Voting TaKtiX

Hmmm…

1. Get elected leader of Conservative party
2. Appoint a respected elder statesman to lead an enquiry into renewing British democracy and the constitutional settlement
3. Make a speech proposing a significant constitutional reform
4. Completely forget to even mention it to said elder statesman and thus undermine his whole efforts.

Well done Dave. You impress me less and less every day.

Mr Clarke said the Tory leader would find it difficult to find lawyers who would agree with his plan to replace the Human Rights Act with the new Bill.

Despite heading a Tory task force on constitutional issues, Mr Clarke said he was not forewarned about the plans.

Not the best of plans methinks. In fact, given that the speech itself was completely half baked, I’m given to drawing the conclusion that he didn’t think this one through very well at all.

Mr Clarke said: “In these home affairs things I think occasionally it’s the duty of politicians on both sides to turn round to the tabloids and right-wing newspapers and say ‘you have your facts wrong and you’re whipping up facts which are inaccurate’.”

Said they should have elected him leader. We’re screwed, arent’ we? To get rid of Blair’s New Labour, we need to get people to vote Tory. How can we do that when Dave just hasn’t got a clue and plays to the gallery?

Hmm. Just finished listening to Charles Clarke on On the Ropes (again) - always worth a listen anyway, but this one had added comedy value. From the BBC coverage, David Davis said Mr Clarke’s comments were a Blairite version of Sir Geoffrey Howe’s attack on Margaret Thatcher in 1990, something that Simon predicted nine months ago. Also, I really like this comedy quote:

Education Minister Jim Knight said ex-ministers “bitching” about Mr Blair were doing Labour “no favours”.

Well no Mr Knight, they’re not, but then, neither is tired Tony.

Are we getting there d’you think? Is Simon right, is this the beginning of the end?

Addenda

:Is it possible this was timed to minimise the damage instead?

Ok, I’m swamped at work, and Dave goes and makes a speech promising some radical reform. Except that, well, he seems to have fluffed it. I’ve been trawling around; does anyone have anything good to say about it? Blogsearch gives me nothing. Best I’ve found is Liadnan at NM’s:

I am, nevertheless, hopeful, that this could turn into serious thinking on constitutional matters in general. I see it as a major problem with this Government’s reforms that they have been piecemeal and incoherent.

It appears to me it’s miss informed posturing and playing to the gallery. Obsolete has an excellent summary of the principle objections. Of course, a decent, enforcable Bill of Rights would require a new constitutional settlement. Something I’m wholeheartedly in favour of. With both Brown and Dave posturing on the issue, and the LibDems completely committed to such an endeavour, is it possible that the parties may start competing on who can do the best job of fixing the constitution?

I’d love to think so. Odds? Hmm. “This is your captain speaking, we do apologise for the turbulence, this was caused by a flock of pigs getting caught in the engines…”

If anyone does find someone that both knows what they’re talking about and thinks Dave is on the right lines, throw me a link?

Well, Alex has finally got it working. Labour Home is launched, to compete with Conservative Home and Liberal Review. It looks ok, and it’s something I thought was lacking awhileback (even mentioned it’s lack in a thread at B4L). He’s also got a team of writers lined up. Shame that one of them seems to have both a poor grasp of economics and a very weird definition of liberalism. (more…)

Working late, yup, in the office, I just love the summer…

Look at what the populist is up to now:

Football players’ wages are ridiculous, Tony Blair has said, as he became the latest armchair football fan to air his views on England’s World Cup line-up.

Yes Tony, they are, but not because they demand too much, nor because they are in some way undeserving. It’s because people keep buying their ‘product’. Think “your” team pays its players too much? Stop buying the merchandise. Stop paying Sky the subscription fees for the sports package. Stop watching the matches that the sponsors pay so much for.

Think footballers should be paid wages closer to your level? Support local teams, support small clubs. The Premier league pays its players a fortune because the customers keep coming back. That’s it.

Following a football team as “yours” is an irrational instinct. Especially in the big leagues. But complaining the players are paid too much? It’s you who’s giving them the money.

Me? Pah. No thanks. 22 grown men on a field chasing an inflated ball of leather? This interests me why?

The prime minister attacked football stars’ pay rises but said there was nothing he could do as capping them would only send players overseas.

Well, yes Tony. That’s how markets work. If you genuinely wanted to do something, you could persuade people to switch their attention to smaller, more local teams, and rebuild league and conference football to a level where everyone’s got a local team they can be proud of. You use tax breaks and encouragements elsewhere in teh economy, right? You’re not going to though, are you. No, you just want an easy headline.

Ahileback, I posted on marriage and the Law Commissions proposals. The Pedant-General in Ordinary made a few comments that challenged my views. I typed a reply, but Blogger kept eating it, so I saved it meaning to get back to it. I forgot. So, rather than post it now, given his was a good comment, I thought I’d put the debate back on the front page.

Exactly what is wrong with marriage as traditionally defined, such that it is not the answer?

The large number of people having kids and living outside of it should answer that one. Marriage, it seems, has an image problem. It’s too associated with religion, and costs are high at beginning and end. If marriage is to be the norm, it must be seen as relevent. Currently, it’s not, to a large number of people.

Kids are for life, not just for Christmas.

