We're readingEmail AlertsFill in the form below to sign up to our automatic daily alerts, or weekly editorial summary (you will be taken to another page to confirm which options you want).
Navigation |
Just Posted
|
ourkingdom Annoy the Headbangers. Vote "Yes" on the Lisbon Treaty 
Jason O'Mahony: Apparently, if you’re against the Lisbon Treaty, you are either an unthinking eurosceptic, a laughing stock amongst continental constitutional amendment fetishists, or on the verge of being tossed out of the EU and into the North Atlantic. On the other hand, if you’re in favour of the treaty, you are the imperialist lackey of a European Pseudo-Empire, in the pay of Global Capitalist Overlords, or plotting to send your neighbour’s four year old to fight in the invasion of Saudi Arabia. Welcome to the calm and rational debate about the Lisbon treaty. I will be voting yes, despite the moronic antics of some on the yes side to get me to vote yes. Admittedly, many of the reasons advanced to vote yes are just plain dumb. Firstly, It’s a pretty mediocre treaty that does little to give Europe a real democratic structure, but it is marginally better than what we have now. It’s not vital to the future of Europe either, because we have the Nice treaty which is a perfectly good way of running the EU, and I know this because Bertie Ahern, Brian Cowan, Dick Roche and Enda Kenny said so. Read the rest of this post... OK under construction1 comment
As you’ve probably noticed, OurKingdom has recently been migrated onto the main openDemocracy site, and from now on will be using the same Drupal technology as openDemocracy’s other specialist blogs (such as openRussia, and openUSA). This move comes at a time when openDemocracy itself is changing rapidly, and internally it made sense for OurKingdom to move onto the same platform as the rest of oD. It also gives us a lot more scope for technological improvements than WordPress was able to. Rebels make their move on 42 daysGuy Aitchison (London, OK): Reports this morning suggested that Brown was ready to make concessions on the 42 days, legislating for greater parliamentary and judicial scrutiny in return for the support of potential rebels. He apparently said he would “rather be right, and lose” but now recognizes that a defeat would be disastrous, possibly even fatal, for his leadership. His concessions have not done enough to convince Labour MP David Winnick, however, who went ahead and tabled an amendment to the Counter-Terrorism Bill to stop the extension of pre-charge detention. Winnick is the MP who tabled the amendment allowing 28 days detention in 2006, defeating Blair’s plans for 90 day. What is promising for opponents of the Bill (pretty much everyone outside the Home Office, including the Director of Public Prosecutions) is that Winnick claims to have support of MPs who supported the 90 days but have since decided that 28 days is sufficient. He thinks this may just be enough to bring about a government defeat. I hope he’s right. As Stuart Weir and other supporters of OK and LC's “Not a Day Longer" campaign have endlessly pointed out on OK and elsewhere there has been no new evidence produced to justify 42 days detention; the judicial and parliamentary safeguards are inadequate; and the law risks alienating precisely those communities whose support is needed to defeat terrorism. Brown’s determination to go for 42 days in the face of massive opposition from the legal establishment, human rights groups and countless experts on counter-terrorism was a cynical and calculating move designed to make him look tougher than the Tories and appeal to the Murdoch press. There is now every chance that, just like the strategy with the 10p tax, it will backfire spectacularly. The English Chicken or the English EggGareth Young (Lewes, CEP): What comes first, nationalism or the nation? For Mark Perryman it seems that an English Parliament is inevitable; England is the human flotsam that will emerge as the good ship Britannia sinks after offloading its Celtic jetsam. And our task - as inheritors of the new state - is to begin preparations for how we want that nation to be: A pluralist England founded on space not race, Englishness, an inclusive nationality for all. In 10-20 years, says Mark, we will arrive at "England after Britain". It's a timescale based on three assumptions:
No need, then, for a Campaign for an English Parliament? Except, that of the three assumptions, the only one that I think is inevitable is Wales gaining a parliament. Northern Ireland is becoming greener but a Catholic majority is still a long way off, and since the Belfast Agreement gives the Republic a veto on reunification no outcome should be assumed. And for Scots the romantic dream of "Freedom!" is not yet matched by an overwhelming desire for complete political independence from the rest of the UK. Read the rest of this post... Power to the People?Stuart Weir (Cambridge, Democratic Audit): There was the official welcome from the chair, "Hazel Blears is here", following an informal clue to her arrival as a man in black slid two blocks behind the speaker's plinth from which she was to speak. So in she bounced to deliver a brisk and rousing speech to local