Civil society tends to become a sort of artificial reservoir for an endangered species: the democratic intellectual, protected by the international institutions
Quote of the day
 Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
 NavigationThe World
|
 |
Guy Aitchison's blogGuy AitchisonGuy Aitchison (London, OK): Last week John Jackson blogged on the heroic efforts of Michael Wills to drive through the Governance of Britain agenda in the face of hostility from his parliamentary colleagues and the press and as the government of which he is a part implodes. As part of the process Wills has been travelling around the country holding open table discussions on different aspects of the agenda. He recently stopped off in my hometown of Bristol to discuss plans for the British Statement of Values, the Bill of Rights and Responsibilies, community engagement and barriers to voting. The good people of Bristol offered sage advice to the Government, captured in this MoJ document. Not least they pointed out that any "public engagement had to be meaningful and worthwhile to the participants involved and that their contribution is going to be taken into account as part of the decision-making process." Next stop Nottingham, followed by Newcastle, Brighton and London. If you attend a discussion do let us know your thoughts on how it went. Read the rest of this post... 23 - 07 - 08
Guy AitchisonGuy Aitchison (London, OK): Have we seen the last of the "British" acre? The 700-year old land measurement has apparently been banned by the EU following a meeting in Brussels last week. The Sun (as you may have guessed) is not best pleased, informing its readers that "Britain" (don't they mean England?) has used the acre to measure land since " the late 13th century under Edward I’s reign." The word acre is apparently derived from the Old English for "open field" and was considered the amount of land tillable by a man behind an ox in one day. The measurement was eventually defined by law under Queen Victoria in the Weights and Measures Act of 1878 as being 4,840 square yards or 43,560 square feet. This history was brought to an end last week when a "lowly Whitehall official" nodded through the EU orders that sealed the acre's fate. What do OK readers think? Surely the humble acre deserved better than this. 21 - 07 - 08
Guy AitchisonGuy Aitchison (London, OK): Iain Dale is compiling his annual Guide to Political Blogging to be published in September and wants your votes for the Top Ten Political Blogs in the UK. To vote simply email your top ten (ranked from 1 to 10) to toptenblogs@totalpolitics.com with Top 10 in the subject line. The deadline for submitting your Top 10 is Friday August 15th. You can also leave your Top 10 in the Comments on Iain's blog here. 21 - 07 - 08
Guy AitchisonGuy Aitchison (Bristol, OK): Is there a democratic case to be made against an elected second chamber? Anthony Barnett has made the case on OK for the Athenian practice of sortition as an alternative and democratic form of citizen engagement that could help renew the second chamber. David Marquand was not convinced. Now Lord Norton has put the "democratic" case for appointment. In a series of posts in response to the Government's recent White Paper on the Lords, first on Lords of the Blog and now on Conservative Home, the Tory peer has been making the case for an appointed chamber on the basis of "core accountability". The British constitution, claims Norton, has the benefit that there is one body - the Government, chosen through elections to the House of Commons - that is responsible for public policy. If the electorate disapproves of these policies it can vote it out at the next election. To elect other bodies "that can then claim the mandate of the popular vote undermines that core accountability." Come election time the various elected bodies will each be holding the others responsible for policy failures and a confused electorate will not know who to blame. Democracy is undermined. Read the rest of this post... 16 - 07 - 08
Guy AitchisonGuy Aitchison (London, OK): Courtesy of Benedict Brogan's blog is the following exchange of letters between Gordon Brown and David Davis. Davis had written to the PM, as well as Cabinet Ministers, last week to challenge them to a debate on 42 days and the state of freedom in Britain. Davis even suggested Labour MPs have been gagged by Brown to stop them engaging in the debate. Here is Brown's reply:
30 - 06 - 08
Guy AitchisonDavid Erdos (Oxford): An exciting conference on constitutional reform organized by Oxford University's Centre for Socio-Legal Studies (CSLS) is happening next Friday 4th (full-day) and Saturday 5th (half-day) July. The full programme can be found here. Timed to mark the twentieth anniversary of the signing of Charter88, the conference will explore the origins, philosophy, impact and legacy of this unique movement for democratic change. Key players from the Charter's history including Stuart Weir, Hilary Wainwright and Pam Giddy will be on hand to offer their personal reflections on the history and work of the Charter. They'll be joined by leading analysts from the world of academia including Professor Vernon Bogdanor from Oxford, Professor Patrick Dunleavy from LSE and Matt Flinders from Sheffield. Alongside this analysis and reflection, the conference will also be about the future direction of the UK's constitutional set-up. As the Brown Government's Governance White Paper and the Conservative Party's flirtation with a British Bill of Rights indicates, the issues with which the Charter grappled are once more open to being influenced by informed debate. Leading Labour civil liberties lawyer, Baroness Helena