2007… the year that will be

Everyone goes sentimental on New Year’s Eve. We all love to think of the new world we can paint in the coming twelve months, seeing the resolution of the world’s woes. Either that, or a dire prediction of death and destruction: a devastating natural disaster, a widespread war, the spread of a horrific disease, etc. Sadly, the latter is more likely to occur. Most of these lists are ambiguous hints at what seem like educated guesses interspersed with “predictions” that anyone can see coming a year away. As such, this blog will not feature such a list. I will, however, consider some wider issues for the nation – and the world – to face in the coming year.

The Labour Party knows that it cannot win the next election; damage limitation tactics will be tried, but it is already too late.

In Westminster, no General Election will take place. Gordon Brown will be made Prime Minister, and will face the same media onslaught that Tony Blair has endured: there will be no resurgence of New Labour support. The Labour party will start to divide itself, as Brown is seen as increasingly despotic and difficult to work with. He will not be able to leave his time in the Treasury behind him, controlling his successor. The Conservatives will be seen as the people who can solve the problems that Labour have overseen, and David Cameron will be seen as a Prime Minister in waiting, just as Blair was in the mid 1990s. The Labour Party knows that it cannot win the next election; damage limitation tactics will be tried, but it is already too late.

2007 will see elections to the Scottish Parliament that will see the Labour share of the vote slump, and the Lib Dem portion drop slightly, while the Conservatives will see very little change. The real winners will be the SNP, who will probably take control of the Parliament.

As such, we will see an English party beginning to dominate Westminster, and a nationalist party dominating Scotland. Labour will be blamed for their disastrous methods of devolution, and the campaign for an English Parliament will gain speed.

If all of this actually happens, it will be no great surprise. My interest is not in the fun of predicting events, but the analysis of what they would mean for the country. If this does transpire, the United Kingdom would see a massive shake-up of the constitution.

One thing is certain: the UK constitution will look very different this time next year. And I’m sure it won’t look anything like I want it to!

Should Saddam Hussein have been hanged?

Saddam Hussein was a vile, heartless man who murdered the very people he was supposed to protect. He showed no remorse for his cruel actions, and he had about as little right to govern Iraq as Jade Goody would in the UK. But should he have been executed?

I’ll not beat about the bush: I cannot consider the murder of criminals an acceptable practice for a sovereign state. I cannot comprehend a society that seeks to kill those who perpetrate violent acts of any magnitude. And I am ashamed that the society I live in would, given the opportunity, vote to reinstate capital punishment.

The government of Iraq made a grave* mistake when they accepted capital punishment in their constitution. In a nation policed by foreign armies, due process of suspected criminals is likely to be a bit questionable. If the Iraqi government kill the people they convict, how do they separate themselves from the American soldiers who ignore inconvenient practices such as trials? If they wanted to establish themselves as a completely fresh state, they should have recognised that a democratic nation in the 21st century should not be killing its own citizens.

In this particular case, the execution was absolute folly. Now that the last remaining figure of Iraq’s last era has been removed, a void has been left. The Iraqis hope that Saddam and the society he oversaw will be forgotten now. This is unimaginably naïve. Iraq is, effectively, in civil war, and they are not fighting in clearly-defined camps. This is not a war of pro-Saddam versus anti-Saddam militia. Saddam Hussein did not cause this war: the invading forces did. This simple fact remains: the murder of Saddam Hussein undermines the government’s mandate.

The awful irony in Saddam’s trial will resonate long after his noose has stopped swinging. He was tried for the murders of only a fraction of his victims, and will never be brought fully justice. He was not tried for his more bloody crimes because the US and UK provided the weapons he used. They would never let a trial take place where the truth would come out… But he was tried in Iraq, at the insistence of the occupying nations, to legitimise the Iraqi courts. Had he been tried in the Hague, the verdict would have been fair. They would have found him guilty on many counts, not just one. But he would have been kept in a cell for the rest of his life, not killed by his own government. I don’t think I would have cared if he had committed suicide, although I don’t think he would have done so. But if any government kills its own citizens, they begin to lover themselves to Saddam Hussein’s level. And they think this is the end of their problems!

I hope that today’s events will provide some closure in Iraq, but it would be foolish to believe that they will. Iraq must move on from the shady Saddam days, and it must move on quickly. But killing Saddam Hussein was not the way to provide progress.

*excuse the pun…

MPs’ Pay

According to the Independent, Labour backbenchers are asking for a pay rise to put them in line with GPs. This is a peculiar move from a group of people who are attempting to take more money from the taxpayer, who put them in their positions to begin with. MPs already earn over £60,000 before expenses: several times the average wage nation-wide.

I know they work hard to do their jobs, but are they really worth £100,000? If we are to keep the electorate engaged in politics, surely we must keep the politicians in touch with the electorate? If so, giving them such a high salary almost guarantees growing levels of apathy, so must be discouraged.

