Your’re too liberal!”

At the time I just chuckled a bit. “You’re too liberal” isn’t a common critique in the UK, where (unlike the United States) liberalism is not conflated with socialism, and people tend to be practical rather than philosophical.

Indeed, for my mind, Roy Jenkins wasn’t liberal enough, in that it was his and our tragedy that he reached the zenith of his political career at around the time that the Liberal Paty was in its nadir.

Yet this morning I was suddenly struck by something that I had overlooked at the time. The woman who was accusing Jenkins of being too liberal was doing so in the context of the Birmingham bombings. Those same Birmingham bombings that led to the wrongful conviction of six people.

Too liberal? Thank heavens Roy Jenkins was liberal. Thank heavens he was Home Secretary after the abolishion of capital punishment, and so was not faced with the onerous duty of overseeing the execution of six men. Thank heavens that we didn’t determine, 17 years too late, that we - too - had killed the innocent.

In fact it wasn’t Jenkins who abolished capital punishment, but James Callaghan. Still, it seems like a very long time since we have been confronted with the prospect of a Home Secreaty who could in any way, shape or form be call liberal.

EU SWIFT Vote Ends Bank Data Sharing

This is quite possibly one of the best things I’ve heard come out of the EU in some time and yet has been woefully under-reported:

The European parliament rejected an agreement on sharing banking data with the US yesterday, delivering a potential setback to long-running US efforts to track down terrorist financing.

Citing concerns about European citizens’ privacy, the parliament voted to scrap a deal that would have given the US continued access to data compiled by Swift, a co-operative that handles interbank money transfers.

The move means that for the first time since the September 2001 attacks, the US will not have access to large parts of the Swift database, which includes information from more than 8,000 financial institutions globally.

Crucially in this vote it was the Liberals (ALDE) who helped sway the vote in favour of our right to privacy. We should be very proud of the role LibDem MEPs played in ensuring this result. The end result was 378 MEPs voting to block the data sharing and 196 voting in favour of it’s continuation with 31 abstentions.

One has to wonder at the sheer nerve of the US:

The US had lobbied hard to keep the data flowing, with Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, and Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, both contacting Jerzy Buzek, the parliament’s president, in an attempt to sway the vote.

The US Treasury had previously obtained the data through repeated subpoenas sited on US soil, but a decision by Swift to move key computer servers to Europe from last month means Washington must now persuade the EU to hand over the data voluntarily.

EU governments agreed, on an interim basis, to continue co-operation last November. Though some had reservations, most were swayed by US arguments that the Swift data led to valuable intelligence that could prevent terrorism in Europe.

No matter how the US try to spin this, it is a victory for the little people against the state. The US demands were grotesquely disproportionate to the threat posed by terrorism. Dutch Liberal rapporteur Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert explained:

“If the US administration proposed something equivalent to the Congress – transferring in bulk all banking data on American citizens to a foreign power - we know what they would say”. In other words, the agreement provides for no reciprocity for the EU.

Does the tobacco fight back start here?

At last, a tobacco manufacturer sticks its head over the parapet and says to government enough is enough. Imperial Tobacco has issued a statement stating that its subsidiary will challenge the government plans to ban vending machines.

And why not?  There are - as stated on this site before - many ways that the children can be prevented from purchasing cigarettes, mostly obviously by ensuring that “tokens” must be issued over the counter to use the machines. Anyone under age will not be sold a token and so be unable to use the machines. (There are other systems, equally effective I should add) Simple! This would eradicate the problem of underage purchases in one fell swoop, whilst not limiting the rights of business to sell, and consumers to buy, this perfectly legal product. Everyone happy.

Unless of course this is NOT about under age usage - but an evangelical mission by the Health Secretary to “eradicate” smokers from the face of the earth?

Ok, it may be a bit strong to say “the tobacco fight back starts here”. I am sure that tobacco companies have done much behind the scenes to stand their ground in recent years. But ordinary folks like me dont always get to see they are doing. So well done Imperial Tobacco.

The press release from Imperial Tobacco reads…. 

“Imperial Tobacco Group PLC announces today that its subsidiary cigarette vending machine company Sinclair Collis is seeking a judicial review of the relevant sections of the Health Act 2009 which seek to ban sales of tobacco from vending machines from October 2011.

