Politics

Nick Robinson on the Government versus the BBC

BBCmarconi-atypeI’ve just finished listening to Nick Robinson’s BBC Radio 4 series ‘Battle for the Airways’ which looks at the history of relations between the government and the BBC.

The eight 15 minute programs each look in turn at particular incidences of conflict since the founding of the corporation, taking in Suez and the Falklands, up until the present day.

There is a lot of value in it. Some great archive footage and interviews with key players. And it doesn’t tell a simplistic story of nasty politicians attempting to censor and restrict the freedom of courageous journalists either. It is noticeable that often the conflicts are caused or fuelled by poor journalistic judgement.

Also, given the potential for interference, I was struck by how restrained politicians in the past have often been.

One of the more formidable early opponents of the BBC’s independence was Winston Churchill. Episode 2 includes a wonderfully caustic and sarcasm laden recorded extract from a critical speech he made. But Churchill had a point. It was the case that in the Thirties his anti-appeasement views, and those of other critics of the foreign policy of the time, were being deliberately kept off the airways.

I noticed in Episode 6 that even Margaret Thatcher, who you might imagine being the most combative critic, goes some way to moderate her criticism –- “some of the programs, I don’t say all” –- of aspects of the BBC’s reporting of the Falklands conflict.

Robinson’s emphasis in this series is on conflict. It is essentially a collection of snapshots of “battles”. Yet despite this it left me feeling optimistic.

I think you have to accept that to a certain extent the BBC will always work within broad parameters set by an essentially establishment outlook. It is after all the British Broadcasting Corporation established by Royal Charter. It is also true that the BBC’s independence seems to have been as often preserved by skilfully bending to pressure as it has been by resisting it.

Yet in accepting those things, and after listening to the story of these rows and clashes, I can’t help but conclude that the relationship overall between the Government and politicians and the BBC has been one that has worked and been healthy. The really damaging conflicts have occurred mostly at times of war, particularly the more controversial wars, when the stakes have been so much higher.

Outside of those times it has been less a battle for the airways — more taking pot-shots and the occasional skirmish. The boundaries between broadcasters and politicians have largely been established and accepted by all sides, and seems to have largely worked in the public interest. I am not convinced the same be said of the print media.

Robinson’s series highlights the conflicts – but for me the story is one of success. Indeed, it could have been so much worse.

Berlusconi anyone?

Parliamentary constituencies in The Chilterns

This is a reference post listing the UK parliamentary constituencies that cover the area of England known as ‘The Chilterns’ with details of the current MP and their party.

A while ago I noted this post which pointed out the correlation between which political parties people vote for and the geology of an area. So if you live where there is chalk you are likely to have a Conservative MP. It turns out that this is largely true.

This got me thinking about the nature of the political representation of the chalk hills that surround where I live — the Chiltern Hills. I wondered who were the MPs who had constituencies that covered The Chilterns and so would have an interest in its conservation.

After a bit of research I came up with the following list which I make available in case anyone finds it useful:

Constituency Current MP Party
Hitchin and Harpenden Peter Lilley Conservative
Mid Bedfordshire Nadine Dorries Conservative
Luton North Kelvin Hopkins Labour
Luton South Gavin Shuker Labour
South West Bedfordshire Andrew Selous Conservative
Hemel Hempstead Michael Penning Conservative
Buckingham John Bercow Speaker
South West Hertfordshire David Gauke Conservative
Aylesbury David Lidington Conservative
Chesham and Amersham Cheryl Gillan Conservative
Beaconsfield Dominic Grieve Conservative
Wycombe Steven Baker Conservative
Henley John Howell Conservative

These are the constituencies that as far as I can tell have boundaries that overlap with the area that The Chilterns covers. I don’t think I’ve missed any. None of these constituencies are wholly in The Chilterns and some only cover a small area.

True to form they are mostly Conservative held seats. The exception being the two Luton seats and that of the Speaker of the House of Commons, who by tradition is not opposed by the main political parties at an election, but who was originally elected as a Conservative.

See also:

I live in a Rotten Borough

Rotten Boroughs Logo (ERS campaign)When I was writing about the South Shields by-election the other day, talking about how safe seats marginalise those who live in them, I pointed out the dominance that the Labour Party have on the local council there. In fact Labour on South Tyneside council have 88.89% of the seats. Which according to the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) makes South Tyneside a ‘One Party State’.