Given that MPs are funded by the taxpayer, I think we need to ensure that the taxpayer wants to pay their wages. If we ever have a minority of the eligible electorate actually voting, we should disband the House of Commons to teach them a lesson.

I suspect they are hoping to receive an increased pay packet, and are setting the bar unreasonably high to make their final settlement look fair. They should earn no more than twice the average wage, and learn how the other half live. If they complain, vote them out!

I do wonder why it is Labour MPs who are pushing for this pay increase: it doesn’t look like there will be many of them around after the next General Election!

Party Funding

There is simply no simple solution to the issue of party funding. Because we don’t have a true democracy, party politics has to take a prominent role in parliament. Whilst this is far from ideal, I have accepted that it is here to stay. Thus we must aim to limit the influence of party politics.

My biggest problem with party politics is the issue of funding. We are in a stupid situation where multi-millionaires aim to pump money into political parties in order to fund their election campaigns. This is a very clear attempt to use their money to sway voters to supporting the party they wish to win. It is the funding of deliberately coercive material to attempt to skew election results. This is anti-democratic, and morally repugnant.

Surely we cannot allow political parties to alter their policies according to a small number of wealthy donors, who hold far more power than the smaller-walleted members. Every political party must offer some incentive to get several million pounds from rich donors. Fortunately for the Labour Party, 9 years in government has allowed them time to sell peerages to every single one of their £1,000,000+ donors. Unfortunately for the Lib Dems, they have nothing to offer anyone, so do not attract many donations.

The problem is, there are few sensible alternatives.

The use of taxpayers’ money to fund political parties seems increasingly likely, much to the chagrin of practically everyone outside party politics. If we had public money funnelled into political parties, I suspect we would see a big rise in election-time advertising and the indiscriminate wasting of taxes on lengthy campaigns. With every party in on the act, we would snowball down a slippery slope to 5-year-long election campaigns, a healthy minority of funding coming from an increasingly apathetic electorate. This is very dangerous territory, and we should steer well clear of it.

It seems, then, that the only truly sensible option is to force party members to pay for their own party’s funding. Only party members should be allowed to donate to a political party. Members should have an annual cap on donations, set at a reasonably low rate (eg £50,000), to discourage mega-donors from influencing parties. If parties found it difficult to survive financially under this system, it is all for the better. They should be stripped back to their bare bones, encouraging less internal bureaucracy and more influence from their members.

The status quo is anti-democratic and downright wrong. It is clear that radical action is needed if we are to retain democracy in this country. Public funding would ruin our whole electoral process, and open the nation up to permanent party propaganda. To prevent this, parties must learn to fund themselves through their “loyal membership”. Otherwise, we have manipulation from major donors or legalised thieving from the electorate to manipulate the electorate. And, come what may, we simply cannot allow that to happen.

Untied Nations

I really pity the United Nations. Dubbed the world’s biggest talking shop, the UN often seems incapable of doing anything. But it is not the UN’s fault. Indeed, I think the UN would be the most generous aid worker and most prolific provider of armed forces.

It is the diplomats, and national self-interest, that prevent the UN from performing its primary objective: to solve the world’s problems. If nations were actually bound to UN resolutions, how much better would the world be? If the world responded, as they have agreed to, to UN resolutions, the global community would be in a much healthier position.

I would hate to see UN resolutions become part of UK law, but I feel that as long as nations stay part of the United Nations that should obey UN edicts. At the very least, certain UN documents should be enshrined in the laws of every member state: a respect for the UN convention on Human Rights would be welcome.

This would allow the UN to perform its functions better, and to hold to account any nation who broke it. This untying of the United Nations would allow it to instigate some change at last, and that would be most beneficial for the world at large.

Mayor of London’s Role Questioned

Who’s idea was it to launch our Olympic bid? Who’s to blame? I speak as a Londoner, and I do not refer to the project as a whole.* I take issue with the person in government who decided to forge ahead with the whole plan for this simple reason: Ken Livingston.

Surely they knew that Ken Livingstone would stick his oar in? How could they not predict that Livingstone would try to take over the running of the games? And why did nobody think to stop him?

My objection, of course, is not a personal one. I don’t like Ken very much: if I were allowed to vote, I wouldn’t vote for him.** But I feel quite strongly about the role he is playing in the Olympic Games organising. He has a peculiar role, being in charge of certain aspects of running London, but not others. This gives him room to manoeuvre himself ahead of the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport with little effort. Using his GLA podium, he can influence national government decisions.

This is a very dangerous power. Just because he is the Mayor of London, he should not be deciding how the Treasury allocates its budget to a sporting competition. If he is allowed to exercise this power, who knows where it will end. Does he have jurisdiction over every vehicle that travels in London? Does he have the power to demand more money for London transport, policing, manufacturing, etc? Can he ban aeroplanes from flying over London and force the Treasury to pay their compensation?