council delegates from across the country at the Local Government Information Unit's "Power to the People" conference in London. I think the delegates were roused, and I myself was not immune to her spirited commitment to empowering people; and also, to the general spirit of optimism that seems to have overtaken many in local government about the government's commitment to "new $localism". Blears promised a white paper on empowerment in a few weeks which was, she said, still open for ideas. It is all part of the Queen's Speech agenda introducing bills to increase accountability in the NHS, police, local government, schools, housing and regeneration policy. And while she is at it, she is also promising empowerment for local authorities who desperately need it. Quite whether she or her master will go as far as speakers and delegates at the conference were demanding is another matter. Among their proposals, for example, were a merger of primary care trusts and local authorities, handing the proceeds of the business rate back to local councils (this would apparently double their money at a stroke) and finally resolving the whole of local government funding and the future of council tax. It was I think Chris Leslie, the former minister who is now director of the New Local Government Network, who said that council tax could be revalued so long as government would chuck £4 billion at people in the form of transitional relief - money that could be raised by a one-off tax on the super rich. Now there's an idea that would secure Gordon Brown's fortunes (with me at least). Read the rest of this post... Putin - it would not happen here (we have our own ways)Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Our mothership has linked up with Polit.ru in Moscow to start an English/Russian blog and publishing platform on openDemocracy - an exciting partnership you can find it HERE. One of the first articles is a careful interview with Peter Riddell about how we change our leaders in Britain. Putin's handover of the, er, Presidency is not mentioned. But it is fascinating to think of how our leadership changes, especially those without an election (this time no names mentioned here!), might be viewed from Moscow. It is a great initiative and if you are not interested in Russia but know someone who might be please send them the link or tell them to look for it on the oD front page. Read the rest of this post... Who is James Purnell?Guy Aitchison (London, OK): If, like me, you know next to nothing about James Purnell, the young Work and Pensions Secretary now tipped to succeed Brown, then it's worth reading this profile by Fraser Nelson, which the Spectator has now put online. He is a member of the "Primrose Hill set", apparently, which includes Miliband (whose qualities were noted in Claire O'Brien's recent devestating post) and other young Blairites. He has an impressive mastery of detail too and that rarest of gifts amongst politicians - the ability to sound human. Fraser Nelson reckons he is the best hope Labour has of beating Cameron. I wonder. When he was briefly in charge of our culture he declared that he was about to start a new renaissance. This allowed Anthony Barnett to suggest that Damien Hurst's diamond skull was the emblem and symbol of Purnell's Blairism. Then there was the episode when he was photoshopped into a meeting that he had missed and people asked which was the real picture - the one that included him or the one that didn't. Constitutional Renewal I: the Joint Committee takes evidenceAndrew Blick (London, Democratic Audit): At the very end of a long and remote corridor, MPs and peers on the joint committee on the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill held their first evidence sessions on Tuesday. The importance of their work has been heightened by Gordon Brown's commitment to introduce a bill proper in the next parliamentary session, as part of his statement on the legislative programme. We will report regularly on their inquiries and the draft Bill’s provisions as they progress; meanwhile we attach a brief and opinionated guide to official progress on the government’s Governance agenda which, as Guy Aitchison wrote seems to have lost important elements. The first three witnesses, providing an overview, were Professor Stuart Weir of Democratic Audit (my boss); the Oxford academic (and David Cameron's former tutor) Professor Vernon Bogdanor; and Peter Riddell of The Times. The committee are a mixed bunch, ranging from those with real knowledge of constitutional issues to the more conservative minded, several of whom emphasised Britain’s long tradition of evolutionary change. It will be interesting to see what conclusions they can all buy into. Read the rest of this post... Iain Dale on Fixed TermsIain Dale (London, blogger): In a modern democratic state we ought to believe that power should be transferred from the few to the many. Nowhere is this more important than the system used to decide when elections should be held. In local councils, the Scottish parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the European Parliament we have instituted fixed terms to decide when elections should be held. Only for