Kennedy, will deliver the keynote address examining the lessons for reform from the experience of not only Charter 88 but also the Power Inquiry. More specifically, our themed panels will be discussing all the key issues on the democratic agenda today. In the wake of both Guantanamo Bay and the shock David Davis by-election, Professor David Fagelson of American University, Washington DC will be exploring contemporary threats to constitutionalism and civil liberties. In the democracy and levels of government panel, I will be exploring the relationship between constitutional reform and Europe - something which seems particularly pertinent in the wake of the stunning defeat of the Lisbon treaty in the Irish referendum earlier this month. Finally, Will Hutton, Chief Executive of the Work Foundation and author of the State We're In (1995) will be debating with OurKingdom's Anthony Barnett, a founder of Charter 88, the complex relationship between globalization and constitutional change. We have a fantastic variety of participants linked-up bridging the traditional divides of academia, policy-making, pressure groups and the law. But to make the event the best it can be we need your participation as well. So do get in touch (david.erdos[at]csls.ox.ac.uk) and also check out our website including full booking information here. We look forward to you joining us for a great discussion next week! Read the rest of this post...25 - 06 - 08
Guy AitchisonGuy Aitchison (London, OK): There's an interesting article by Unity on the Bill of Rights debate over at Liberal Conspiracy. He argues that since all three main parties are now promising a Bill of Rights they should be clear about what it is they are proposing in their next manifestoes so voters aren't forced to sign a "blank cheque." I think this is an important point though I would add that the parties should also be clear about the process they are proposing to arrive at such a Bill. I responded to Unity's article in the comments with a few thoughts on the Government's current thinking based on my time at the Compass conference last week. I wasn't going to blog this since it's similar to other stuff I've written about the Governance agenda recently, but seeing as people are now talking about it here's a tidied up version of the comment I left which may be helpful to people:
Guy AitchisonGuy Aitchison (London, OK): In the first post on his campaign blog David Davis expands on the arguments he made on last night's Question Time (blogged earlier by Anthony), expaining why he supports 28 days but not 42 days detention without charge. Some have labelled his position inconsistent but - whether you agree with him or not - I think Davis sets out a pretty straightforward case on his blog. On the basis of evidence he has looked at with the Met and the Crown Prosecution Service he says he "can support 28 days pre-charge detention - as a necessary evil - but not a day more. Once we have introduced intercept evidence and post-charge questioning, and developed the use of plea-bargaining, it may be possible to reduce the limit below 28 days, without any risk to our security." Read the post in full here.
20 - 06 - 08
Guy AitchisonGuy Aitchison (London, OK): If we're going to support David Davis, then one thing we shouldn't let him do is frame the freedom debate in partisan terms. Labour's current attempts to secure legislation allowing for 42 days detention without charge should be seen in the context of a two decades long erosion of civil liberties began under Thatcher (a point made by Michael Peel in the FT today).
It was the Tories who got the ball rolling by exending pre-charge
detention to a week (justified or not) and it was they who in 1994
banned the right to silence and gave police more powers to stop
protests and raves. 18 - 06 - 08
Guy AitchisonGuy Aitchison (London, OK): A quick scan of the blogosphere and MSM today and it’s clear the political/media class are sticking with the same line on the Davis campaign (website launched today). They continue to describe it as a “stunt" and a “farce” and a distraction from the real business of politics. The overwhelmingly positive response from the public in the form of comments, blogs, emails and now opinion polls is dismissed as childish admiration for a politician prepared to break the rules of the Westminster village. This, essentially, is the line taken today by Steve Richards and Michael White (who has been pooh-poohing the whole thing from the start). What’s missing from all this coverage of course are the important issues Davis set out to raise: the assault on freedom and the failures of our parliamentary democracy. That this is the real debate to be had is at once recognised by the public. A post by Peter Hoskin of the Speccie provides a nice illustration. Hoskin basically agrees with the 'Westminster Village' wing of the argument” outlined by Richards:
Guy Aitchison
James Graham (Quaequam Blog!): Has David Hencke, Slayer of Tory Dragons, Sleazesmeller Persuviant Extraordinaire, gone soft? I ask this because his coverage in today's Guardian of Jack Straw's proposed party funding reforms can only be described as naïve.
Hencke asserts that "The Conservatives have been blocked from targeting Labour marginals with spending that can run to tens of thousands of pounds a year by legislation which will limit all parties' candidates to spending a maximum of £12,000 from October until the general election." Straw's proposals do nothing of the sort. What they do is return us to the pre-2000 situation whereby party spending limits are only "triggered" when a candidate is formally adopted by their party or declares themselves (inadvertently or otherwise).
