|
| Back to Home Page |
|
Renewing participatory democracy Multiple Differential Uncertainty
|
050207 Make sure you
have not missed the previous edition Check it out And the one before that? Other recent topics highlighted here
Week 6 Saturday Volunteers?
Now: this is not necessarily an ignoble or self-seeking agenda. Local government is indeed in a bad way, much of it beyond the point of no return, as a viable form of government. For my part, I favour the emergence of more professional regional government (on the Welsh Assembly model, but for smaller city regions) coupled with a massive expansion of "neighbourhood government", building on but superseding the current range of parish and community Councils. Such a system would accommodate a huge increase in opportunities for volunteers, which could prove a real gain for participatory democracy.
When the Victorians transformed our governmental system (in the 1888-1895 period) they created a whole new "political community" of elected Councillors and lay Magistrates (often overlapping cadres) which had real power to govern their communities. That system has lasted a century, but it has now run out of steam.
For Gutnick 
Lawyers are slowly fashioning the ground-rules of the World Wide Web. In the 2002 Gutnick Case, in Australia, the Courts permitted Australian magnate Joseph Gutnick to sue Dow-Jones, in Australia, for defamation contained in a web-publication which was seen in Australia by only a handful of web-readers. That was sufficient "publication", the Australian judges decided, to ground a legal action in Australia. This week, the same question came before the UK Court of Appeal: Yousef Jameel, Saudi Arabian resident in the UK, had sued the Wall Street Journal for defamation "committed" by way of a hyperlink from the on-line edition of that newspaper. It was seen by only six people in the UK, before it was removed. His claim was thrown out. Such minimal web-access simply did not constitute sufficient "publication" in the UK to justify mobilising the entire legal system, judge-and-jury, to decide the issue.
Radicalised 
Meet Professor David Colquhoun. He heads up the Department of Pharmacology at University College London. But he has converted his scientific, departmental website into an excoriating attack on George Bush, his religious America, and the dangers they pose for the world. And on Bush's key ally, Tony Blair. My thanks to Rona Epstein for the tip-off. This is an example of the power and the drive that can be generated by the blogging world. Why not learn to blog yourself, and
join in the great debates of the Web? This is truly a movement of
all the peoples. If now, 
We all rejoice, with all Iraqis, that the elections have been a success. They could not have been held in worse circumstances. Yet they should have been held in June 2004, when the insurgency was relatively limited. They could have been held then, and (like many others) I argued that they should be held, warts and all. But we were ignored. Why? Bush needed secret fixing time. Sovereignty was transferred (on 1 July 2004) to an undemocratic puppet regime, which has subsequently abused its "sovereignty" to sign-up to all the Americans' long-term contracts, betrayals of Iraqi national interests - in the oil industry, in utilities supply, and in leasing military sites.
Wrong
The Tories must be rubbing their eyes in disbelief. The Government plans effectively to ask the Electorate whether they wish to "establish a Constitution for the EU". And for the majority of voters, the answer to that misconceived question must be No... For that is simply not the issue. There is an EU Constitution already, which has regulated the Union for over 40 years. It exists, derived from multiple sources, and has been frequently revised and updated. And if this most recent Revision does not go through, simplifying its use and bringing all its provisions together between two covers, the Union will simply carry on with it present higgledy-piggledy Constitution. True, new powers to get tough on terrorism will not be covered, nor will improved third-world aid. The offices of President and Foreign Minister will not be enhanced as envisaged. But that's all. Peter Hain was, politically, unwise to have described the new Constitution as "simply tidying up" - but he was in essence correct. Apart from a few mechanical issues (definition of a "qualified majority", changed seat-numbers in Parliament), nothing is changed by this re-run of the Constitution. The Government is therefore barmy, if it wants to win the Referendum, to adopt this wording. The wording should have been -
That would be vastly more accurate. And before you ask: Yes I have read the new Treaty. And having in my youth studied French and German public and administrative law, I understand precisely what the Treaty is about.
