The week leading up to Christmas is a good time to ‘bury’ bad news, parliament is in recess and the public are too busy with last minute shopping to take notice. That is, probably, why the Inspectorate of Constabulary chose last week to release its review of how the police coped with the August riots.
The review calls for new guidelines for how the police deal with a breakdown in public order, suggestion that water cannon and plastic bullets could be used where there is a risk of ‘violent attacks on the public’ or on members of the fire and ambulance services. A survey of 2000 people carried out in September suggests there is widespread public support for the use of such tactics.
This is all well and good even though, as Sir Hugh Orde of the Association of Chief Police Officers and a man with considerable experience of coping with public disorder gained during his time in Northern Ireland pointed out, water cannon and plastic bullets are ineffective against widely dispersed mobs of the sort that took to the streets in London and Manchester. The review though went on from there to enter far more dangerous territory.
It claimed that following legal advice received by the inspectorate firearms could ‘potentially’ be used where ‘the immediacy of the risk and the gravity of the consequences’ made doing so necessary. The example most commonly cited was that of protecting homes or business from being destroyed by rioters as happened in London.
Chief Inspector of Constabulary Sir Dennis O’Connor said that in the wake of the riots it was necessary to raise what he called ‘awkward issues’ and that the police needed ‘some new rules of engagement’ so that they could ‘protect the public in confidence.’ As is the way of things raising awkward issues, such a lazy euphemism don’t you think, provoked an instant and mostly negative response.
Speaking for human rights group Liberty Sophie Farthing said the tactics recommended by the review were a ‘very serious step’ and there was a risk they would ‘sweep up the innocent with the guilty.’ Jenny Jones, a Green Party member of the Metropolitan Police Authority said that ‘endorsing the use of live ammunition is the approval of the tactics of war on London’s streets and implementing such recommendations would be madness.’
Perhaps the most eloquent rebuttal of the proposals was made on the BBC news by Professor Gus John of the Moss Side Defence Committee, he called the suggestion that the police might open fire on rioters as ‘very worrying’ and went on to say ‘the state is not in a military confrontation with its citizens, so what one should be looking at is how the police and the community engage in such a manner that you do not have these things happening.’ The real action needed was, he said, for the authorities to work to help those people who ‘have no hope, who have a future of futility, but want to engage meaningfully with the community.’
Professor John’s objections are backed by solid evidence, in a study conducted by the London School of Economics 85% of the 270 people questioned cited anger at the behaviour of the police as a contributing factor to the riots. In its interim report the Riots, Communities and Victims Panel found ‘no single cause’ for the riots but did identify ‘an overriding sense of despair that people could destroy their own communities.’
Quite how giving the police powers to fire on rioters can be expected to calm tensions in parts of our major cities where people feel alienated from society and that they have nothing to lose is a question ducked by the inspectorate. The answer is that it will do nothing to calm tensions; in fact it would in all probability inflame them.
At the time of the riots the reaction of public and politicians alike, helped by the hysteria of much of the media, was a sharp jerk of the knee. That was unfortunate but, perhaps, understandable, frightened people often exhibit extreme reactions; but the time for such silliness has long passed.
In Britain the relationship between the police and the public is different from that in the United States of much of mainland Europe, we have policing by consent, meaning the police are there to protect the public not keep them in line. Such a relationship is built on trust not the use of strong arm tactics, where it has broken down it is the result of the police and other authorities retreating from communities where they are needed most due to a toxic mix of misplaced idealism and cynical cost cutting.
The real danger is that David Cameron, a man who like all Tory prime ministers lives in constant fear of being deposed by a party that has always been ruthless when it comes to ditching leaders who aren’t up to the mark. After more than five years of frantic modernisation all he has managed to deliver is an awkward coalition in which must of the Tory grassroots believes too many concessions have been made to the Liberal Democrats, his back benchers are busily sawing away at the thread holding the sword over his head. This has prompted a recent and extreme lurch to the right.
The opportunity to portray himself as a fearless champion of law and order by endorsing these mad suggestions could prove all too tempting. Tragically wheeling out the water cannon is no solution to the problems associated with endemic social and economic hardship that lie behind the riots.
It is right that people who put the lives and property of others at risk should be dealt with forcefully, but punishment without rehabilitation is pointless. We will only solve the social problems we face when the money we spend on rubber bullets and water cannon is spent on rebuilding shattered communities and empowering their inhabitants to take control of their lives instead.
Sunday, 25 December 2011
Sunday, 18 December 2011
Shops, snow and sticky backed plastic.
Philip Larkin famously described Christmas as a ‘slathering Niagara of nonsense’, as it rumbles towards us yet again the politicians have skipped town, for twenty five days if you please, and so the news has been rather thin of late. Thin, but not without its points of interest:
SHOP UNTIL THE PENNY DROPS.