The ERS have launched a ‘Rotten Boroughs’ campaign to highlight what they see as being wrong with the state of local government in England and Wales. New analysis that they have undertaken shows that 21 million people are living in the local government equivalent of One Party States’, which they define as;

“authorities with a single party holding over 75% of council seats, leaving opposition incapable of providing any checks of council decision making.”

The choice of 75% is because this figure gives the ruling party a two-thirds majority which means that they have the ability to change the rules by which a council is run without needing the support of any other party. A practical example of this is if the majority party don’t like the way the opposition is asking awkward questions in council meetings they can change the “Standing Orders” so that there are fewer opportunities for those questions to be asked.

All of the three major parties have examples of these one party states. The Liberal Democrats run Eastleigh with 86.36% of the councillors. This is not so much a problem of how the system is unfair to certain political parties, but about how our ‘First Past the Post’ voting system can give winning parties a disproportionate majority and in doing so make impossible proper scrutiny. As I have said many times — democracy is not just about voting — it also requires debate and challenge. If one party nearly always ends up running the council and the opposition is nearly always powerless to do anything that debate and challenge doesn’t happen and bad government results.

Luton is not the worst example of a ‘Rotten Borough’ but it does just fit within the ERS’s definition of a ‘One Party State’ given that Labour have exactly 75% of the seats on the Council.

I noted also that next door Central Bedfordshire is also a ‘One Party State’. Here the Conservatives have 83.05% of the seats.

I think this partly explains the polarised nature of politics in southern Bedfordshire. We have two unitary councils — each partly responsible for the welfare of the Luton/Dunstable/Houghton Regis conurbation — but each in turn dominated by a different and opposing political party. Scrutiny of both administrations is difficult and cooperation between the two made impossible because of the lack of a middle ground. For instance, the 36 Luton Labour councillors can’t establish working relationships with Central Bedfordshire Labour councillors because..er…there is only one.

What is the solution? Simply to introduce a fair voting system for local government elections in England and Wales — just like the one introduced into Scotland.

Does any of this strike a cord with you? The ERS are asking people to share their experience of how local democracy has failed them.

The new MP for South Shields has been chosen

With David Miliband heading off to his new job with the International Rescue Committee in New York the constituency of South Shields needs a new member of Parliament. Last week this new MP was chosen. It is to be a local councillor and social worker Emma Lewell-Buck.

What do you mean the by-election hasn’t happened yet?

I know that — but so what?

There is a vote scheduled for the 2 May. There will be a campaign. Doors will be knocked on. Leaflets printed. Hustings held. The main parties, and some of the fringe parties, will put up candidates. Those candidates will valiantly fly the flag for their party, its policies, and their personal commitment to the area.

And then the people of South Shields will do what they’ve always done and vote Labour.

Apparently South Shields is the only seat in existence since the Great Reform Act of 1832 to have never elected a Conservative MP. The Labour party have held the seat without interruption since 1935. Although the Labour vote has declined from their high point in 1997 when they won 71% of the vote, Miliband still won with 52% of the vote at the last General Election. A Labour majority of 11,000. In addition the make up of South Tyneside council is 48 Labour, 4 independent, 1 Conservative and 1 UKIP. As far as I can work out all the Councillors in the constituency are Labour (although there might be one independent).

In short, South Shields is the very definition of a safe Labour seat.

The truth is that the vote that mattered in deciding who the next MP was to be was the one held by the local Labour Party. Lewell-Buck was quoted as saying;

“Over the next few weeks, I’ll be out in every part of the constituency, knocking on doors and talking to local residents. I want to meet as many people as possible, and hear directly from them what they want from their new MP.”

I know nothing about her except what I’ve read and so have no reason to doubt her sincerity or commitment to her community. In all likelihood she will make an excellent constituency MP. However, in terms of what difference it will make to the result, she could just as well spend the next few weeks researching what she will say in her maiden speech.

I’m sure after the count somebody will say how the result “sends a message to David Cameron and this Conservative-led Government”. It won’t.

