Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Democracy

Referring to the People

Jan 24

Posted by Malc in Constitution, Democracy, Westminster | 32 Comments

In China we are currently in the Year of the Dragon (EDIT – actually, it is the Year of the Tiger) until February at least, when it becomes the Year of the Rabbit which is (no longer) appropriate, since I’m going to talk about Wales, whose symbol is Y Ddraig Goch (It was a good idea when it worked – honest).  But in Wales, this year will not be the year of the dragon, tiger or the rabbit: it will be, in pure geekery terms, the Year of the Referendum(s).

Alongside the excitement that is the AV Referendum(!), the Welsh public will also get the opportunity to vote in a referendum to extend the powers of the National Assembly for Wales.  Or rather, they will get a chance to vote to confirm the extension of powers of the NAfW, since those powers were already granted to the Assembly, but only through a system whereby they had to ask for each power individually, and the granting of all primary legislative powers in one go had to be verified by referendum as stipulated in the Government of Wales Act 2006… you know what, it is fairly complex – if you are incredibly interested, in the process, have a read of the Electoral Commission stuff on it.  Or ask someone from Wales, who may or may not be able to help you.

Anyway, so in Wales they have two referendums in a little over two months, while the rest of us have one in May.  Which brings me to my point – in a representative democracy, when we give over our right to make decisions by electing someone to make them for us, why have referendums in the first place?

Apparently, I wasn’t the only one asking this.  The House of Lords convened a Select Committee on the Constitution to investigate “the role of referendums in the UK’s constitutional experience” and produced a report (12th Report of Session 2009-10 entitled “Referendums in the UK”, pdf here).  In it, they listed the 9 large-scale referendums constituting the “modern history of referendums in the UK”:

1973 – NI Sovereignty
1975 – EEC Membership
1979 – Scottish devolution
1979 – Welsh devolution
1997 – Scottish devolution
1997 – Welsh devolution
1998 – Devolution for London
1998 – Good Friday Agreement
2004 – North-East Devolution

As you can see from the list above, prior to Labour winning power in 1997, there had been only 4 referendums, while the subject of each referendum (with the exception of the Good-Friday Agreement, though you can make a case for it as well) is related to the constitutional future of the UK or a component part thereof.

The House of Lords Select Committee weighed the evidence for and against referendums:

For:

  • Enhances the democratic process
  • Difficult to reverse if public support
  • Can “settle” an issue
  • Can be a “protective device” (safeguard against controversy)
  • Promotes voter education
  • Enhances citizen engagement
  • Popular with voters
  • Complements representative democracy

Against:

  • It is a “tactical device”
  • Dominated by elite groups
  • Have a damaging effect on minority groups
  • It is a “conservative device” (block on progress)
  • Do not “settle” an issue
  • Over-simplify issues
  • Tend not to be about issue in question
  • Costly
  • Undermine representative democracy

Given the balance of evidence the Committee took from experts in the field, academics, constitutional lawyers from across the world and experienced referendum actors, they concluded that there are “significant drawbacks to the use of referendums” and particularly regrettable was “the ad hoc manner in which referendums have been used, often as a tactical device, by the government of the day.”

However, they relented slightly by stating that “if referendums are to be used, they are most appropriately used in relation to fundamental constitutional issues”.  They provided several examples, two of which are relevant to this post: a referendum to change the electoral system for the House of Commons and “for any of the nations of the UK to secede from the Union”.

So, we’re having one of those (the changing the electoral system one, in case you’ve missed it) but we’ve been denied the latter by a) unionist parties not letting the Scottish Government have a referendum or b) the SNP being too scared to bring forward their bill (depending what side of the fence you are sitting on).  In Wales, they’ll have a referendum (which was part of the amendment to devolution that was the Government of Wales Act 2006) in order to amend devolution further (and I’ll probably write more about that nearer the time) so that fits with the using referendums in relation to “fundamental constitutional issues” idea.

I guess my point is this.  A committee of one of the Houses of Parliament at Westminster has indicated its preference for holding a referendum in cases where a constituent nation is considering secession.  Thus, while not legally watertight or providing the Scottish Parliament with the competence to legislate in this area, I think it indicates that, should a Scottish Government pass a bill at Holyrood calling for a referendum on secession from the union, the UK Parliament may have given itself a problem in denying such a plebiscite.  Though the report itself was only advisory, and conducted under the previous government, so perhaps not.  For constitutional geeks like me (and, if you have gotten this far in the post, probably you too) the report is worth a read.