This week Mary Portas, the absurdly self titled ‘Queen of Shops’ published her long awaited report on the state of the British high street. As expected it made for gloomy reading and also proved again why such exercises are almost always flawed.
Her recommendations for reviving the high street are sound, lower business rates, less punitive parking fees; more small businesses and fewer soulless chain stores, they are also, sadly, all too predictable. Frankly you could have gone into any saloon bar in the country bought a few of the regulars a drink and gathered the same opinions for a fraction of the cost of retaining Ms Portas.
The whole thing seems painfully like the sort of silliness New Labour used to delight in, identifying a problem it couldn’t (or wouldn’t) solve, get a ‘celebrity to write a report about it and then kick the whole thing into the long grass. It has to be said the Portas, someone who cuts a rather alarming figure rather like one of Dr Who’s more chilling adversaries, has played her part in this pantomime perfectly, trotting around Camden Market with David Cameron and generally filling her lungs with the oxygen of publicity. She even managed to sound sincere about wanting to rescue the nation’s high streets; you’d never think the company she runs also does publicity for mall monster Westfield.
As for the poor old high street I don’t see its revival happening any time soon. Online retailing is hoovering up more customers by the day and George Osborne’s cuts are holding councils back from giving small businesses the breaks they so desperately need. Another celebrity physician has swept into the ward to make her diagnosis, but the poor old patient is no closer to being cured.
DAVE DOES DO GOD.
Unlike his toothsome predecessor but one Prime Minister David Cameron does do god and at an event in Oxford this week to mark the four hundredth anniversary of the King James Bible he made a speech telling us so.
He went further by enjoining everyone else to do god too as an antidote to the UK’s ‘moral decline.’ I am not a believer but I am willing to admit that Christianity, and other faiths, have many good points; what they don’t have though is a monopoly on goodness and to suggest they do is foolish.
This, as Richard Dawkins writes in the New Statesman this week, is something that David Cameron and his colleagues know all too well, however they also seem to subscribe to the patronising view that faith is somehow ‘good’ for the proles, mostly because it keeps them in their place.
That people are able to worship freely is one of the benchmarks against which we test our democracy, but religion and politics should be kept separate. The alternative to this is the sort of hypocrisy where candidates for office trundle about the landscape thumping pulpits and making saying things they don’t mean to credulous audiences that will be visited upon American voters when the primaries get into full swing next month.
SNOW JOKE
It’s snowed again, hardly a surprising occurrence in December but it always seems to catch we Brits out. This time round though there have, to date anyway, been no repeats of the media hand wringing about mounting chaos, this time last year the Daily Mail was all but predicting national extinction at the hands of a few snowflakes.
Whatever could be different this time round, have councils bought in more grit, are heating bills lower, has our national infrastructure gone through a renaissance that has somehow slipped under my personal radar? Nope, don’t think so. Do you think then the reticence of our, mostly, right wing press on this issue has something to do with any ‘snow chaos’ being this time the result of Boy George’s failed economic policies rather than ‘Labour profligacy’; or am I just being cynical?
LOWERING THE BLUE PETER
Blue Peter, required viewing when I was a boy, is on its last legs, the BBC haven’t cancelled the show but by shifting it into digital limbo with a repeat later in the week means it could soon go the way of Crackerjack and the Clangers.
Despite not usually being a fan of nostalgia this makes me feel quite sad. Even when I watched the programme back in the late seventies it seemed like a theme park version of a safe fifties Britain where everyone had good manners and knew their place; there was always honey for tea and nothing bad ever happened. That, I suppose, was the programme’s charm and I’m sure later attempts to make it more ‘relevant’ have mostly spoiled things; it will still be a shame to see it go though.
Quite where fans of nostalgic nonsense will go for their weekly fix now I don’t know. Perhaps they will have to take to watching Midsomer Murders or reading Michael Gove’s ever sillier ‘visions’ for how our schools should be run.
SHOP UNTIL THE PENNY DROPS.
This week Mary Portas, the absurdly self titled ‘Queen of Shops’ published her long awaited report on the state of the British high street. As expected it made for gloomy reading and also proved again why such exercises are almost always flawed.
Her recommendations for reviving the high street are sound, lower business rates, less punitive parking fees; more small businesses and fewer soulless chain stores, they are also, sadly, all too predictable. Frankly you could have gone into any saloon bar in the country bought a few of the regulars a drink and gathered the same opinions for a fraction of the cost of retaining Ms Portas.
The whole thing seems painfully like the sort of silliness New Labour used to delight in, identifying a problem it couldn’t (or wouldn’t) solve, get a ‘celebrity to write a report about it and then kick the whole thing into the long grass. It has to be said the Portas, someone who cuts a rather alarming figure rather like one of Dr Who’s more chilling adversaries, has played her part in this pantomime perfectly, trotting around Camden Market with David Cameron and generally filling her lungs with the oxygen of publicity. She even managed to sound sincere about wanting to rescue the nation’s high streets; you’d never think the company she runs also does publicity for mall monster Westfield.