I am a democrat — the right to vote is precious — and I want the people of South Shields to have their voice heard. If that voice largely wants to speak about issues and values associated with labour politics then so be it. But the reality is, because this is such a safe seat, outside of the local area, the Labour Party will take those voters for granted and the other parties will largely ignore them. Very few national journalists will make the trip up to Tyneside to cover the result. So, unless there is an extraordinary political earthquake on 2 May, nobody will pay it much attention.

The reality of our political system is that those living in safe seats, whichever party holds them, are less important than those living in marginal seats. And South Shields is about as far away from a marginal seat as it is possible to get.

Does any of the above piss you off?

If yes, why not join one of these:

Picture from the BBC News website

Luton Liberal Democrats hold Wigmore

Ballot papersOn Wednesday evening Alan Skepelhorn was elected to Luton Borough Council winning the local by-election for the Wigmore ward. This means that Luton Liberal Democrats have held on to this seat and we keep our numbers at 8 on the Council.

The by-election was held after the sad death of long-standing local campaigner Roy Davies.

I am really pleased. Not least because Alan was a colleague of mine when I was on the council — he was previously a councillor in Round Green ward — and I know what an asset he will be to the Lib Dem group.

But also because this was a really positive result for the Liberal Democrats in Luton. I think the local party was always hopeful of retaining the seat — but I am surprised at the size of the majority. This was a very bad result for the Tories — in effect dropping from second to third — and the Labour challenge was not as strong as I expected it to be. This actually represents a 3.1% swing from Labour to Lib Dems.

It is only one result and in a relatively strong area — but after the bashing we took in the last local elections — this does give some hope that the worst is over.

Credit must go to the small team who worked really hard to get this result. Myself, I didn’t really do much to help — but I did do a little — which is the most active campaigning I’ve done for a long while.

The full result was:

Alan Skepelhorn Lib Dem 982 47%
James Taylor Labour 517 24%
John Young Conservative 281 13%
Lance Richardson UKIP 230 11%
John Magill Independent 62 3%
Marc Scheimann Green 27 1%

Total Votes 2,102

Turnout 24.2%

(I gave the result from last time the ward was fought in May 2011 here)

More coverage of the result here:

Wigmore by-election to be held on 10 April 2013

Ballot papersFollowing the sad death of Liberal Democrat Councillor Roy Davies a by-election to Luton Borough Council for the Wigmore ward is to be held on Wednesday 10 April 2013.

Note that polling day is a Wednesday — not the usual Thursday.

There are six candidates — all men — for the vacant place in this three member ward. The other two councillors for Wigmore are both Liberal Democrats.

The Liberal Democrat candidate will be former councillor Alan Skepelhorn. The Conservatives are putting forward John Young — a regular candidate for them in local elections in Luton. The Labour candidate is James Taylor — who I’ve not come across before.

The candidate for the Green Party will be long standing Green activist Marc Scheimann. Lance Richardson will be the candidate for UK Independence Party — he was the candidate for UKIP in this ward at the last local elections in 2011.

More details about the candidates and the by-election can be found on the Luton Borough Council website.

Going by the result in this ward from the last locals it could be one of those rare things — a genuine three party contest. While I of course hope that Alan can retain the seat for the Liberal Democrats, it will be interesting to see which party emerges as the main challenger.

Wigmore election result – 5 May 2011

Liberal Democrat 1403
Liberal Democrat 1239
Liberal Democrat 1113
Conservative 807
Conservative 787
Labour 786
Labour 781
Labour 734
Conservative 559
UKIP 324

 

Consultation on the future of Luton’s Libraries

Luton Central LibraryLuton Borough Council are currently consulting on the future of the library service in Luton.

In common with many other councils, given the current financial constraints, LBC is looking at ways to change the provision of libraries in Luton in order to find budget savings.

In comparison to the savage cuts that libraries are facing in some places the proposals are relatively modest. Although they do mean that some parts of the Town will lose their local library.

The consultation deadline has been extended until Wednesday 24 April.

Details of the proposed changes can be found in the following factsheet:

You can also read the report that went to the Council’s Executive.

A brief declaration of interest: I am a trustee of Luton Culture, the charity that runs the library service on behalf of Luton Borough Council.