Gareth Davis, Chief Executive, said: “Legal action is always a last resort but the Government’s decision to ban cigarette vending machines is so disproportionate and unnecessary that it must be challenged.

“We do not want children to smoke and supported the Government’s proposal to stop underage access through the introduction of electronic ID cards, token mechanisms and remote control technology.

“These are effective solutions which have been implemented in a number of other countries and it is a matter of great regret that the UK Government ultimately chose to disregard all of these options in favour of a ban that will result in significant job losses in the vending industry.”

Robin Hood: A Libertarian Hero Defamed (!)

Amidst all this discussion of a “Robin Hood Tax” it occurred to me that collectively we seem to have seemed to have forgotten the story of Robin Hood.

Robin Hood famously “stole from the rich and gave to the poor”. But before socialists claim him I’d just like to point out one little detail. The poor were poor because of hugely punitive taxes. They were imposed by Prince John to fund the statesman’s extravagant lifestyle. A factor in turn augmented by an already heightened level of taxation due to his brother’s (King Richard’s) costly middle eastern conflict (the Crusades). You could say the fable holds some parallels with modern day Britain…

Far from being a socialist, Robin Hood took money off the wealthy elite and gave it back to those who had generated it in the first place, redressing problematic redistribution. Sounds like a libertarian to me.

Naming a tax after a man who is, by all means, a libertarian hero must surely be defamation!

What’s wrong with a Bill of Rights?

Power 2010, a campaign to reform the UK constitution, is inviting people to vote on five reforms to which they will ask parliamentary candidates to sign up before the coming General Election. There are some excellent ideas, some not so good and some deeply flawed.

Among them is a suggestion that on face value should be welcomed. Over at the Adam Smith Institute’s blog I examine the call for a UK Bill of Rights. As I note, “a Bill of Rights that set out the freedoms that people should enjoy as citizens (not subjects!) of the United Kingdom – bringing together both ancient liberties and new ones – would be a good thing… However, as is so common when talking about ‘Rights’, the authors of this proposal go on to conflate two very different issues, and in doing so they undermine their case…”

To find out where they have gone wrong, read the full article.

[Please also leave any comments there rather than below: why have two conversations when we can have one?]

A masterclass in risk-taking from the New Orleans Saints

Big occassions need big men. Men that will rise to the challenge, galvanise their team and take some big risks - when it really counts. When history is in the making you dont want Mr Timid knocking at the door. Opportunity rewards the bold and the brave. So it was with sheer delight that I watched the underdogs - the New Orleans Saints- scoop the biggest prize of all - the Superbowl.

If you did not watch the game, this may mean nothing to you - go watch it. But Sean Payton (the Saints coach) proved himself to be one of  the gutsiest coaches ever to come to a Superbowl game.

The Colts came into the game clear favourites. The first quarter went  as expected. It was all Colts; at one point they were leading 10-0 and many thought, I am sure, that it was game over. The Saints seemed to be taking too many risks - like going for a touchdown when a field goal could have been banked.  But by the end of the second quarter the Saints had fought their way back into the game not by changing their game plan - but by staying true to it. By half time it looked clear to me that the Saints could only win if they DID take those risks - and by jove that is what they were doing . With the score standing at 10-6 to the Colts (and much of the money on the Colts) I put my money on the Saints.

Coming out at the opening of the second half - Sean Payton did the unthinkable - he took another, huge, risk calling for an onside kick to keep posession with the Saints. Yes it was risky but it proved to be as brilliant as it was unexpected. From there on in the Saints never really looked like losing. Nor did they lose their willingness to take risks - going for a two point conversion, with all the risks that entailed (and challenging the call when it was ruled foul). These boys were going for it. They kept the brilliant (arguably the best ever ) Colts quarterback Peyton Manning out of the game for over an hour and that probably proved decisive. When he did get onto the field they kept the pressure up - eventually winning that well deserved (and brilliantly taken) turnover. Actually I think the Colts were technically the better team on the night but they had no answer for the passion, the risk-taking and team spirit of the Saints. The Saints won 31-17.