As for the poor old high street I don’t see its revival happening any time soon. Online retailing is hoovering up more customers by the day and George Osborne’s cuts are holding councils back from giving small businesses the breaks they so desperately need. Another celebrity physician has swept into the ward to make her diagnosis, but the poor old patient is no closer to being cured.
DAVE DOES DO GOD.
Unlike his toothsome predecessor but one Prime Minister David Cameron does do god and at an event in Oxford this week to mark the four hundredth anniversary of the King James Bible he made a speech telling us so.
He went further by enjoining everyone else to do god too as an antidote to the UK’s ‘moral decline.’ I am not a believer but I am willing to admit that Christianity, and other faiths, have many good points; what they don’t have though is a monopoly on goodness and to suggest they do is foolish.
This, as Richard Dawkins writes in the New Statesman this week, is something that David Cameron and his colleagues know all too well, however they also seem to subscribe to the patronising view that faith is somehow ‘good’ for the proles, mostly because it keeps them in their place.
That people are able to worship freely is one of the benchmarks against which we test our democracy, but religion and politics should be kept separate. The alternative to this is the sort of hypocrisy where candidates for office trundle about the landscape thumping pulpits and making saying things they don’t mean to credulous audiences that will be visited upon American voters when the primaries get into full swing next month.
SNOW JOKE
It’s snowed again, hardly a surprising occurrence in December but it always seems to catch we Brits out. This time round though there have, to date anyway, been no repeats of the media hand wringing about mounting chaos, this time last year the Daily Mail was all but predicting national extinction at the hands of a few snowflakes.
Whatever could be different this time round, have councils bought in more grit, are heating bills lower, has our national infrastructure gone through a renaissance that has somehow slipped under my personal radar? Nope, don’t think so. Do you think then the reticence of our, mostly, right wing press on this issue has something to do with any ‘snow chaos’ being this time the result of Boy George’s failed economic policies rather than ‘Labour profligacy’; or am I just being cynical?
LOWERING THE BLUE PETER
Blue Peter, required viewing when I was a boy, is on its last legs, the BBC haven’t cancelled the show but by shifting it into digital limbo with a repeat later in the week means it could soon go the way of Crackerjack and the Clangers.
Despite not usually being a fan of nostalgia this makes me feel quite sad. Even when I watched the programme back in the late seventies it seemed like a theme park version of a safe fifties Britain where everyone had good manners and knew their place; there was always honey for tea and nothing bad ever happened. That, I suppose, was the programme’s charm and I’m sure later attempts to make it more ‘relevant’ have mostly spoiled things; it will still be a shame to see it go though.
Quite where fans of nostalgic nonsense will go for their weekly fix now I don’t know. Perhaps they will have to take to watching Midsomer Murders or reading Michael Gove’s ever sillier ‘visions’ for how our schools should be run.
Sunday, 4 December 2011
Britain needs a strong parliament not an ‘unelected king’ as Prime Minister.
The Queen could be replaced as head of state by the Speaker of the House of Commons were Britain to become a republic. Before too many red faced retired colonels living in the home counties have apoplexy this is the opinion of veteran left wing firebrand Tony Benn not, alas, a prediction of what will happen come the revolution.
Giving evidence to the commons political and constitutional reform committee as they examine whether or not the UK needs a written constitution, this week he said ‘The problem with a directly elected head of state is you get a conflict between two sources of authority,’ meaning in this hypothetical case between a president and a prime minister. The solution to this, he suggested, would be to maintain the symbolism of an unelected head of state minus the monarchical powers.
Mr Benn went on to add that ‘If you’re looking for a titular head of state I think the Speaker of the House of Commons would be perfect- he’s respected, he understands the constitution.’ I’m not sure those comments could be applied to the present incumbent the pocket sized bundle of self promotion that is John Bercow; but several of his predecessors, Betty Boothroyd for example, certainly had sufficient dignity to carry the role off.
Tony Benn originally made the proposal that the Queen be replaced as head of state by the Speaker of the Commons back in 1991 along with attacking the way successive governments have retained the powers traditionally held by the monarch and used them to impose their will on parliament. He told the committee that ‘we live in a modern parliamentary democracy, but the crown powers have been retained’ making the prime minister ‘in effect the unelected king.’
This, he went on to say, had created a political system that was ‘defective’ and he urged MPs to ensure that whatever conclusion they reach on having a written constitution the resulting document ‘protects the rights of ordinary people.’
To many people on the left Tony Benn is a sort of living history exhibit, an exemplar of values that they feel themselves to have moved on from as they have become more sophisticated; or cynical, about how they do business. Despite this patronising dismissal he, like most members of the awkward squad, has an annoying habit of being right.