The powers of the Mayor of London need to be more clearly defined, and more limited. He should not have the ability to control national policy in this way.

— 

*For the time being, I remain open minded about the games. It is one of those rare issues on which I have no staunchly held opinion. I trust that time will remedy this!

**I am naturally suspicious of anyone who is usually known by just one name: Hitler, Saddam, Madonna, Cher… you get the picture!

Nuclear disarmament

The government are making attempts to replace our nuclear weapons system – trident – with a new brand of missile. If implemented, the new system will be more murderous than Trident, and in the current climate is far more likely to be used than Trident ever was. And we are committed to nuclear disarmament.

It seems a fairly simple concept: you are bound to a treaty to disarm, so you should disarm. You attract aggressive action by possessing these weapons, so you should disarm. You undermine any idea of setting an example of liberal democracy by possessing these weapons, so you should disarm. And this government – many of whom were originally elected to parliament campaigning for unilateral nuclear disarmament – are pushing for its replacement.

It is vital to the future of our “liberal democratic” values that we remove this awful blot on our nation. We are bound by international law to disarm. You know it makes sense…

Religious persecution?

The last few days, weeks, and months have seen the debate on freedom of religious expression given new life. No doubt started by Jack Straw’s inflammatory comments on Muslim women wearing the veil, a plethora of issues have been raised.

TV presenters have been criticised for wearing religious symbols because they might affect the viewers’ perception of balance. Staff in many fields have likewise been told that crosses and other religious items do not comply to uniform regulations. University Christian Unions have been forced out of Guilds because they refuse to allow non-Christians onto their executive committees.

These are not just cases of political correctness gone mad. They demonstrate society’s fundamental disrespect for religion. There is a pernicious aspect of our society that discredits anyone who displays their religious beliefs. We have to be realistic about this. If we make religion a taboo subject, it will encourage extremism. The only way to encourage religious integration and co-operation is to accept those of different beliefs.

Frankly, I don’t understand staunch atheists who want to be elected to the executive committees of Christian Unions. Surely this, not the CUs’ decision to ban them from becoming members, is the aggressive action? Surely the deliberate attempts to undermine religious expression cannot be allowed to portray Christians – or any other religious groups – as exclusive. Religion is bound to be exclusive: we ought to be able to live with each other without trying to undermine each other’s actions.

So, what would I do to stop all of this stupid inter-religious debating? Wearing religious symbols should be a personal choice, and everybody should be able to display their beliefs as they wish. Safeguards should be in place to allow university groups to be governed by those with their own interests at heart, setting parameters as they please. And nobody should ever deny others the right to freedom of religious expression.

Cash for Peerages

The system of Lords appointments has always been open to manipulation. It should come as no surprise that secret deals have been made between the Prime Minister and donors to secure a place in the Lords: this has been happening for decades.

I wonder what the purpose of a revising second chamber is if it is appointed by self-interested party political figures. This crisis highlights the need for House of Lords reform. The current system is just begging to be abused, and Blair has clearly used the loans loophole to get peerages for his mates. Only with an elected system of appointments could we ensure our second chamber is honest and acting in our best interests.

The “Cash for Peerages” scandal has reverberated through Westminster for long enough. We need all of the people implicated to be brought to justice – Mr Blair at the top of the list – and then a thorough, independent investigation can be conducted. This will have to suggest House of Lords reform, and maybe the political will to solve this constitutional anomaly will be mustered.

For the foreseeable future, however, it seems that Blair is getting away with a grave crime, and is arrogant enough not to care that he abused his position as Prime Minister to undermine our parliament. If the electorate had any sense they would demand his resignation with immediate effect.

European Parliament Woes

The European Union is trying to remove the UK’s right to veto law and order legislation. This is only the latest in a very long line of incidents that serve to undermine the sovereignty of this country. No longer are our policy makers accountable to the electorate: we have only a tiny share in the votes in the European Parliament.

We have entered into the bizarre situation where we completely sacrifice our political power for the perceived economic benefits of EU membership. If we lose the right to veto law and order legislation, we will be left with no authority on sentencing or police matters.

If we are serious about our democratic values, we will respect the importance of judicial independence from the EU. We will understand that by signing over the rights to govern ourselves we become enslaved to obscure political parties from mainland Europe. Unless the electorate in the UK can overturn decisions like this at the polls, there is no place for EU law on our statute books. It is illegitimised by its unaccountability.

We must now leave the European Parliament, and return to a position of autocracy, not Brussels dictatorship. Before long, we will be bound to a European super-state in such a dependant manner that we won’t be able to get out of it. Our very political future is at stake.