Killing is wrong… right?

Nov 9

Posted by Malc in Defence, Democracy, International | 34 Comments

In my younger, more radical days (hang on – at 26, can I really make the claim that I’m all grown up and “sensible” now? Jury still out…) I was much more vocal, and aggressively so, in my opposition to capital punishment. Cases like this one, though utterly horrific had me arguing in no uncertain terms that capital punishment was wrong, that no matter how bad the crime, state execution was simply not a valid means of punishing a criminal for their action.

Don’t get me wrong – I still don’t think it is right. Killing is wrong (though I can make a case for Margo’s End of Life Assistance Bill being okay, but that’s another debate). Whether it is a drug lord slaying a rival gang leader, a policeman shooting dead a potential terrorist or the state executing a prisoner guilty of what our American cousins would call first degree murder – killing is wrong. You don’t need a religious or theological position to agree with that – basic morality will do.

When I was in my early teens I vividly remember the Oklahoma City bombing, the subsequent trial of Timothy McVeigh and the morbid fascination I had with the American legal system which was inevitably and without any shadow of a doubt going to pass a death sentence on the perpetrator. I vaguely recall news reports in the week up to his execution stating the exact time that he was due to be killed. I remember that it was supposed to be held on 16th May (its my birthday – hence remembering precisely) but that it was delayed for a month (until 11 June – the day before my brother’s birthday!). Anyway, I took such an interest in the case that I knew exactly what time the execution would be – and watched news reports confirming his death. Even though I knew McVeigh had killed 168 people I did not believe that his death was justified, nor that the state had a right to end his life. The fact that he had been wrong in the first place didn’t matter – killing is wrong.

There are 4 broad arguments against the state being allowed to kill: morality (killing is wrong), lack of ability to be a deterrent (evidence suggests so), lack of certainty surrounding guilt of convicted and monetary factors (total costs of execution and appeals process exceed cost of life imprisonment without parole in the US). But for me, the latter three are secondary considerations to the first – that killing is wrong, whether state sanctioned or otherwise.

How many times have I used the phrase “killing is wrong” thus far? I count 6 (and a seventh if you count the question in the previous sentence). Do you get the feeling I’m trying to convince you of something… or myself? Because here’s a kick in the balls: I’m not convinced killing is always wrong.

Let me qualify that statement. I’ve always been more of a utilitarian than a consequentialist (and, indeed, hold J.S. Mill as one of my ideological standard-bearers) but I do have a Masters in Terrorism and International Relations, so here’s a flip side for you. If you could save 20 people from certain death (okay, I know death is certain – I mean a premature death via a terrorist attack) by killing one person you know is planning to attack, would that killing be wrong? If the state had known McVeigh was going to bomb Oklahoma City and shot him dead on the way – and in the process saving 168 lives – would that be justified? I think you could make a case for it (and I can hear the civil liberties types queueing up to whack me as I write this).

I’d still argue that killing is wrong – and you won’t get me to say otherwise – but I think you can justify this type of action. Look, I’m not saying its right. And I’m not saying we should give police new powers in this field, nor that security trumps civil liberties (despite what some might argue!) just that in some cases – perhaps when we can be almost sure that acting will avoid the widespread loss of life – that state sponsored killing could, perhaps, be justified. There, I’ve said it.  But this is a very grey area – things are not black and white here.

Now, I suspect there will be some responses pointing out my objections to capital punishment – we’ll never be 100% sure, costs involved, deterrence and, of course, that killing is wrong – and say that I’m being inconsistent, nay, a hypocrite! I see your point. But I do think I can hold both positions consistently – that killing someone to avoid large-scale loss of life can be justified but that killing them after the due process of law has been followed is wrong. Here’s how. In the former case, the death of suspect/potential convict serves a purpose that is directly related to the physical well-being of society (that is, the avoidance of terrorist incident and/or multiple fatalities). The latter is simply vengeance – an eye for an eye, the state attempting to “even the score” with the criminal. This will not bring back those whom they have killed – but in the former case it stops them from being killed in the first place.

I know its not a perfect argument. And of course there are instances where action will prove ill-considered and wrong. And, inevitably, those concerned with the human rights of those who could not give a flying **** about the human rights of those they intend to kill will scream bloody murder. And yes, that is what it is. But I’m not sure that we can’t – sometimes – look beyond that.