However much republicans (and I include myself in that camp) might wish for Britain to grow up and stop playing mawkish nursery games with the toys of empire the monarchy is here to stay. Their presence is too bound up with our romantic ideas of national identity and the Royals themselves are too adept at playing the survival game for their public support to dip low enough to make abolition a realistic possibility.
Where Tony Benn is right though is to express concerns about the way successive residents of 10 Downing Street have used the royal prerogative to ride roughshod over the democratic process. These powers bundled together by archaic habit more properly belong to the people through the parliament they elect, without a commitment to enshrine that principle at its heart any future written constitution will only ever be so much dead prose scratched onto parchment.
Tony Benn is right the current political system is ‘defective’, parliament needs to wrestle back power from the executive, it also needs to shed the sheen of slick professionalism and become more reflective of the Britain outside the charmed circle of Oxbridge and the public schools. Even more importantly there needs to be a rejuvenation of grassroots politics in this country, the power to choose who stands for election to a seat in parliament as well as who wins the contest has to be put back into the hands of party activists and local communities.
Whether or not the monarchy with its faintly childish pomp and circumstance; its gilded coaches and dressing up box uniforms trundles on is hardly important in the larger scheme of things, the real revolution lies in handing power back to parliament and through it to the people. I’m sure that is something Tony Benn would agree with because as he has often said, democracy is the most revolutionary idea of them all.
Giving evidence to the commons political and constitutional reform committee as they examine whether or not the UK needs a written constitution, this week he said ‘The problem with a directly elected head of state is you get a conflict between two sources of authority,’ meaning in this hypothetical case between a president and a prime minister. The solution to this, he suggested, would be to maintain the symbolism of an unelected head of state minus the monarchical powers.
Mr Benn went on to add that ‘If you’re looking for a titular head of state I think the Speaker of the House of Commons would be perfect- he’s respected, he understands the constitution.’ I’m not sure those comments could be applied to the present incumbent the pocket sized bundle of self promotion that is John Bercow; but several of his predecessors, Betty Boothroyd for example, certainly had sufficient dignity to carry the role off.
Tony Benn originally made the proposal that the Queen be replaced as head of state by the Speaker of the Commons back in 1991 along with attacking the way successive governments have retained the powers traditionally held by the monarch and used them to impose their will on parliament. He told the committee that ‘we live in a modern parliamentary democracy, but the crown powers have been retained’ making the prime minister ‘in effect the unelected king.’
This, he went on to say, had created a political system that was ‘defective’ and he urged MPs to ensure that whatever conclusion they reach on having a written constitution the resulting document ‘protects the rights of ordinary people.’
To many people on the left Tony Benn is a sort of living history exhibit, an exemplar of values that they feel themselves to have moved on from as they have become more sophisticated; or cynical, about how they do business. Despite this patronising dismissal he, like most members of the awkward squad, has an annoying habit of being right.
However much republicans (and I include myself in that camp) might wish for Britain to grow up and stop playing mawkish nursery games with the toys of empire the monarchy is here to stay. Their presence is too bound up with our romantic ideas of national identity and the Royals themselves are too adept at playing the survival game for their public support to dip low enough to make abolition a realistic possibility.
Where Tony Benn is right though is to express concerns about the way successive residents of 10 Downing Street have used the royal prerogative to ride roughshod over the democratic process. These powers bundled together by archaic habit more properly belong to the people through the parliament they elect, without a commitment to enshrine that principle at its heart any future written constitution will only ever be so much dead prose scratched onto parchment.
Tony Benn is right the current political system is ‘defective’, parliament needs to wrestle back power from the executive, it also needs to shed the sheen of slick professionalism and become more reflective of the Britain outside the charmed circle of Oxbridge and the public schools. Even more importantly there needs to be a rejuvenation of grassroots politics in this country, the power to choose who stands for election to a seat in parliament as well as who wins the contest has to be put back into the hands of party activists and local communities.
Whether or not the monarchy with its faintly childish pomp and circumstance; its gilded coaches and dressing up box uniforms trundles on is hardly important in the larger scheme of things, the real revolution lies in handing power back to parliament and through it to the people. I’m sure that is something Tony Benn would agree with because as he has often said, democracy is the most revolutionary idea of them all.
Britain needs a strong parliament not an ‘unelected king’ as Prime Minister.
The Queen could be replaced as head of state by the Speaker of the House of Commons were Britain to become a republic. Before too many red faced retired colonels living in the home counties have apoplexy this is the opinion of veteran left wing firebrand Tony Benn not, alas, a prediction of what will happen come the revolution.
Giving evidence to the commons political and constitutional reform committee as they examine whether or not the UK needs a written constitution, this week he said ‘The problem with a directly elected head of state is you get a conflict between two sources of authority,’ meaning in this hypothetical case between a president and a prime minister. The solution to this, he suggested, would be to maintain the symbolism of an unelected head of state minus the monarchical powers.
