| |
New
Living Diary
Index
New participatory
democracy
Taming the Corporations
My Welsh socialism
My New
Socialist Settlement
Globalise the left!
Bevan re-visited
|
|
|
item0062D 926, 927
926
9 February 2004
Shift to alternative
Defence, Plan B
 Make
no mistake. Barrister
Blair has decided that he can
no longer justify the Iraq aggression by arguing the presence of an
"imminent threat". The current manoeuvres are all
about legality, not about the
process of political persuasion. The 45-minute claim was a pillar of that
legal
justification - and it is coming apart in his hands, even by his own
startling admission in the Commons this week. The fragile construct which
he had built in his own mind is clearly crumbling, He is becoming increasingly entangled in its inconsistencies. He must bail
out, and look for another argument.
Barrister Geoff Hoon has bailed out already, declaring that
the 45-minute claim was never of significance.
If Barrister Blair is to defend himself and his
Government against the charge of "illegal aggression", he must shift his
ground. He must now use the fall-back argument, offered to him by
Attorney General Barrister Lord Goldsmith, namely that the Invasion was justified
in any event by Saddam's failure to comply with an "old" 1991
Resolution of the United Nations. If this is correct, the Imminent Threat
Defence can be allowed to collapse - because it would not
be relevant.
Barrister Jack Straw, conscious of the
tactical dangers of the emerging situation, is already talking up the
Goldsmith Defence, and the old
UN Resolution. This is a hazardous course, because the
Goldsmith
Defence is accepted by no authoritative international
lawyer except Lord Goldsmith himself. But
Barrister Warren Evans points out that this is the Government's only
remaining Legality Defence - and it will have to be used.
- The unravelling
process is
only just beginning.
Political
persuasion and legal justification are intimately intertwined.
Drop me a line
<
Back to Home Page
927
16
February
2004
Right policy
Wrong philosophy
New Labour has generated one jargon term which I find convincing. It is
“narrative”. Parties, and Party policies, the pundits argue, “must have a
narrative”.
I
agree. Narratives matter. The 2005 General Election will be fought on
narratives. Politicians have a heavy duty to simplify the bewildering
complexities of the political environment, and to produce a convincing
“narrative”, for those having to cast their electoral votes. Michael
Howard and Oliver Letwin are busy trying to construct a new Tory narrative. Charles Kennedy
has always muddled along without a narrative. And Downing Street has
clearly decided that the third-term Labour narrative will be “the New
Localism”. The big story will be the dispersal of power, devolution,
delegation, localism.
Now – I agree with that narrative.
It's a good narrative. It is a narrative worthy of a major Election
Manifesto, a great campaign. I welcome all the early indications
of a Government intention to disperse and share power.
 But I have a problem. I am not convinced. I have identified
six policy areas where "devolution" is firmly on the Government's agenda
- yet in none of them do I find Labour's position convincing. I am convinced that each English region should be given
the same limited self-government as has been accorded to Wales, and that the
UK should therefore become more of a "federal state", with settled
power-sharing between different levels of government. The Government has
paid lip-service to this, but offered the English regions a hopeless package
of far more limited powers, deviously wrapped up as "devolution". John
Prescott is rumoured to be strengthening those powers, but his reputation is
severely undermined by his commendation of the Bill. It will take a
miracle for the Government to recover its devolution credentials.
Education, schools, universities
The Government is
planning to by-pass elected local authorities and make all grants
directly to primary and secondary schools, arguing that it would
strengthen local democracy. I would not object to that, if Boards
of Governors were properly elected - but they are not: they are
dominated by parents and teachers and educational administrators,
without any element of popular election. They merely perpetuate
professional cliques. I do NOT argue for the mere retention of
existing local education authorities: I would favour the election of
special-purpose education authorities. But I see no sign, on the
agenda of Charles Clarke, of any genuine democracy.
Foundation hospitals I understand Blair's concerned to diversify the
management of the NHS, and I do not suspect Labour of "creeping
privatisation". But the Foundation Hospitals will have joke Boards,
devoid of any democratic content: the deployment of the process of
"election" is a sham, with former patients dragooned into being a quiescent
electorate.
Police Authorities I would be
delighted if David Blunkett were to deliver elected local Police Boards - we
have lost all connection between the "responsible local citizenry" and the
Police, and that was a tragic Thatcherite error of judgment, which should be
reversed and improved upon.
Local authorities The impressive Geoff Mulgan of
Downing Street, writing last week about Labour's new localism, warned
that the traditional all-purpose local authorities (which have already
most many of their statutory purposes) might not be the beneficiaries of
these changes. For my part, I would not regret that, if there were
better and more democratic alternatives to be put in place. These
Councils were the spur-of-the-moment invention of a Victorian Government
(1888-1894) keen to get rid of a rag-bag of local responsibilities: a
whole raft of local functions were devolved to directly-elected
Councillors, in what was then a constitutional revolution of the first
order. I would favour their being broken up, with Councillors
elected directly to School Boards, Health Boards, Planning Boards,
Recreation Boards and Transportation Boards - but they should all be
composed of members elected by the overall local electorate, not by
cliques and sub-groups.
Finally - I find no support
from Downing Street for the empowerment of neighbourhood councils -
Parish
and community Councils - which constitute the oldest tier of UK Government,
reflecting the most local of identities, the most local of allegiances.
We should encourage and cultivate this localism, while fostering democratic
participation in all other aspects of our local and regional affairs.
And the formation of such Councils should be legally permitted within Greater London, where
there are still forbidden.
These
are my suspicions, my doubts.
I have
laid them bare, in the hope that somebody "on the Government side" will come
back with a denial, and a fuller explanation. My suspicion is that
Government Ministers are simply trying to find some way of avoiding
responsibility for these functions, while also avoiding the creation of any
effective, competing democratic mandates. They want the fig-leaf of
"devolution", without its reality - because these new specially-elected
bodies (hospitals, schools, police) will never carry any substantial
democratic counterweight.real
localist.
And my hope is that
the Government will join me.
Where do you stand? Drop me a
line
<
Back to Home Page
|
|