Drugs
Legalisation
The Fabians
are a great, enlightened Left-Wing political community some 7,000-strong -
and we have many skills among our number.
|
Balanced 
Charles Clarke did well, with the Government's "new" immigration policy. He saw off a mischievous and trouble-making assault by Jeremy Paxman, and kept his cool. But as the Government's story unfolds, it is clear that "the devil will lie in the detail". Nothing really turns on the Work Permit changes: we already have a points system for the Highly Skilled Immigrants' Scheme, and that could be quickly and unexceptionably extended. And an attempt will be made to accelerate the removal of illegal immigrants, whether failed asylum-seekers or simply those breaching their Visitor-Visa or Work or Student Permit terms. But the time-honoured "Indefinite Leave to Remain" is to go, as a first option for asylum-seekers. Even the successful asylum-seeker will be admitted only upon sufferance, with the prospect of being sent back if home-country conditions should improve. That would at least be a rational change, and one consistent with our Refugee Convention obligations. It would resemble the former "Exceptional Leave to Remain", only recently abolished. The problem is that those needing asylum desperately need some prospect of personal security: if they have to wait (say) two years for their case to be reconsidered, that might be acceptable - provided there were the prospect of certainty at that point. But five years? The Government's suggested five-year limbo will seem an eternity. Whatever the period, they should have the right to work in the meantime, as at present. And if the person still could not be returned after that first limbo period, there should be a presumption in favour of "indefinite leave to remain".
As for the removals back-log, which the Opposition claims to be 250,000 (and it could well be...) I suspect that is already too great an administrative mountain to climb. The Government may well have to contemplate a general amnesty for those who have had to endure this awful limbo (say) for more than three years, following the initiation of their "illegal tenure". We have just had a limited amnesty (expired 31.12.04) for those who have been waiting for more than four years for a decision...
This is a fine man
David Ramsbotham is a retired general who found his true destiny only after leaving the Army, as HM Inspector of Prisons. And he has become the fearless champion of teenagers cruelly enmeshed in our awful Court and Prison system. He is our conscience, and he keeps harassing the Authorities. His public condemnation of last week's permitted suicide of 16-year-old Gareth Price, in a young offender institution, hits a new high of condemnation. Given this Government's pantomime parades of "toughness", it will be difficult to get the message through, to Charles Clarke, that the UK still abuses its children, legally and officially.
Waterstones and Human Rights >>> How politicians abuse "contracts" >>> Abolish Wrongful Dismissal >>> "Groupism" Extending the Welfare State >>>Adjustment Pay for every worker >>>
The Mischief of ASBOs >>>
Gateway to Disaster
But he is right - for entirely the wrong reasons. He argues that the whole process should be run by Great Architects - but that would be a disaster of a new and different kind. Our town-building failures, in the UK, run very deep, within our system of government, and the limitations of our political understanding.
Humanita!  Are
you a potential recruit for
Never miss
One Year Ago
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Created by GMID Design & Communication COPYRIGHT
NOTICE |
I share the Government's new-found
enthusiasm for volunteers and volunteering. I can see mixed motives
behind the move: volunteers come cheap, and can help to achieve social
goals at minimal cost to the Exchequer. Gordon Brown is, after all,
leading the drive. And if a powerful third-sector of volunteers
could be developed, it would help to dish local government, the terminal
destruction of which if firmly on the Westminster agenda. Much of
the New Localism which will
inform Labour's manifesto is similarly driven.
But is the Government serious about this
vision? I have yet to be convinced. My suspicion is that the
whole strategy is designed to entrench Westminster power, not to devolve
it. 
Similar ingenuity is needed now. We
should create the status of "Public Trustee",
citizens qualified as Board members of local voluntary bodies, to assist
the structuring of this new regime. We should develop a third,
community-level advocates' profession. We should go much further
with community policing, giving volunteers - through community Watch
Committees - real power to affect local life. 
Is the
Government serious about all this? Or are volunteers
merely seen as cheap labour, to be bossed around by "the professionals"
who merely obey orders from above?
Do
you approve this latest Revision of the EU Constitution, which strengthens
the EU in the war against terrorism and as a humanitarian aid donor, and
accommodates the increasing number of European member States?
And read my Big Theory itself, at 
John
Prescott's plans for a great new city along the Thames will be a disaster. That is what the great architect Richard Rogers writes in 
The entire phenomenon of the English speed
"hump" was triggered by lawyer's errors. Errors of statutory
interpretation. Now that the errors have been corrected, these awful
highway obstructions should be dispensed with. I joined Ken
Livingstone in his anti-hump drive, during his re-election campaign.
Older readers will recall that I was very
active, two years ago, campaigning for drugs legalisation.
My commitment has not changed.
But I am dulled by the bovine obtuseness and lack of principle displayed
by our MPs, afraid of every electoral shadow. Here, I celebrated the
11 MPs with the courage to identify with the liberal cause of drugs
legalization. They are still, to my knowledge, the only 11 to stand
out from the bovine herd.