Mr Benn went on to add that ‘If you’re looking for a titular head of state I think the Speaker of the House of Commons would be perfect- he’s respected, he understands the constitution.’ I’m not sure those comments could be applied to the present incumbent the pocket sized bundle of self promotion that is John Bercow; but several of his predecessors, Betty Boothroyd for example, certainly had sufficient dignity to carry the role off.
Tony Benn originally made the proposal that the Queen be replaced as head of state by the Speaker of the Commons back in 1991 along with attacking the way successive governments have retained the powers traditionally held by the monarch and used them to impose their will on parliament. He told the committee that ‘we live in a modern parliamentary democracy, but the crown powers have been retained’ making the prime minister ‘in effect the unelected king.’
This, he went on to say, had created a political system that was ‘defective’ and he urged MPs to ensure that whatever conclusion they reach on having a written constitution the resulting document ‘protects the rights of ordinary people.’
To many people on the left Tony Benn is a sort of living history exhibit, an exemplar of values that they feel themselves to have moved on from as they have become more sophisticated; or cynical, about how they do business. Despite this patronising dismissal he, like most members of the awkward squad, has an annoying habit of being right.
However much republicans (and I include myself in that camp) might wish for Britain to grow up and stop playing mawkish nursery games with the toys of empire the monarchy is here to stay. Their presence is too bound up with our romantic ideas of national identity and the Royals themselves are too adept at playing the survival game for their public support to dip low enough to make abolition a realistic possibility.
Where Tony Benn is right though is to express concerns about the way successive residents of 10 Downing Street have used the royal prerogative to ride roughshod over the democratic process. These powers bundled together by archaic habit more properly belong to the people through the parliament they elect, without a commitment to enshrine that principle at its heart any future written constitution will only ever be so much dead prose scratched onto parchment.
Tony Benn is right the current political system is ‘defective’, parliament needs to wrestle back power from the executive, it also needs to shed the sheen of slick professionalism and become more reflective of the Britain outside the charmed circle of Oxbridge and the public schools. Even more importantly there needs to be a rejuvenation of grassroots politics in this country, the power to choose who stands for election to a seat in parliament as well as who wins the contest has to be put back into the hands of party activists and local communities.
Whether or not the monarchy with its faintly childish pomp and circumstance; its gilded coaches and dressing up box uniforms trundles on is hardly important in the larger scheme of things, the real revolution lies in handing power back to parliament and through it to the people. I’m sure that is something Tony Benn would agree with because as he has often said, democracy is the most revolutionary idea of them all.
Giving evidence to the commons political and constitutional reform committee as they examine whether or not the UK needs a written constitution, this week he said ‘The problem with a directly elected head of state is you get a conflict between two sources of authority,’ meaning in this hypothetical case between a president and a prime minister. The solution to this, he suggested, would be to maintain the symbolism of an unelected head of state minus the monarchical powers.
Mr Benn went on to add that ‘If you’re looking for a titular head of state I think the Speaker of the House of Commons would be perfect- he’s respected, he understands the constitution.’ I’m not sure those comments could be applied to the present incumbent the pocket sized bundle of self promotion that is John Bercow; but several of his predecessors, Betty Boothroyd for example, certainly had sufficient dignity to carry the role off.
Tony Benn originally made the proposal that the Queen be replaced as head of state by the Speaker of the Commons back in 1991 along with attacking the way successive governments have retained the powers traditionally held by the monarch and used them to impose their will on parliament. He told the committee that ‘we live in a modern parliamentary democracy, but the crown powers have been retained’ making the prime minister ‘in effect the unelected king.’
This, he went on to say, had created a political system that was ‘defective’ and he urged MPs to ensure that whatever conclusion they reach on having a written constitution the resulting document ‘protects the rights of ordinary people.’
To many people on the left Tony Benn is a sort of living history exhibit, an exemplar of values that they feel themselves to have moved on from as they have become more sophisticated; or cynical, about how they do business. Despite this patronising dismissal he, like most members of the awkward squad, has an annoying habit of being right.
However much republicans (and I include myself in that camp) might wish for Britain to grow up and stop playing mawkish nursery games with the toys of empire the monarchy is here to stay. Their presence is too bound up with our romantic ideas of national identity and the Royals themselves are too adept at playing the survival game for their public support to dip low enough to make abolition a realistic possibility.
Where Tony Benn is right though is to express concerns about the way successive residents of 10 Downing Street have used the royal prerogative to ride roughshod over the democratic process. These powers bundled together by archaic habit more properly belong to the people through the parliament they elect, without a commitment to enshrine that principle at its heart any future written constitution will only ever be so much dead prose scratched onto parchment.
Tony Benn is right the current political system is ‘defective’, parliament needs to wrestle back power from the executive, it also needs to shed the sheen of slick professionalism and become more reflective of the Britain outside the charmed circle of Oxbridge and the public schools. Even more importantly there needs to be a rejuvenation of grassroots politics in this country, the power to choose who stands for election to a seat in parliament as well as who wins the contest has to be put back into the hands of party activists and local communities.