Gavin Shuker and the law on prostitution

I noticed one of my local papers reporting that the MP for Luton South was to lead an “inquiry into whether the law on prostitution should be changed”: ‘Gavin Shuker MP leading inquiry into sex trade laws‘.

I was intrigued.

This is a very worthy, if somewhat tricky, subject to tackle. The law needs to protect, often very vulnerable, people from exploitation so to question whether the current legal situation could be improved to do this better is surely worthwhile. Yet this is not an easy issue for politics to deal with. Society at large seems to have a complicated and often hypocritical attitude to prostitution. It is an area surrounded by myths and taboos — where doing the “right” thing in straightforward policy terms can be easily confused by the messy reality. So any member of parliament interested in social reform who chooses this subject as something to tackle, provided they do so with a practical attitude and an open mind, should be applauded.

Yet, I immediately had some concerns. Knowing the position that Gavin Shuker has taken on some other social issues I wondered how open minded and practical he would be. A brief internet search confirmed my suspicions. Things are not quite what they appear to be with this “inquiry”.

The inquiry is being undertaken by the ‘All Party Parliamentary Group on Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade’, which Shuker is the Chair of. A “call for evidence” that the group has made closed at the beginning of this month.

The purpose of this APPG as stated on their (rather sketchy) website is:

“to raise awareness of the impact of the sale of sexual services on those involved and to develop proposals for government action to tackle individuals who create demand for sexual services as well as those who control prostitutes; to protect prostituted women by helping them to exit prostitution and to prevent girls from entering prostitution.” (My emphasis)

The Group’s entry in the House of Common’s Register of All-Party Groups states that the secretariat for the Group is provided by CARE (Christian Action Research and Education). CARE’s stated policy towards prostitution — according to their ‘tackling demand’ briefing [PDF] — includes the following:

“CARE recommends that the Government adopt legislation which criminalises the buying of sexual services whilst taking a more compassionate approach to those selling these services.”

Incidentally, CARE are also strongly opposed to the coalition government’s current legislation to achieve equal marriage.

Gavin Shuker himself already seems to have formed some pretty firm views on this issue. In an article in The Guardian in December he is quoted as saying:

“It is clear that the current legal situation is failing women and it is failing communities, and the government needs to consider if the criminalisation of buying sex could help reduce demand.”

I also found this report of a speech he gave to the AGM of a Norfolk charity where he apparently “gave a stirring speech encouraging the gathering to actively fight for a law change to criminalise the purchasing of sex”. I like politicians with a passionate commitment to their beliefs, even if I don’t share them, so I thought it was worth repeating what Shuker is quoted as saying to that meeting:

“One of the biggest lies that is perpetuated, is that it [prostitution] is the oldest profession and for that reason it is always with us and there is nothing you can do. I just fundamentally don’t believe that is true.

“I think we should be angry. I think we should be angry that it’s okay to go out and exploit women in this way. And I think that we should be angry enough to force us into action, to force the people around us to take action, to say that it’s unjust.”

(As an aside the Christian charity he was speaking to was the The Magdalene Group an organisation that does outreach work amongst street prostitutes in Norwich which — on my brief reading of their website — looks to be a very valuable organisation.)

I hope you can see the pattern that is developing here.

CARE, Shuker and the APPG clearly believe that one way to tackle the social problems associated with prostitution is to make the buying of sex itself illegal. Under the current law in England and Wales, soliciting sex and kerb crawling, as well as selling sex in a brothel, are illegal — but the act of paying for sex is not. The argument is that this change in the law would lead to a fall in demand for prostitution. The highlighting of this approach at Westminster follows changes to the law to this effect in a number of Scandinavian countries and recent moves in this direction in Scotland.

Aside from the questions around individual liberty that such a move would create, I am far from convinced that this a workable approach. I am very dubious about the idea that you can legislate away demand for something. Experience across a whole range of social problems suggests that prohibition rarely is successful and often actually makes problems worse. There are many arguments that suggest that this would also be the case with prostitution.

However, I began this post by saying how this was a tricky area to develop policy in. While there are experts and campaigners who argue for prohibition, there are others who will argue for the status quo, for decriminalisation, and for legalisation. I don’t claim to know what reforms to the law are needed — and Shuker is perfectly entitled to take a prohibitionist line. What I do object to is his cloaking his campaigning for a particular outcome in the neutral clothes of a parliamentary inquiry.