Westminster elections do we still allow one person – the most powerful politician in the country: the Prime Minister - to determine the date of an election. Should we therefore be surprised when the Prime Minister skews that decision according to when he or she thinks an election can best be won? Of course not. Politicians are only human. Well, kind of. It astonishes me constantly that normally sensible minded people still believe the power to call an election should still be in one person’s hands. It’s as if they want to hark back to the days when a sovereign made all the decisions and the ‘little people’ were expected to implement them. There are, of course, many variants to the concept of Fixed Terms. The very phrase is in itself a bit of a misnomer in that it must still be possible in a parliamentary (as opposed to a presidential) system for an election to be held within a fixed four or five year term. There are several ways in which this could be achieved. A vote of no confidence is perhaps the most obvious as in Germany. Ah, opponents cry, but a government could engineer its own MPs to vote against it, thereby making the whole concept of a fixed term rather redundant. Factually that may be true, but imagine the electoral consequences if that happened. The opposition would make hay out of it. David Howarth is to be congratulated for his Bill and for sparking further debate. Ideally, all parties would sit down together and thrash this out, but I don’t expect it to happen. There are too many vested interested in the two main parties for them to want to take this issue seriously in the short term. This is a campaign which will have to be fought over several years if it is to achieve success. OurKingdom is supporting the Campaign for Fixed Term Parliaments along with Iain Dale, Stephen Tall and Unlock Democracy. Here Iain interviews David Howarth on his Bill: Cherie and the meaning of BlairAnthony Barnett (London, OK): I have avoided reading the Cherie Blair selections. But I have just read Mary Riddell in the Telegraph wrestling with the implications of the "bad example" Cherie has set. The stench of double standards was one of the things that made me avert my eyes. Tory revival overshadows referendum debateTom Griffin (London, Green Ribbon): The Labour Party has suffered a fair amount of ridicule over its position on a Scottish independence referendum in recent days. Guido Fawkes is offering a prize to anyone who can explain the current policy in less than fifty words. More sober commentators don't sound much more impressed. Why we need English nationalism: a reply to Peter FaceyPaul Kingsnorth (Oxford, author Real England): Peter Facey of Unlock Democracy has posed an interesting personal question. He feels the issues of identity but draws back for fear of having to embrace the bad with the good and asks isn't nationalism always going to be about airing grievances? An interesting question. I have only recently begun to refer to myself as an 'English nationalist', and not without some reservations. When I see idiots like the English Democrats doing their anti-Scottish thing, or engage in blog arguments with bigots from both England and Scotland who seem to think that the purpose of their nationalism is to allow them to each blame the other for their political plights, or engage in personal attacks, it makes me want to give up and go home. Constitutional reform features little in draft Queen's speechGuy Aitchison (London, OK): The PM has just announced the Government's Draft Legislative Programme to the Commons. We hope to have more coverage on this and PMQs later but on first glance there seems little sign of the bold "new constitutional settlement" Brown called for last July. It appears the Bill of Rights and the citizens summit on the Statement of Values have both been put on hold. The only reference to these I can find is a vague promise to hold consultations on the Bill of Rights which will "give people in the UK a clear idea of what we can expect from public authorities and from each other, and a framework for giving effect to our common values." And expect yet another White Paper on the Lords. Move over GordyClaire O'Brien (Florence, EUI): Brown will not come back from this. £120 cashback or not, his premiership appears to draw closer to twilight with every passing day. The one thing that could resurrect it would be to set a fresh progressive course for Labour and for Britain in tomorrow's draft Queen's speech. It seems inconceivable this will happen. Which means a new leader, from a new generation, who can articulate that agenda is essential. It is clear by now that if Labour does not offer a new direction, the Tories will. Can you have the good without the bad?Peter Facey (London, Unlock Democracy): There has been lots of discussion on this blog about nationalism, patriotism, identity and even how the centre left should become more nationalist. I have always been interested in identity, nations and nationalism. I have a strong personal identity and am attracted to the way nation or community identity can bind people together across economic and religious divides. Compass points away from BrownGuy Aitchison (London, OK): Neal Lawson, chair