Whether or not the monarchy with its faintly childish pomp and circumstance; its gilded coaches and dressing up box uniforms trundles on is hardly important in the larger scheme of things, the real revolution lies in handing power back to parliament and through it to the people. I’m sure that is something Tony Benn would agree with because as he has often said, democracy is the most revolutionary idea of them all.
Britain needs a strong parliament not an ‘unelected king’ as Prime Minister.
The Queen could be replaced as head of state by the Speaker of the House of Commons were Britain to become a republic. Before too many red faced retired colonels living in the home counties have apoplexy this is the opinion of veteran left wing firebrand Tony Benn not, alas, a prediction of what will happen come the revolution.
Giving evidence to the commons political and constitutional reform committee as they examine whether or not the UK needs a written constitution, this week he said ‘The problem with a directly elected head of state is you get a conflict between two sources of authority,’ meaning in this hypothetical case between a president and a prime minister. The solution to this, he suggested, would be to maintain the symbolism of an unelected head of state minus the monarchical powers.
Mr Benn went on to add that ‘If you’re looking for a titular head of state I think the Speaker of the House of Commons would be perfect- he’s respected, he understands the constitution.’ I’m not sure those comments could be applied to the present incumbent the pocket sized bundle of self promotion that is John Bercow; but several of his predecessors, Betty Boothroyd for example, certainly had sufficient dignity to carry the role off.
Tony Benn originally made the proposal that the Queen be replaced as head of state by the Speaker of the Commons back in 1991 along with attacking the way successive governments have retained the powers traditionally held by the monarch and used them to impose their will on parliament. He told the committee that ‘we live in a modern parliamentary democracy, but the crown powers have been retained’ making the prime minister ‘in effect the unelected king.’
This, he went on to say, had created a political system that was ‘defective’ and he urged MPs to ensure that whatever conclusion they reach on having a written constitution the resulting document ‘protects the rights of ordinary people.’
To many people on the left Tony Benn is a sort of living history exhibit, an exemplar of values that they feel themselves to have moved on from as they have become more sophisticated; or cynical, about how they do business. Despite this patronising dismissal he, like most members of the awkward squad, has an annoying habit of being right.
However much republicans (and I include myself in that camp) might wish for Britain to grow up and stop playing mawkish nursery games with the toys of empire the monarchy is here to stay. Their presence is too bound up with our romantic ideas of national identity and the Royals themselves are too adept at playing the survival game for their public support to dip low enough to make abolition a realistic possibility.
Where Tony Benn is right though is to express concerns about the way successive residents of 10 Downing Street have used the royal prerogative to ride roughshod over the democratic process. These powers bundled together by archaic habit more properly belong to the people through the parliament they elect, without a commitment to enshrine that principle at its heart any future written constitution will only ever be so much dead prose scratched onto parchment.
Tony Benn is right the current political system is ‘defective’, parliament needs to wrestle back power from the executive, it also needs to shed the sheen of slick professionalism and become more reflective of the Britain outside the charmed circle of Oxbridge and the public schools. Even more importantly there needs to be a rejuvenation of grassroots politics in this country, the power to choose who stands for election to a seat in parliament as well as who wins the contest has to be put back into the hands of party activists and local communities.
Whether or not the monarchy with its faintly childish pomp and circumstance; its gilded coaches and dressing up box uniforms trundles on is hardly important in the larger scheme of things, the real revolution lies in handing power back to parliament and through it to the people. I’m sure that is something Tony Benn would agree with because as he has often said, democracy is the most revolutionary idea of them all.
Giving evidence to the commons political and constitutional reform committee as they examine whether or not the UK needs a written constitution, this week he said ‘The problem with a directly elected head of state is you get a conflict between two sources of authority,’ meaning in this hypothetical case between a president and a prime minister. The solution to this, he suggested, would be to maintain the symbolism of an unelected head of state minus the monarchical powers.
Mr Benn went on to add that ‘If you’re looking for a titular head of state I think the Speaker of the House of Commons would be perfect- he’s respected, he understands the constitution.’ I’m not sure those comments could be applied to the present incumbent the pocket sized bundle of self promotion that is John Bercow; but several of his predecessors, Betty Boothroyd for example, certainly had sufficient dignity to carry the role off.
Tony Benn originally made the proposal that the Queen be replaced as head of state by the Speaker of the Commons back in 1991 along with attacking the way successive governments have retained the powers traditionally held by the monarch and used them to impose their will on parliament. He told the committee that ‘we live in a modern parliamentary democracy, but the crown powers have been retained’ making the prime minister ‘in effect the unelected king.’
This, he went on to say, had created a political system that was ‘defective’ and he urged MPs to ensure that whatever conclusion they reach on having a written constitution the resulting document ‘protects the rights of ordinary people.’