I know that’s controversial, particularly in today’s polarised world. I know what I’m saying condones what is some cases (Israel particularly) would be described as “state-sponsored terrorism”. And I know – and I believe – that killing is wrong. I just think – sometimes – it can be justified.

Scottish Labour – What’s the story in Tobermory?

Oct 31

Posted by Jeff in Democracy, Holyrood, Parties | 8 Comments

Iain Gray, the LOLITSP“You’re gonna open your mouth and lift houses off the ground. Whole houses, clear off the ground.”

So spake Leo McGarry in the West Wing series, highlighting the oratorical power that his friend and President-elect Jed Bartlett possessed.

While some prematurely see Iain Gray as Scotland’s First Minister elect, albeit without the same rhetorical flair and building-lifting verbal ability that the admittedly fictional Bartlett possesses, there was at least a wind in the rafters created by yesterday’s valiant and aggressive performance at Labour’s Oban conference.

For Iain Gray, trying harder seems to equate to shouting louder so one must wonder what sort of rage machine the Labour leader will be by the time he is at his most trying come May next year.

The primary positive from yesterday’s speech was that it was policy heavy, though it could have been heavier still with a staunch defence of why his party believes we need to raise Council Tax. A single Scottish police force, a Scottish care service and a 1-to-1 tuition project for unemployed teachers are all positive ideas that are worthy of consideration.

However, much of what Iain Gray said yesterday, via a delivery that still needs a strong polish, was inane nonsense. Even the short part that I was able to see live felt interminable.

Overly long and irrelevant content on teaching, working abroad, Keir Hardie, the NHS in 1948 and Pinochet for goodness sake… I mean this in the nicest possible way, noone cares. As for the line “the worst of housing makes the best of people”, one can only wonder what monstrous policy idea that ludicrous soundbite emanated from. One suspects that there will be an uprising from the downtrodden if Gray’s working class hero schtick continues to be so clumsily and insultingly deployed.

The overriding impression that I (and my fellow onlookers) were left with was that this was a speech steeped in negativity and Labour still lacks a key message, a reason for all the sound and fury; something other than being for winning and against losing at least, to borrow another West Wing line. Even the Labour stalwarts looked dullly uninspired as they obediently clapped at respectful intervals.

Don’t get me wrong, there is the beginnings of something there, a restirring of the Scottish Labour beast but this Oban Conference still left us to mull over what Labour’s core message is. What’s the story from Tobermory? Well, wouldn’t we like to know.

And for me, Labour’s problem is this. Scotland doesn’t really need radical change right now. The next Government, regardless of party affiliation or constitutional aspiration, just needs to batten down the collective hatches for a few years. It needs to safeguard as many jobs, put as many students into universities and colleges, protect as many OAPs from a good number of risks and create as fertile an economy for sustainable growth as it possibly can. That’s not radical, it’s straightforward management and a business that the SNP has already marked itself out as an effective provider of.

So genuine questions, and ones that Scots will be asking themselves soon are: Why do we need Jackie Baillie instead of Nicola Sturgeon? Why do we need Baker instead of MacAskill? And, most pertinent of all, why do we need FM Gray instead of FM Salmond?

One can point to reasons why we moved from Labour to Tory in 1979, from Tory to Labour in 1997 and from Labour to SNP in 2007. That reason does not yet exist in 2010 and is the message that Iain Gray, and Scottish Labour as a whole, still need to find in advance of May 2011.

Which parties are important?

Oct 28

Posted by Malc in Democracy | 10 Comments

This is kind of a simplistic post in which I ask more than answer a question.  But I am quite interested in the answer – and its kind of more abstract party political than some of our usual posts, but please bear with it – and drop an answer in the comments!

As a PhD student, I also do some part-time work as a Teaching Assistant, taking first year classes on politics. So, this week – their mid-semester break – I’ve been spending my time marking 60-odd essays of varying quality.

Anyway, they were on several different topics, but one of the questions was “how many parties are important in the British party system?”. And I had a wide spread of answers – incorporating everything from one (a party in government) to seven (for various reasons) and many in between.  I had students arguing that only Labour and the Conservatives were important (for historic reasons) and that, even though they were in government, the Lib Dems were not important. I had importance stretching to all parties with MPs. Indeed, I had so many different interpretations of what important meant (size of party on seats/ votes/ membership; position as government/ opposition; devolved status; influence on policy; blackmail potential) that I wasn’t even sure what important meant. The thing is, I guess, is that there is no right or wrong answer. As long as they could define important in a realistic and sensible way and make a coherent argument as to why parties were important, they got a good mark.