of Compass, has an article in today's Independent calling on Brown to step down and return to the Treasury. He offers an analysis not dissimilar to Anthony's in Why Brown is Doomed, blaming the PM's plummeting popularity on his failure to make a decisive break from Blairism: Why Brown is doomedAnthony Barnett (London, OK): On Friday after the local election results and before London had been announced I wrote an analysis of why Gordon Brown could not lead his party to a recovery (First thoughts on Labour's Debacle). Contemplating the ruins now after a sunny weekend in Dorset both a deeper analysis and superficial gossip confirm the diagnosis. Labour desperate on ID cardsGuy Aitchison (London, OK): There was something of a stir in the blogosphere this weekend over Labour’s campaign material in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election and in particular the fourth question on a leaflet purporting to be a Tory Candidate Application Form: “Do you oppose making foreign nationals carry an ID card?” Anthony emailed me this story with the Subject line “gross and outrageous”. I agree. Lib Dem Voice, Guido and Conservative Home were united in their condemnation of the ad – as good a sign as any that they'd strayed beyond the pale. To be fair Labour supporters themselves have now started voicing their displeasure, with one poster on LabourHome saying “Central should be putting their foot down on this; I would rather the seat be lost - than win on the back of a campaign based on fear.” Time to withdraw the ad perhaps? Lisbon Treaty: New Taoiseach choosing his words carefullyCatherine Reilly (Dublin, Metro Eireann): Just days before he left office on 7th of May, former Taoiseach (Irish prime minister) Bertie Ahern told an audience at Harvard University that rejecting the Lisbon Treaty would be an “act of lunacy” by the Irish people. For a man lauded for his so-called common touch, and ear to the ground, it was an odd choice of expression. Irish people don’t like being told what to do. Irish people don’t like being tagged potential lunatics. This sense of being patronised was, I believe, a factor in Ireland’s initial rejection of the Nice Treaty in 2001, quite aside from concerns over neutrality. Interestingly, new Justice Minister Dermot Ahern TD - who was promoted from his foreign affairs brief in last week’s cabinet reshuffle - has constantly played down the implications of a No vote, adopting a stoical ‘life would go on’ message (this, despite the fact that he resoundingly supports a Yes vote). Just like the dad who tells his teenage daughter that she can go to Friday night’s disco, but he won’t be paying for it, it has been a clever tactic. Taoiseach Brian Cowen TD has been similarly circumspect. Since taking office, he has placed full emphasis on the benefits that EU membership has wrought for Ireland, linking a Yes vote as a fitting return from a self-confident, modern Ireland. He has also played on Ireland’s current sense of economic uncertainty, as the country begins to come to terms with the fact that the boom is no more. “It is very important that we get a Yes vote,” Cowen said last Saturday. “It is critically important to our strategic interest and to our national interest.” Read the rest of this post... Independence would require two referendums says Constitution UnitGuy Aitchison (London, OK): With all the hubbub surrounding Wendy Alexander’s U turn on a referendum last week I missed the Constitution Unit’s contribution to the debate, released in this press notice. According to the Unit a “Yes” vote by the Scots in a referendum authorised by Holyrood would not be enough to secure independence. There would need to be two referendums. The first would be a “consultative referendum” authorised by Holyrood. It would deal with the “principle” of independence and permit the Scottish Parliament to enter into negotiations with Westminster which has the final say under the Scotland Act. The second referendum, authorised by Westminster, would deal with the terms and conditions of Scottish independence (including that Scotland should separate from the UK). Says the Unit’s Director, Robert Hazell: “People in Scotland might support independence in principle, but think again when confronted with the terms of independence. The terms will include not just issues like North Sea oil, but division of the national debt, ending all financial transfers from the UK government, and Scotland’s continued membership of the EU. The Scots are entitled to know the detailed terms of independence before making such a big decision”. In his post on the Alex-Wendy debate last week, Anthony pointed out that “Labour has conceded an absolutely stunning constitutional principle: it has accepted that the Scottish parliament has the right to call a referendum that will decide on that country's independence.” If the Constitution Unit is right, however, Alexander’s call to Salmond to “bring it on” is of somewhat less significance. She is simply recognising Holyrood’s right to seek authority through referendum to enter into negotiations with Westminster: a requisite second referendum on the outcome of these negotiations might convince the Scots to change their minds.
|