To many people on the left Tony Benn is a sort of living history exhibit, an exemplar of values that they feel themselves to have moved on from as they have become more sophisticated; or cynical, about how they do business. Despite this patronising dismissal he, like most members of the awkward squad, has an annoying habit of being right.
However much republicans (and I include myself in that camp) might wish for Britain to grow up and stop playing mawkish nursery games with the toys of empire the monarchy is here to stay. Their presence is too bound up with our romantic ideas of national identity and the Royals themselves are too adept at playing the survival game for their public support to dip low enough to make abolition a realistic possibility.
Where Tony Benn is right though is to express concerns about the way successive residents of 10 Downing Street have used the royal prerogative to ride roughshod over the democratic process. These powers bundled together by archaic habit more properly belong to the people through the parliament they elect, without a commitment to enshrine that principle at its heart any future written constitution will only ever be so much dead prose scratched onto parchment.
Tony Benn is right the current political system is ‘defective’, parliament needs to wrestle back power from the executive, it also needs to shed the sheen of slick professionalism and become more reflective of the Britain outside the charmed circle of Oxbridge and the public schools. Even more importantly there needs to be a rejuvenation of grassroots politics in this country, the power to choose who stands for election to a seat in parliament as well as who wins the contest has to be put back into the hands of party activists and local communities.
Whether or not the monarchy with its faintly childish pomp and circumstance; its gilded coaches and dressing up box uniforms trundles on is hardly important in the larger scheme of things, the real revolution lies in handing power back to parliament and through it to the people. I’m sure that is something Tony Benn would agree with because as he has often said, democracy is the most revolutionary idea of them all.
Boorish and out of touch he may be, but does Jeremy Clarkson say what other Tories only think?
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a TV ‘personality’ with a DVD to sell must be in want of some free publicity. That, I suppose, explains why Jeremy Clarkson so often fails to engage his brain before opening his mouth.
This week in an interview given on the BBC’s insipid The One Show he was at it again, shoving both loafer clad feet into his mouth at once as he told viewers that what he’d like to do to striking public sector workers was ‘take them all outside and execute them in front of their families.’
Just to clarify things he went on to say ‘I mean how dare they go on strike when they’ve got these gilt edged pensions that are going to be guaranteed while the rest of us have to work for a living.’
Needless to say the condemnation of what he said was both rapid and noisy, Labour leader Ed Milliband got the ball rolling by calling Clarkson’s comments ‘absolutely disgraceful and disgusting’, they showed, he said, that Clarkson ‘obviously doesn’t understand the lives of the people who were out on strike.’ Quite so, although Red Ed’s condemnation would have a lot more heft to it if he and his shadow cabinet hadn’t spent the past few months tying themselves into a Gordian Knot of evasiveness claiming to support the principle of public sector workers having the right to go on strike whilst simultaneously trying to persuade them out of putting it into practice.
A rather more effective comment was made by Dave Prentis of Unison who said public sector workers ‘wipe noses, bottoms; they help children to learn and empty bins- they deserve out thanks not the unbelievable level of abuse he threw at them.’ Mr Clarkson, by contrast, earns his daily bread by driving cars very fast and generally acting like a spoilt twelve year old in the company of his two sniggering accomplices; you don’t need the services of a super computer to work out who makes the greater contribution to society.
There were also calls for David Cameron to disassociate himself from Clarkson’s comments, the prime minister duly obliged saying they were ‘a silly thing to say and I’m sure he didn’t mean that.’ As censure goes it’s hardly the sort of thing to have its recipient quivering in his shoes, but it did move things neatly into the next phase, the one where everybody pretends to be really sorry even though they aren’t.
The BBC went first saying the One Show was a ‘live topical programme which often reflects on the day’s talking points’ and went on to say ‘usually we get it right, but on this occasion the item wasn’t perfectly judged. The BBC and Jeremy would like to apologise for any offence caused.’ Actually the One Show is about as topical as Tizwas and the failure of judgement involved seemed to consist of departing from the programmes usual formula of boring its audience into submission, but at least their apology was a genuine show of contrition.
There was nothing like that to be heard from Jeremy Clarkson himself, what he said was ‘if the BBC and I have caused any offence, I’m quite happy to apologise for it alongside them.’, then added ‘I didn’t for a moment intend these remarks to be taken seriously, as I believe is clear if they’re seen in context.’
Ah yes, Context, the get out clause of choice for people who say foolish things. The context here is that Clarkson is sorry that what he said got him a storm of criticism on Twitter instead of a belly laugh from the boys in the saloon bar, not for the potential insult he might have heaped on people who do demanding and often dull jobs for modest wages and have the temerity to consider dignity in old age something worth fighting for.