I said at the beginning that any member of parliament interested in social reform who chooses this subject as something to tackle, provided they do so with practical attitude and an open mind, should be applauded. Effective all party parliamentary groups can cut across the usual political divides and through investigation and discussion help to build a consensus around reform on a particular issue. Yet it is clear that Shuker and his APPG have already made up their minds. This APPG is less an attempt to gather together parliamentarians with an interest in the issue of prostitution, whatever their views, and more a campaign group with a fixed agenda.

Note also the rather gendered approach of the APPG. Their aim is to “protect prostituted women….and to prevent girls from entering prostitution”. It obviously hasn’t occurred to them that some men may be open to exploitation or that vulnerable boys may need protection.

If this APPG already has a fixed approach to this issue — why have an inquiry?

If you look at the document they have issued in their call for written evidence you will get an idea:

The text includes a “background summary of different legal settlements on prostitution” which argues against the options of regulation, decriminalisation, and legalisation — but paints prohibition in a favourable light. This is then followed by a very short questionnaire.

It all feels like something designed to get responses favourable to their argument. I think this is a classic attempt to find “policy based evidence” and not a genuine process of evidence based policy making.

What we seem to have here is not a rational approach to reviewing and reforming the laws around prostitution — looking at all the evidence and expert opinion from across the spectrum — but more something in the nature of a moral crusade. With such a tricky and sensitive issue as prostitution such an approach is likely to end up causing more harm than good.

Featured on Liberal Democrat Voice

Marching against the Iraq war – what it means a decade on

Stop the War march 01Inspired by various articles and discussion on social media I ended up spending a part of last Friday evening looking through the photos I had taken on the ‘Stop The War’ march ten years ago that day.

I ended getting a little lost in nostalgia. Looking at pictures of Liberal Democrat friends and colleagues all wrapped up in scarves and gloves against the cold and thinking about what has happened to them, and to me, in the following ten years will do that. I found that I have one or two pictures of people on the march who are now members of parliament — and some who are no longer members of the party. I realised I was a lot less cynical back then than I am now. I was also a lot thinner.

I do remember that day pretty well. I remember the feeling of real pride I had in being a Liberal Democrat and also in being part of that huge crowd together making our opposition known.

But did that march actually achieve anything?

Ultimately it failed in its objective to stop the war. But it would be wrong to go from that to saying that it had no consequence.

Political protest is a process and not an event. Getting X numbers of people on a march doesn’t automatically mean that Y politician makes a Z decision. It doesn’t work like that. The anti-war protests of that time made the Blair government pay a higher political price for the war than they otherwise would have done. It shaped and changed British politics beyond that. Yes the war still happened and Tony Blair wasn’t put on trial in the Hague and so on – but in a subtler way politics was different.

Yet its impact could have been greater.

The Left

I’ve read a number of articles about how those on the left feel that the march was a pointless failure and how it lead to feelings of disappointment and disillusion etc. If some had entertained the idea that the march was going to be a step towards the revolution then they were bound to be disappointed.

One thing I remember thinking at the time — and I believe it still holds true today — was that the march was not about the left. Left-wing organisations may have been responsible for the logistics — I saw one website comment where someone was pointing out that the SWP contribution was the most efficiently organised (which I can well believe) — but the participation encompassed a whole spectrum of people. This was not a left-wing march — it was an anti-war march, and the Liberal Democrat participation was an important component of that. If it was a failure for the left then it has to be recognised that this is in part because the left failed to build upon the legacy of the march in the inclusive manner that would have made the most of the potential impact.

The Liberal Democrats

What was the impact of the ‘Stop The War’ march on the Liberal Democrats?

Do read Gareth Epps post on the Liberator blog;

I don’t always whole-heartedly agree with Gareth — but on this I am in almost complete agreement. He gives a picture of the events at the time that tally with my recollection, although he was obviously much closer to the action than I was. He also rightly praises the contribution made by Donnachadh McCarthy, James Graham, Martin Tod and “the usual combination of veteran campaigners and young Liberals coming up trumps”. I’d like to thank all those who were involved in arranging and organising the Liberal Democrat presence on the march who gave myself and many others the opportunity to feel the pride that we did that day.