Oh, right. I’m 31, my parents happen to still be together. If they’d split up, say, ten years ago, would I be any worse off now? Kids are for 18 years, after that, they’re adults. If I thought my parents weren’t happy together now, to find they were still together for my sake, after I’ve moved out completely? No thanks. In addition, I’m personally in contact with a few relationships which have arrangements designed around the children, but aren’t themselves monogamous marriage. “split houses” and similar; it can work, well, and is much better than divorce &c.

I’d rather see two people commit to raising kids properly, but not necessarily live together the whole time, than see two people try to stay together and divorce while the kids are still kids.

not if you are going to have - or risk having - children. The purpose of marriage is to bring forward and expose the protagonists to the reality and seriousness of the commitment BEFORE children appear on the scene.

Maybe. Maybe it was, maybe it is, maybe it should be. But many many people don’t think that way. Maybe that’s a bad thing, maybe society is adapting and evolving to a new perspective. Maybe the desire to “protect marriage” is preventing the desire to reform it in such a way as it’s perceived as relevent to people planning to, or accidentally managing to have, kids.

That successive governments have done their level best to undermine marriage as an institution - an error to which we can pin much of the breakdown of social order in general - is a damning indictment of government, not of the institution of marriage.

Maybe. But, y’see, that horse has already bolted. Divorce Act was passed way before I was born. Given that, effectively, the battle is lost, marriage (or something else), needs to be made relevent again.

Personally, redefining it, stating the objectives, removing the religious element; that’s a pile of sensible objectives.

Giving couples expecting kids a half way house that they can sign up to quickly, establishing legal rights and responsibilities to the kids (not each other necessarily) would be a good thing.

That’s what I think. But I’m old-fashioned like that.

I’m not. I’m a reformist. If it’s stopped working (which it has), fix it. If it’s possible to fix it by returning to exactly what was, great. But in this case, I don’t think it is.

To clarify; I’m not opposed to marriage, but I know from experience that increasingly people are not inclined to marry, even if they have kids. Given the legal rights non-married fathers have (ie, very few), that’s something I plan to avoid if I ever have any. But I don’t, personally, like the connotations of marriage in it’s traditional sense. I’d rather a contract of some sorts that set out permanent rights and responsibilities (ie to kids and their financial support), but also did not require a permanent commitment to the partner. Supporting kids is one thing, continuing a doomed relationship is another.

Anyone else have strong views on the subject? Is marriage something that Govts and sociey shoudl return to as the norm, is it completely unnecessary, or should a middle ground be found? If so, is my proposal something you could relate to?

Well, party funding is in the news again. Apparently, the leader of the House of Commons “has called for a permanent cap on the amount political parties are allowed to spend”. Hmmm. Good, I think. Or maybe not. At what point do you control things? Mandatory spending limits? Not very, well, liberal, is it? Except that, well, I’ve called for such limits before. Most certainly, they can’t be along the lines that “The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have proposed an upper limit of about £50,000″. So, if you have a huge fundraising drive, and manage to persuade everyone in the coutnry to give you, say £5, you still can’t spend it all? What do you do with the rest, bank it?
(more…)

How could I resist linking to this? Jonn Elledge:

conspicuous displays of British patriotism are most likely to come from boozed up sports fans and UKIP politicians. Perhaps this is the biggest challenge to liberal patriotism: our national icons have been hijacked by the right … None of those things of which Britons are supposed to be proud relate to my experience of this country. John Major’s warm beer on the village cricket green sounds suspiciously like a world that vanished decades before I got round to being born … I’m not saying that there isn’t much in Britain’s history to be ashamed of: Suez, Dresden, and the fact we unleashed both the concentration camp and Jim Davidson on an unsuspecting world, to name but four.

He goes on to list a few of the things that he is proud of. As a flag waving liberal socialist, I guess I ought to contribute a few ideas as well. How about… (more…)

The times, they are a changin’. Awhileback, I reviewed the campaign sites for the LibDem leadership contenders. Like in the election itself, Ming Campbell won. Well, he’s taking that impetus further. Two specific areas. Firstly, he’s been interviewed by some prominent Lib Dem bloggers, each of whom has written up their meeting with him in a different style. Secondly? (more…)

This whole mess is actually over something quite simple, so here we go:

Life means life.

Now let’s be clear about this, I’m not talking about changing sentences, I’m not talking about increasing sentences, and I’m not talking about how awful our legal system is or isn’t or anything like that. All I’m asking for is for criminals to get given a sentence, and then actually serve it.

Simple eh? Don’t call it life it is isn’t going to be life. And if that means that we give murderers ten years not life, that’s ok, because at least they get what they’re given. If that means that we then have to decide whether we’re ok with the idea of giving murderers only ten years in jail, that’s fine, but let’s get to that bridge later, right?

What we really don’t need is someone getting life, but being told they might be out in five years. Probably won’t, but might. It doesn’t send a clear message at all - even though they may never leave prison, everyone else thinks they’ll be out in five. That doesn’t help, it really doesn’t.

Whether or not our legal system is a complete mess or not, is absolutely not the issue here. The issue is as simple as saying one thing when we mean another. Get that sorted first, and a very large problem is solved overnight. Thing is, once this mess is out of the way, you can get to the heart of the sentencing debate and start to look at the really important issues like mandatory minimum sentences and what we should really be doing with dangerous repeat offenders.

It’s only a small step, but boy, what a necessary one.