So what has this to do with politics or the Liberal Democrats ? I think that Nick Clegg can learn a great deal from the Saints coach Sean Payton. And I urge all Liberal Democrats to go watch the game. It is a masterclass in leadership - of stepping up to the plate when the big game is on - of taking risks - of having faith in your team and your team having faith in you - giving them the belief and the tools to win - and win when it mattered.

After 43 years of mediocrity these first time finalists had not fared too well in recent years. They had been the also rans for too many years. So when opportunity came knocking, boy were they hungry for it. Second was not enough.

Offensive tackle Jon Stinchcomb said “You know you’re going to be competing to win, ” …. “..You want to know that Coach backs you, he has faith in our group, and he’s going to put us in situations to be successful.” ….”So those aggressive points -(risks!) - he’s putting the ball in our court, saying, ‘Go make a play, guys. I’ve got faith in you. Go make me right.’ That’s exactly what you want.”

Linebacker Scott Fujita agreed “(The coach) came in playing to win this game….You like that… He’s got a certain swagger about him, it carries over to the offense….Now you’ve got a lot of guys playing aggressive, playing confident”

Thats what we want to see from Nick, (ok not the swagger but) but  leader of men that says “go for it” . We will take risks, because playing it safe is not good enough - and the prize is worth winning. This is the best chance we have had in a very long time so lets not have regrets later about where we should have been bolder. Lets be brave.

Ok we can’t win the Superbowl (can you imagine Vince in shoulder pads?) . We can’t win the election. But we can make history. We can change politics forever - and thats our Superbowl. I am not sure who our quarterback is, but Nick needs to be our Sean Payton. Please go watch the game Nick.

Class War and Power Play

Here’s the reasoned piece on class war that I originally promised HoT:

The longer I am involved in politics the more I grow to dislike class war. The world in which class war exists is a world where no one holds political viewpoints beyond their own vested interests.

That’s a bleak view of humanity isn’t it?

Allowing class war to be successful is a consequence of an apologist society. If you are an administration that has been in power for 12/13 years you should not be able to absolve yourself from failure by simply saying “we’re not toffs”. The prospect of Labour doing this from now until the election is a wretched one, indeed.

But is there any truth to the claims that “Tories help the rich, Labour help the rest”? Well, yes. But what’s true of the Tories is also true of Labour. The Tories like wealthy individuals and Labour like wealthy organisations i.e. the Unions. Either way both parties facilitate power being transferred from the people to a small wealthy elite. They both protect the vested interests of the rich and use the apparatus of the state to do it. As for the LibDems, well, we are not powerful and/or important enough to have any vested interests at all. But if you can tell me the liberal equivalent of Lord Ashcroft or the Trade Unions, please, do let me know…

As far as I’m concerned class belongs in the same dustbin as the gender card and the race card.

Some of you may scoff at the suggestion that classism is as bad as racism or sexism but ‘class war’ does share similar characteristics with the former in that it is a reductionist proposition. It simplifies every issue and mode of human interaction to a single factor. If you are a feminist you see suppression and exploitation in every conscious decision and unconscious consequence. This, I hope you’ll agree, is an unattractive lifestyle and puts off many who sympathise with it’s proponents legitimate claims. The same can be said of classism.

Making the odd joke using a gender, race or class stereotype is funny. But using gender or race stereotypes consistently for political gain is now recognised as meaningless. The same should be true of class stereotypes. It is one of the most off putting aspects of UK politics and I look forward to a day when we can shake off this last residual hangover from our political past.

Happy birthday, Schumpy

Today is the birthday of Joseph A. Schumpeter, the Moravian philosopher largely responsible for the term “creative destruction”.

Here’s one quotation of his on the subject:

“The process of Creative Destruction is the essential fact about capitalism … it is not [price] competition which counts but the competition from . . . new technology . . . competition which strikes not at the margins of profits . . . of existing firms but at their foundations and their very lives.”

Liberal Vision’s Barry Stocker has previously summarised Schumpeter’s Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy text: click here to read it.

Lib Dem AM Mick Bates “cannot remember” punching paramedic

Oh dear - the Beeb is reporting that Mick Bates, Lib Dem AM for Montgomeryshire, is being accused of assaulting a paramedic who had been called to help him during a night out last month.

Bates was apparently kicked out of a restaurant, before allegedly verbally and physically assaulting the paramedic. He was then “kept under observation by security” at A&E.

LD head Kirsty Williams has seemingly claimed that he was knocked unconscious, a claim refuted by the paramedic. The relevance of this is that Mick Bates says he “cannot remember” what happened during the incident. It has previously been understood that he will stand down from the assembly next year (irrespective of these allegations).

The case continues.

Update: Steph Ashley got in there first, with her take on the incident (and timing of the report) over at Dib Lemming.

Lib Dems - go back to your constituencies and prepare to complain….

ITV has announced that on 14th Feb 2010 it plans to broadcast a one hour “interview” with Gordon Brown. Not a hard hitting political examination of the Prime Minister - his policies and actions over the last four years. Not a series of interviews where Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Nick Clegg (and possibly others) are likewise interrogated.

No. This is Piers Morgan interviewing the PM.  No other politician at any other point, just the PM. This is Piers Morgan - former editor of the pro-Labour party Mirror newspaper, up until 2004 (when he was sacked). This is Piers Morgan, Gordon Browns mate. Piers Morgan who interviews the likes of Cilla Black, Katie Price, Boris Becker,Dannii Minogue,Ronnie Corbett, Vinnie Jones,  and.. er…oh.. the Prime Minister (weeks before a general election must be called). Piers Morgan who says of Gordon Brown (presumably with a straight face (and fingers crossed behind his back)) “He’s one of the most famous people in the country, yet remains a man of mystery to many.  I have known Gordon Brown for over 15 years – he is a man who has enjoyed great triumph, suffered terrible tragedy, and will soon face the biggest challenge of his career.” Sound like a one hour party political election broadcast to you too?

Much has been said about how cynical Gordon Brown is to use this programme as a vehicle to gain public sympathy etc. I dont care whether he cried or stripped naked and did the hokey Cokey - what I care about is how the hell those people in charge of ITV let Gordon Brown’s mate interview Gordon Brown within weeks of a general election without any regard to their internal or external commitments to impartiality.  

ITN must be spitting teeth. All that time and effort ensuring that their news coverage over the course of any one period is “balanced” and “fair”and then boom! some idiot head of Light Entertainment who can’t see past the ratings or dare not challenge the over-inflated ego of Mr-Big-Bucks-Morgan goes and blows it. What useless, dim-witted idiots are in charge down there these days?  

Personally I cannot see how this can be allowed under OFCOM rules - there is a whole section (Section Five) concerned with ..”Due Impartiality and Due Accuracy and Undue Prominence of Views and Opinions“.

The mad thing is, you can’t actually complain to OFCOM BEFORE the programme is broadcast. Once it has been broadcst and everyone complains, presumably ITV will have to ensure that Nick Clegg  and Dave Cameron get their moment in the sun with their best mates in the interviewers chair too …and before the general election is called. If I were Dave or Nick I would get my mates to nip over and get an interview in the can now and just send them to ITV for broadcast - seeing as how thats TV is made down there now. What a joke ITV are.

COMPLAIN TO OFCOM :

Sadly their website is broken at the moment. UPDATE: The website is now working - it makes it very difficult to complain prior to programme transmission but you can try https://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/progs/specific/?itemid=286480 or you can call OFCOM on 0300 123 3333 or 020 7981 3000 or write to them at  Ofcom, Riverside House, 2a Southwark Bridge Road,London, SE1 9HA and simply ask them to post date your complaint about the “Party Politcal Broadcast brought to you by Piers Morgan” to Feb 15th (day after the interview is broadcast). Just tell them it seems to break just about every rule in section 5.

COMPLAIN TO ITV:

This you can do by emailing dutyoffice@itv.com (duty officers logs get sent round the big boys - or at least they used to) copied to the viewerservices@itv.com or call 0844 88 14150.

I understand that some libertarians out there will shrug and say that OFCOM should be scrapped and every broadcaster allowed to do what the hell they like. And I have some sympathy with that view. But until the point that OFCOM is scrapped and whilst ITV pretends to operate a news code of conduct then I think we have a right to expect it to adhere to its and OFCOMs rules.