Since the advent of David Cameron in 2005 the progressive wing of the Conservative Party has patiently taught its representatives in parliament to say nice things whilst thinking nasty ones. The public sector strikes though have allowed the real and unchanged character of the party to bubble to the surface. They see striking public sector workers as dangerous ‘militants’ hell bent on overthrowing the capitalist system of some such nonsense and apply a similar attitude to anyone outside the charmed circle of ‘wealth creators.’
In his autumn budget statement this week Chancellor George Osborne hammered public sector workers and families on low incomes whilst continuing to fight shy of regulating the banks or the city. The real surge of public anger should focus on what he is doing not what a past his best TV presenter said.
As for Jeremy Clarkson he seems to cut a rather sad figure, like the class clown who refuses to grow up; an analogue controversialist gasping desperately for the oxygen of free publicity in an overcrowded digital world.
As a good pinko liberal I wouldn’t seek to deny him his right to free speech, I would though like to take the opportunity to point out that since Jeremy Clarkson achieved his dubious fame and not inconsiderable fortune working for the BBC he is himself a public servant. I doubt he would be much missed if he went out on strike indefinitely.
This week in an interview given on the BBC’s insipid The One Show he was at it again, shoving both loafer clad feet into his mouth at once as he told viewers that what he’d like to do to striking public sector workers was ‘take them all outside and execute them in front of their families.’
Just to clarify things he went on to say ‘I mean how dare they go on strike when they’ve got these gilt edged pensions that are going to be guaranteed while the rest of us have to work for a living.’
Needless to say the condemnation of what he said was both rapid and noisy, Labour leader Ed Milliband got the ball rolling by calling Clarkson’s comments ‘absolutely disgraceful and disgusting’, they showed, he said, that Clarkson ‘obviously doesn’t understand the lives of the people who were out on strike.’ Quite so, although Red Ed’s condemnation would have a lot more heft to it if he and his shadow cabinet hadn’t spent the past few months tying themselves into a Gordian Knot of evasiveness claiming to support the principle of public sector workers having the right to go on strike whilst simultaneously trying to persuade them out of putting it into practice.
A rather more effective comment was made by Dave Prentis of Unison who said public sector workers ‘wipe noses, bottoms; they help children to learn and empty bins- they deserve out thanks not the unbelievable level of abuse he threw at them.’ Mr Clarkson, by contrast, earns his daily bread by driving cars very fast and generally acting like a spoilt twelve year old in the company of his two sniggering accomplices; you don’t need the services of a super computer to work out who makes the greater contribution to society.
There were also calls for David Cameron to disassociate himself from Clarkson’s comments, the prime minister duly obliged saying they were ‘a silly thing to say and I’m sure he didn’t mean that.’ As censure goes it’s hardly the sort of thing to have its recipient quivering in his shoes, but it did move things neatly into the next phase, the one where everybody pretends to be really sorry even though they aren’t.
The BBC went first saying the One Show was a ‘live topical programme which often reflects on the day’s talking points’ and went on to say ‘usually we get it right, but on this occasion the item wasn’t perfectly judged. The BBC and Jeremy would like to apologise for any offence caused.’ Actually the One Show is about as topical as Tizwas and the failure of judgement involved seemed to consist of departing from the programmes usual formula of boring its audience into submission, but at least their apology was a genuine show of contrition.
There was nothing like that to be heard from Jeremy Clarkson himself, what he said was ‘if the BBC and I have caused any offence, I’m quite happy to apologise for it alongside them.’, then added ‘I didn’t for a moment intend these remarks to be taken seriously, as I believe is clear if they’re seen in context.’
Ah yes, Context, the get out clause of choice for people who say foolish things. The context here is that Clarkson is sorry that what he said got him a storm of criticism on Twitter instead of a belly laugh from the boys in the saloon bar, not for the potential insult he might have heaped on people who do demanding and often dull jobs for modest wages and have the temerity to consider dignity in old age something worth fighting for.
Since the advent of David Cameron in 2005 the progressive wing of the Conservative Party has patiently taught its representatives in parliament to say nice things whilst thinking nasty ones. The public sector strikes though have allowed the real and unchanged character of the party to bubble to the surface. They see striking public sector workers as dangerous ‘militants’ hell bent on overthrowing the capitalist system of some such nonsense and apply a similar attitude to anyone outside the charmed circle of ‘wealth creators.’
In his autumn budget statement this week Chancellor George Osborne hammered public sector workers and families on low incomes whilst continuing to fight shy of regulating the banks or the city. The real surge of public anger should focus on what he is doing not what a past his best TV presenter said.
As for Jeremy Clarkson he seems to cut a rather sad figure, like the class clown who refuses to grow up; an analogue controversialist gasping desperately for the oxygen of free publicity in an overcrowded digital world.
As a good pinko liberal I wouldn’t seek to deny him his right to free speech, I would though like to take the opportunity to point out that since Jeremy Clarkson achieved his dubious fame and not inconsiderable fortune working for the BBC he is himself a public servant. I doubt he would be much missed if he went out on strike indefinitely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)