The reason this law was scrapped will be familiar to anyone who was actively involved in party campaigning during the last century and indeed anyone else who thinks about it. To get around that rule, all a candidate need do is, well, not call themselves a candidate. As a hangover of those days, people from across the political spectrum still call selected candidates "prospective parliamentary candidates," or "PPCs." According to party constitutions, candidates would have to be formally adopted a month before the election itself, hence the formal adoption meeting (a tradition that has continued as it is a useful opportunity to squeeze more money out of members). Candidates would always be referred to as "local campaigners", "local champions", "Parliamentary spokespeople" - once again this tradition has often continued on the quite reasonable basis that the public can be quite cynical about political campaigning yet value candidates who "work all year round, not just at election time. Read the rest of this post...
17 - 06 - 08
Guy AitchisonGuy Aitchison (London, OK): So, former Sun editor Kelvin Mackenzie has told the BBC he will "90% stand" if Labour don't put up a candidate to fight Davis in the Haltemprice and Hamden by-election. If he does, he will be campaigning in favour of 42 days detention, ID cards and CCTV and against the view that "we are living in a controlled state." Bring it on, I say. But why are you only 90% sure, Mackenzie? What are you afraid of? You'll get all the money and support you need from Murdoch. After all it was the Prince of Darkness himself who told you to stand last night at current Sun editor Rebekka Wade's Birthday party. Also at the party were Blair and Brown. Your candidacy would be most fitting: a Murdoch candidate dispatched to defend a Murdoch law. This is a debate that needs to be had and judging by Mackenzie's performance on the BBC it is one that the Davis camp cannot but win. He trotted out the same tired, knee-jerk arguments in a sneering bullying tone. "If you're an honest person who haven't got bad thoughts in your heart," he said, "then there is nothing to fear." Um, Mackenzie, we're talking about banging people up for 42 days without evidence. Anthony has already pointed out how many innocent people have suffered under the 28 days. Mackenzie and the Sun would be happy with "420 days" according to Mackenzie. He waved his driver's licence round in front of the camera. "ID cards are the same," he said. They're "not a threat." Wrong again! The point is that ID cards will NOT be the same as other forms of ID. Davis showed he understood this when he referred to the "database state" in his speech yesterday. Read the rest of this post... 13 - 06 - 08
Guy AitchisonGuy Aitchison (London, OK): Today's the big day of course. If you haven't made up your mind already (or you just fancy a laugh) then read Jason O'Mahony's hilarious "Spoofers Guide to how to not vote No on Lisbon" (pdf). Jason produced a nice pithy summary of the whole treaty debate for us last month. Here he sets out the reasons why you should "not vote no" and has a pretty good stab at explaining what it is the treaty actually does. Well worth a look.
12 - 06 - 08
Guy AitchisonGuy Aitchison (London, OK): Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini has intervened in the debate over the Counter-Terrorism Bill on the eve of Wednesday's crunch vote in the Commons. In a letter to Lib Dem MP Alistair Carmichael she said that "While there has been a limited number of cases in Scotland which were investigated in terms of the Terrorism Act 2000, I am not aware of any case where an extension of the period beyond 28 days would have been required.
She was supported by former Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmylie, who said there was "absolutely no justification" for 42 days, Read the rest of this post... 10 - 06 - 08
Guy AitchisonGuy Aitchison (Bristol, OK): I blogged during the week on how Brown cannot but lose on the coming vote on 42 days detention. If the Counter-Terrorism Bill gets through the Commons it will be at the expense of party unity and the support of those who welcomed his accession last summer when it seemed like he was different from Blair. If he loses it will be another devastating blow to his authority following on from the wipe-out in Crewe and Nantwich and the local elections. Polling data released last night by the Sunday Telegraph confirms my suspicion. It shows that although 65% of voters back his policy of increasing detention without charge, more people think Cameron has the tougher policies on terrorism than Brown. Labour continues to trail the Tories by sixteen points translating to an overall majority of around 100. Brown calculated wrongly. Most voters who support 42 days detention without charge will vote Tory, they will not vote Labour. In an essay we published on Friday, Anthony Barnett sets out in clear and comprehensive detail why 65% of the public are wrong on the issue and why MPs should vote against a Bill that threatens democracy and the rule of law itself. (If you agree you can sign the Amnesty petition on the No 10 website.) His argument is reinforced today by two powerful articles which show the breadth of opposition to the Bill. Read the rest of this post... 08 - 06 - 08
Guy AitchisonGuy Aitchison (London, OK): The sixth annual FOI Live conference took place this week. Organised by the Constitution Unit, it brought together key players in the world of Freedom of Information and Data Protection in the UK. You can access the presentations given at the conference here. Otherwise the BBC's Martin Rosenbaum has a handy summary of the day on his excellent Open Secrets blog. The conference heard from Maurice Frankel of the Campaign for Freedom of Information on how the MoJ Guidance on how to process FOI requests conflicts with decions by the Information Tribunal. "For example," asks Rosenbaum, "does the time taken to redact information count when deciding if a request is too costly to process? The MoJ says yes, the Tribunal says no." Information Commissioner Richard Thomas revealed the difficulties his office has been having dealing with a massive backlog of complaints - a problem also highlighted by Frankel who "showed that the ICO took an average of 258 days to first make contact with the public authority subject to the complaint involved." The MoJ is apparently putting together a "package of next steps" for the extension of FoI to other bodies following Brown's surprise announcement last year. The Government will surely need to provide more resources for the ICO as well as proper legal guidance for civil servants if it takes this welcome step. 05 - 06 - 08
Guy AitchisonGuy Aitchison (London, OK): All the papers are reporting this morning that Government concessions on 42 days detention have convinced a number of Labour wobblers to back Brown. Reassurances given by Jacqui Smith to the PLP last night and an unholy alliance with the DUP might be enough to swing it for the Government by the narrowest of margins. Now, putting aside for one moment the many compelling arguments against the 42 days, what would be the best outcome for Brown? Common sense says it would be a government victory since it surely looks bad when the PM can't even control his own party. But there is another view – a view held by 31% of Politics Home's "authoritative survey of expert and inside political opinion" (who it seems are permitted to discuss the politics, but not the principle) . This view says that although defeat may be damaging in the short term, in the longer-term it would allow Brown to portray the Tories and Lib Dems as weak on terrorism and himself as tough and principled. It's true that defeat over the 90 days wasn't disastrous for Blair. It brought him popularity with the Murdoch press and, one assumes, with certain sections of the white working class. But I don't buy this view myself. I think he's damaged either way. Brown was popular after the failed terrorist attacks last summer when it looked like he was going to make a break from Blairism and adopt a "consensual" approach to counter-terrorism. He didn't. Groups like Liberty were consulted but in the end Brown listened to the Police who, as David Davis pointed out yesterday, "always want more powers". In the process Brown has alienated his natural constituency of "Guardianistas" but failed to win over the knee-jerk authoritarian vote. It looks bad either way. 03 - 06 - 08
Guy AitchisonGuy Aitchison (London, OK): Normal Mouth has a piece on a Cameron premiership which appears in the Welsh weekly Golwyg. He reckons that a number of important issues are converging which will force Cameron to devote serious time to constitutional reform:
Sounds daft? Consider the growing list of constitutional topics and crises in Prime Minister Cameron's 2010 in-tray. First will be the looming Scottish independence referendum. Cameron aides last week briefed that the plan was to make nice towards the SNP in a bid to blunt the supposed boost a unrepresentative Tory Westminster government would give the cause of independence. We can assume – we should at least hope - that there is something more imaginative in the pipeline, possibly in the guise of a separate Westminster initiative or an SNP side deal. Either way, Prime Minister Cameron cannot just smile and sit on his hands. Read the rest of this post... 01 - 06 - 08
Guy AitchisonGuy Aitchison (London, OK): There has been an extraordinary transformation in Tory attitudes to devolution in Wales. Around 40% of Welsh Tory voters now want the country to have a Parliament with law-making powers. Support for the status quo among Tory voters is at 26% and 27% want no devolution at all. The surprising figures are revealed in data from the Welsh Election Survey 2007 presented by Richard Wyn Jones and Roger Scully in today’s Western Mail. The popularity of this constitutional option amongst Tory voters mirrors the position of a majority of the party’s Assembly Members, including their leader Nicholas Bourne. It’s worth reflecting on what a remarkable change of attitudes this has been, illustrating that devolution is, as Ron Davies used to say, “path dependent”- once devolved institutions are created there’s no going back and the dynamics at work support demands for ever-more powers. Back in 1997 when the referendum was held on a Welsh Assembly, Tory voters opposed devolution by a massive margin of 9:1. As recently as 2005 the party’s manifesto for the UK general election was promising Welsh voters a referendum on the abolition of the Assembly. Now, it seems, not only have Welsh Tories come to accept Wales’s new democratic institutions - they want them to have more power. Read the rest of this post... 28 - 05 - 08
Guy AitchisonGuy Aitchison (London, OK):Remember Labour's "big idea" for elected mayors across the country? It was quietly shelved in 2002 after a dissapointing uptake by the small number of local authorities that held a referendum on the issue, but many still believe they are the key to returning real power and accountability to local government. Now Dorothy Thornhill, the Lib Dem elected Mayor for Watford, has a thoughtful post on Lib Dem Voice on why the party should drop its opposition to elected mayors. Lib Dems have traditionally been wary of the idea of concentrating power in the hands of a single leader but she thinks elected mayors could help the party reach its goal of a more decentralised political system. Well worth a read.
27 - 05 - 08
|
|
Elections Most discussed articles...
|
