open Democracy News Analysis - Scared or just pusillanimous? Labour, the Liberal Democrats and 42 days, Rosemary Bechler - Comments

Rosemary Bechler on "Scared or just pusillanimous? Labour, the Liberal Democrats and 42 days"

Rosemary Bechler — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 12:06:00 +0000

OK OK. My choice of the word pusillanimous was mainly directed at our New Labour Government. What we do urgently need however, at this stage in the changing history of political parties is ‘good tactics’ to deal with the new stage we’re in.
But if I apologise to James, can we get back to the real issue – we didn’t learn much more even in the H&H by-election about why on earth we alone in Europe and beyond are being saddled with 42 days. Perhaps if we looked more closely at those constituencies who have lobbied for 42 days or more, we might be able to detect some meaningful pattern...?
Rosemary Bechler

Not logged in on "Scared or just pusillanimous? Labour, the Liberal Democrats and 42 days"

Not logged in — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:37:39 +0000

I would agree with that Anthony and indeed made a similar point in my CiF piece today. But that is a question of bad tactics not "pusillanimity". Tarring Clegg with the same brush as Brown is bad form.

James Graham
Quaequam Blog!

Anthony Barnett on "Scared or just pusillanimous? Labour, the Liberal Democrats and 42 days"

Anthony Barnett — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:04:46 +0000

Good on you James. I think this is a case of the glass exactly half full, or half empty. I agree that the decision not to stand against him was unusual, refreshing and essential. The collaboration on civil liberties by Davis and the Lib Dems in good for all three (ie the two parties and civil liberties). But having acted in a non-party way that actually (naturally) helps his party in the longer run, Clegg seemed to pull back and go all passive. What I think would have filled the glass, often a good thing to do in politics once you have started, would have been for Clegg or Huhne or Ming or even Paddy, to have gone there and spoken on the same platform as DD, in the way that Bob Marshall-Andrews did: explaining his strategy to his own people there, rallying the local Lib-Dems, promising to give DD a run for his money in the election itself.

Not logged in on "Scared or just pusillanimous? Labour, the Liberal Democrats and 42 days"

Not logged in — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:02:00 +0000

If David Davis did extract such a promise from the Lib Dems, I think this
was wrong. What counts surely is deliberative capacity on the ground
and in the wider dissemination of the issues - party or non-party - not
one’s affiliation. Unlike Anthony Barnett I’m ashamed to say I wasn’t
one of them – but I applaud all those who went and campaigned at
H&H, including of course, the Lib Dems who put democracy first.

Rosemary Bechler

Not logged in on "Scared or just pusillanimous? Labour, the Liberal Democrats and 42 days"

Not logged in — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:24:25 +0000

Actually, I think making this claim is pretty out of order. It is unlikely that Davis would have resigned in the first place if he hadn't extracted a promise from Nick Clegg not to put a candidate up against him. In the early stages, while Cameron was still sulking about Davis' resignation, Clegg was left to defend him.

It is deeply ironic that in facilitating this by-election in the first place, Clegg is now getting stick for not actively participating in it, despite the fact that the two actions are fundamentally irreconcilable. In the Guardian on Tuesday Davis himself appeared to be playing this same game, but it turns out Martin Wainwright misquoted him. That's good enough for me, but clearly this slander is going to continue for a while yet.

Clegg's decision to stand aside for Davis has proven to be a divisive action within the Lib Dems. I absolutely agree with his detractors to the extent that it was certainly not in the party's interest. Some of us however, including Clegg it would appear, have wider interests at heart. It's really encouraging to hear that believing that is now to be slammed as being "pusillanimous." Thanks a bunch.

James Graham
Quaequam Blog!

Anthony Barnett on "Scared or just pusillanimous? Labour, the Liberal Democrats and 42 days"

Anthony Barnett — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:38:57 +0000

Thanks Rosemary - the media has a big role in this too.

Not logged in on "Scared or just pusillanimous? Labour, the Liberal Democrats and 42 days"

Not logged in — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:08:03 +0000

Rosemary Bechler wrote:

Lib Dems...... they too have chosen to place party politics over the needs of our democracy.

Curious I draw the opposite conclusion from the Lib Dems decision not to oppose Davis. I see it as a pragmatic stance, where they avoided the self righteous trap the left usually fall into.

Scared or just pusillanimous? Labour, the Liberal Democrats and 42 days, Rosemary Bechler

Rosemary Bechler — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:52:42 +0000

Rosemary Bechler (London, openDemocracy): responds to Anthony Barnett's coverage of the campaign against 42 days:

Thanks for the cogent reading of this important moment in the decline of the Westminster hall of mirrors. Doesn’t one need to include in a third episode in this drama? – the refusal of the two main political parties challenged in this bye-election to participate in debating the issues. For all the commenting and blogging, as in the case of the Iraq war and an ever-lengthening list of crucial decisions for the UK, we still have not been told why 42 days is deemed to be necessary to our national interest. All the talk simply obscures this ominous silence.

In the case of Labour – we are left to choose between two unsavoury options. Firstly, our Prime Minister has pinned his fluctuating reputation to this mast, and will stick to it through thick and thin, regardless of the absence of merits and glaring demerits of the case. Stubborn politicking at its most parochial. Or, Britain is under some urgent pressure either from within or from without to turn itself into a war-time polity, and this is just an early instance of many further draconian measures we can expect – moreover we are being told that anyone who seeks an explanation will simply have to do without one for the foreseeable future (this may be an endless war after all). This second explanation is at the opposite end of explanations. It is not personal. Nothing could be more germane to our democratic rights, responsibilties, freedoms and possibly our peace.

In either case, to refuse to debate these issues in the H&H bye-election is evidence of the deepest disregard for the British people, and further confirmation, were any needed, that we are trapped at the end of a very long tradition of Machiavellian management with no sight of breaking through into the era of adult democratic governance that we so badly need. The Liberal Democrats, I’m afraid to say, come off no better in this testing and revealing test case. Of course it is terribly embarrassing for a political party to agree with someone in a rival political party on a very substantial matter! Party politics is not at all designed for such a regrettable eventuality. Anyway, I’m told that many leading Lib Dems have expended such efforts in fighting David Davis on all sorts of other counts that they could never bring themselves to put their democracy above their historical animosities (however important in other circumstances). Whatever the reason, in refusing to help David Davis take this key debate to this part of the country, and hopefully to the country beyond, they too have chosen to place party politics over the needs of our democracy.

And that is surely the essence of David Davis’ case – that our democracy is being silently and without significant comment stifled to death. As for the British people, the political system and its vast commentariat machinery devoutly hopes that we won’t trouble our little heads about any of it.’