But the issue has become more interesting to me, because although I don’t think there is a right answer, I wondered what folk thought. Now obviously the question has its flaws (“British party system” implies only Westminster, but they are studying British politics, so that’s why) but I wondered if we could discount any parties from being important? I mean, obviously, with 650 MPs, Westminster is a big place, and if you have less than 10 MPs (so, everyone bar Lab/Con/LD) you don’t have much influence. But then you can make the case that only the government have any power (and therefore importance…) but that discounts the second largest party – and counts the third largest!  You can see the issue. And why should we use representation as a yardstick anyway? In a democracy surely views are still important whether or not they are represented in Parliament, which would make the parties without representation contenders to be “important”? And though parties like the BNP and UKIP have no MPs, they do have Lords, MEPs or councillors, so they have representation, just not in the House of Commons.

I guess I’ve opened up a can of worms. And as I said above, I’m not sure there is an answer to this, but I’m interested to know what readers think. Where do we draw the line? Which parties in Britain are important – and which are not? And how do we define important anyway?

Were the coalition’s pre-election promises FIT for purpose?

Oct 11

Posted by Jeff in Democracy, Elections, Parties | 4 Comments

I don’t know how widely known the subject of Feed-In Tariffs (FITs) is, the green electricity that the public can generate from their own homes, put onto the Grid and make significant sums off the back of, all while reducing their own power bills. The approach forms just one small part of the innovative and creative fight against Climate Change and if you have a roof that fits the criteria and have the necessary cash then you should look into this in more detail. Well, that is save for the caveat that the lucrative opportunity looks set to be curtailed or even abolished when the scheme is reviewed in 2012.

Aside from questioning the logic of removing incentives to green energy, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a Government amending the projects of a previous Government. However, that is not where the story ends with these FITs and the new coalition.

As The Guardian points out, during the election campaign David Cameron pledged that:

“under a Conservative government, any micro-generation technologies that have already been installed … will be eligible for the new higher tariffs once they commence.”

However, Energy Secretary Chris Huhne has ruled out paying these “early pioneers” what was promised to them by the now Prime Minister citing value-for-money as the reason.

Now, I can understand a Government that is long in the tooth, short of ideas and overtaken by events reneging on pre-election pledges, witness Labour’s welcome hiking of income tax to 50% for example, but the most recent election was only in May and it is difficult to count how many election pledges have already been broken. Difficult, but I’ll have a go:

– Increasing VAT when Tories said they had no plans to and the Lib Dems vigorously campaigned against such a rise
– Repealing the Human Rights Act
– Protecting the Winter Fuel Allowance
– Building the Summary Care Record database of medical data
– Removing tax breaks for the computer games industry
– make it a criminal offence to possess or bring into the country illegal timber

This of course is to overlook the hugely significant proposals that are already being planned in our name without our having a chance to vote on it in a General Election:

– Scrapping child benefit
– 5 year fixed term Parliaments
– giving power of NHS budgets to GPs
– a referendum on the Alternative Vote (a voting system that no one party is in favour of)
– increasing fees for students

Of course, what is even more bonkers is that the Conservatives are sticking to the election promises that are the most ludicrous – paying for nuclear weapons that will never be used and introducing tax breaks for married couples.

This blog was meant to be positive and I guess the above doesn’t quite meet that criteria but this blogger is increasingly exasperated at the yawning disconnect between what was said (and not said) before the May election and what has gone on afterwards. It wouldn’t even be so bad if the Conservatives and Lib Dems hadn’t bolted on an extra year to the standard 4-year term that a Government typically gets in office ensuring that the public don’t get a say until 2015.

This of course is not surprising. In what was perhaps a pivotal point in the election campaign and certainly the moment I knew for sure that voters were being shortchanged was when the Insititute for Fiscal Studies released its report stating that the Conservatives had only identified where 17.7% of the cuts that it was proposing were going to fall.

One pre-election pledge that the Conservatives have made good on is urging the public to take part in the Big Society, a coming together of communities all across the country to ensure the right thing is done and we progress together. Wouldn’t it be a delicious irony if one of the first Big Society successes was a large protest against the non-delivery of pledges and the ramming through of policies that we never received a heads up on?