The Curse of Reasonableness

Gareth talks about how Charles Kennedy’s nuanced policy approach to the Iraq war was proved right but how he also had to be “dragged, almost kicking and screaming, to the march”. Kennedy’s handling of the Iraq war issue was one of the better episodes of his leadership but the party as a whole was also right to push him into participation in the march. It is to his credit that he was ultimately prepared to make that jump.

This story should be better understood by the Party’s current leadership. We are often right on policy in part because our policy is nuanced. But a nuanced position can be difficult to campaign on. Too much nuance and your distinctive message can get lost. I have started to call this problem “the curse of reasonableness”.

To counteract this curse it is helpful to sometimes forget the complexities and take a stand in a simple and unequivocal way. And that might mean marching to say “no”. The current leadership need to understand this better and also appreciate that the party as a whole might have a better understanding than them of which issues to forget the nuance on, if they were only to listen.

It strikes me that the secret courts issue might be a good example of this.

Missed opportunity #1

Lets also remember that the Party’s anti-war stance at the time gave the Liberal Democrats a significant boost.

But again I think the impact could have been greater.

It wouldn’t have been that long after the march that I began to get frustrated by how the Liberal Democrats were failing to build on that anti-war stance. I remember telling some senior policy people how I thought one of the Party’s weaknesses was foreign policy — and getting a pretty surprised reaction.

What I wanted was for the Party to use the fact that we had people listening to us because of our position on the war to tell a wider story about how we saw Britain’s role in the world beyond Iraq. To develop a proper Liberal alternative to Blair’s liberal interventionism. Paddy Ashdown was saying some interesting things at the time, and to a lesser extent was Shirley Williams, but beyond that the opportunity was missed.

While I was disappointed then, Gareth is right to point out that things at the moment are much worse;

“Were fate and international events to throw up a parallel situation today, indeed, what might happen? The answer is far from clear, especially as, since their accession to government, the Liberal Democrats have scarcely discussed foreign policy at all and appear to have largely forgotten about the wider world.”

Aside from pursuing an agenda on Europe we appear to be uninterested in developing anything distinctive in our approach to foreign policy. The recent reshuffle that left no Liberal Democrat in the Foreign Office or the MoD has only exacerbated this.

Missed opportunity #2

Locally here in Luton the anti-war stance gave us, an all too short-lived, electoral boost. But more importantly it gave us an opportunity to begin to engage with our local Muslim community in a way that we had previously been unable to do. It also led to some significant new recruits, some direct from the Labour party, including Qurban Hussain who now sits on the Liberal Democrat benches in the House of Lords.

This is a legacy of that time that lingers. Our local party remains much more representative of our community now than it was ten years ago. Yet can the same be said at a national level?

Again the 2003 anti-war stance made a diverse range of people interested in the party — and gave the party something to talk to them about — who wouldn’t have been interested otherwise. Was enough done to engage with them? Did we work on ways to turn support for us on this single issue into more widely based support? I am not sure. I feel this may have been another missed opportunity.

This has turned into a much longer post than intended, and I am not sure how to end it, so here are some photos from the 15th February 2003:

A tribute to Roy Davies

Cllr Roy Davies

Cllr Roy Davies

Those who have been involved in campaigns for the Liberal Democrats in Luton over the years will be sad to learn of the death of Councillor Roy Davies.

I served alongside Roy as part of the Liberal Democrat group during my eight years on Luton Borough Council and I want to pay tribute to the determination and commitment that he gave to the Party and the Town. He was a proper local councillor — someone whose top priority was to fight for the interests of the people of the area he represented.

Roy was also a stalwart of the Luton local party. For several decades he, along with his wife Jenny, formed the backbone of our local organisation. The archetypal image that I have in my head of a Luton election campaign is of visiting them at their home in Stopsley to find Jenny art-working Focus at her computer and Roy in another part of the house working a printer or tending a folding machine. When the Liberal Democrats have had success in Luton in the past a large part of that success would have been because of the work of Jenny and Roy.

My condolences to Jenny and his family.

More here: