Britain: Junior Partner and Authoritarian Future

 I am heartened that during the Liberal Democrat Spring Conference, held on the weekend, that both the party’s dedication towards the European Union has been reaffirmed, and we have come out fighting against the Government’s current crime bill that severely curtails the right to peaceful protest. Note the peaceful emphasis though. As I write this I am waking up to news from Bristol about riots as right-to-protest demonstrations turned to violence. There can be no excuse for that and I am very surprised to learn that there have been no arrests made overnight. What has led to such protests though was the Metropolitan Police’s heavy suppression of the vigil following the death of Sarah Everard. Peaceful protest is justified: burning of police vehicles and the infliction of injuries cannot be. 

The little bit of bright news that the party is still pro-EU is set against the big fat raincloud of the future as outlined by the current Conservative government. Unfortunately, what I have previously predicted is proving to be correct. Since the UK has left the European Courts of Justice*, the government is bringing about legislation that basically gives free range to police to ban any form of protest on the grounds of it being “deeply annoying”. Both Steve Bray (he of the top hat and megaphone outside Westminster fame) and Greta Thunberg (who on Twitter has since adopted the label "Deeply Annoying") would have certainly attracted the maximum fine of £2500 (or a year in prison) for solo protesting under the proposed law. Steve would have had an additional £5000 fine for directing a megaphone at parliament. Larger demonstrations, such as the one I witnessed in Aberdeen in January 2020 by Extinction Rebellion, are the main target of the legislation. Now, I don’t back ER’s aims (which involves a complete socialist takeover of all aspects of life) but I do support their right to peacefully protest. Did they disrupt business for the day in Aberdeen? Sure, but so what? Their message is important even if I do not approve of their proposed methods to save the planet. I think that the breaking up of the vigil in memory of Sarah Everard is exactly what current Home Secretary Priti Patel would love to see being used against ER’s Red Brigade. 

Extinction Rebellion in Aberdeen, January 2020

Another example of suppression of rights is embodied by recent criticism of BBC television presenter, Naga Munchetty who, along with fellow presenter Charlie Stayt were accused of making derogatory comments about the flag being used by Tory minister Robert Jenrick. Naga was later forced to issue an apology and there were calls online by at least one Conservative MP, Richard Kemp, who said on Twitter “The BBC must stop employing those who despise their own country.” I can assure Mr Kemp that mocking the Conservatives for waving bloody big Union Flags in the face of the public at every opportunity is not the same as despising one’s own country. Nor is opposition to this government, no matter how much one might indeed despise it.

The creation and crackdown against dissidents at home match the proposals for military expansion elsewhere. Although the Army is facing further cuts in numbers, the proposal to increase military spending by £80 billion should be seen as aggressive expansion of overall capacity and global power projection. The focus seems very much of the greater mechanism of the forces, with drones and similar remote vehicles seeing heavy investment, as well as the Royal Navy. To my mind, combined with our leaving the EU, means only one thing: the UK has picked a side and that side is with the USA, against everyone else. Remember that these plans were being prepared during the Trump administration and many on the right of US politics sees the EU, not as an ally and partner, but as a rival. So while the headlines are full of opposing Russia and China, ultimately they will be pointed at whoever the USA thinks is the greatest threat. Leaving the EU clarifies the UK’s ultimate loyalties, and they are with not with our nearest neighbours. As I write this blog, I am listening to an American admiral who while is bemoaning the proposed cuts to the Army, is very happy with the news that the UK’s number of Trident nuclear warheads will be boosted by forty percent. Wouldn't it be weird if representatives from other nation's military were to be invited on Today to comment upon the UK's future military plans? But it is perfectly normal for the Americans to do so and be given space on the BBC to air their opinions. 

There have been calls to adapt to these “new realities”. I don’t think I can. These are the exactly the types of developments that I predicted before leaving the EU. In fact, they are the only logic I can see to Brexit. Certainly there are political battles to be selected (and God knows, there are enough of them: poverty, handling of COVID19, jobs, the NHS to name but a few) but I cannot see any middle ground existing between those, like me, who are opposed to the UK’s current path towards being a junior partner in global superiority at the point of a missile launcher, and the government's path which will see continuing suppression of human rights, both at home and across the planet; spawning a plethora of minor wars and continuing the cycle started by the 2003 invasion of Iraq. 

It is therefore important that the United Kingdom reengages with our near neighbours as quickly as possible. By reengagement, I mean rejoining of the European Union. At home there has to be agreement among those who oppose this militaristic path to find common ground against the Conservative right who are pushing through this agenda. It is no coincidence that the Conservatives want to see a return to First Past The Post for all elections held across the UK. It is the most undemocratic method of voting possible short of actual vote-rigging, allowing a government voting in on a minority an overall majority in parliament. 

2019-20 Westminster Representation under FPTP

The previous justification for FPTP was that it keeps the extremists out of power. That has now failed: the extremists are in office. I am certain that the Conservatives are banking upon Labour in their continuing support of FPTP but really, Labour has to step up, support a genuine system of proportional representation and take a bullet for democracy on this one. Otherwise with the Conservative FPTP voting majority in England, we are effectively facing the prospect of a single-state party for the UK, just as we currently have with (the slightly more fair voting system) has delivered power to the SNP since 2007. The key to both is the use of identity politics: independence for Scotland and freedom from the EU for English nationalists.

This blog post can be summarised with this: our democracy is in grave danger. It is vital that no further ground be ceded to the right and that ground lost is rapidly recovered. I genuinely fear for the future for the UK if this Conservative government win a further term. Don’t shoot the Lib Dem messenger Labour, but the country does need you to step up and provide genuine opposition and reform. We cannot carry on having our nation’s path set by those on the extreme right. That outcome will be too horrible to contemplate but we are now on the path to authoritarianism. 

*This blog has been updated on the 24th of March as I previously stated that the UK has left the EHCR. The Brexit agreement allows for provision to leave parts of the EHCR but this has not yet actually occurred. 

Female Representation and Quotas.

Kay Adams, BBC Radio Scotland

It was the Call Kaye show on Radio Scotland that got me thinking.  The episode on 8^th March, International Woman’s Day (or as I like to call it to tease Mrs V., International Female Comrades’ Day) and the topic was quotas for the FTSE 100 companies when it came to female representation, should they have quotas in the boardroom?  Apparently in Norway they have introduced a forty percent quota for board-level female representation, with companies simply having to obey the law.  This compares with the current situation - fifteen percent of directors of FTSE100 companies are woman.

Hold on, I thought to myself.  We Liberal Democrats are not exactly shining when it comes to women representation in Westminster.  In the parliament prior to 2010, fifteen percent of our MPs were female but in 2010 this fell to twelve percent.  Part of this is undoubtedly an artefact of the rotten voting system: our percentage of the overall vote rose but the total number of our MPs actually fell from 63 down to 57.   Even allowing for this, the figures are not good.  The party is addressing the issue with a new Leadership scheme which is special training not only for women but for all minorities in the party.  As a middle-aged white guy I naturally do not qualify to take part so there is already positive discrimination taking place.  The key question though is “is it enough?”  I think the answer is “no”.

I forget who the guests were on the radio show but these learned ladies reckoned that at the current rates it would take seventy years for parity of representation to be reached.  I am certain that we all agree that is nowhere near good enough.  The Norwegian scheme was criticised for been too much too soon.  In order to conform to the law, it was alleged that some companies had to create previously non-existing posts, effectively as window dressing.  One problem that they identified that there currently is not enough women currently in middle-management.   It seems to me that both politics and business have a shared problem.

My suggestion therefore is this.  Instead of having a radical jump towards quotas, introduce them in stages.  For instance, if among publically-listed companies the average board representation is fifteen percent, the first step should be to twenty five percent.  After five years that increases to thirty five percent and at ten years up to the maximum of forty five percent – actually higher than the Norwegian total and it would give time to large companies to recruit and train the necessary numbers of females for the right posts.  Here’s the rub though – political parties but most especially the Liberal Democrats should be doing the same.  If legislation was introduced before the 2015 election, we would have effective parity of representation by 2025, both in the boardroom and in parliament.

Liberal Democrats will be seen to be practicing what we preach and, it could be said, this turkey is voting for Christmas.  Or as I prefer, trying to make life fairer for all.

The Crisis of Politics in the United Kingdom

In his book, The Great Crash 1929, the economist J.K. Galbraith makes the observation that embezzlement is the one crime with a time lag. There is a period during which the victim is ignorant of the loss and the embezzler is profiting from his gain. Both are happy. It is only during economic hard times that the truth comes out. Galbraith has been yet again proved to be correct, both with our banking and political systems. At least one cannot make the criticism that successive governments have been hypocritical. Until this year, it has been a guiding principle of economic theory that self-regulation is good regulation. Members of the Westminster parliament applied this principle to themselves.

MPs’ pay has always been a problem in the public perception. In the 1980s, there were attempts to link the pay of MPs to that of civil servants. But automatic pay rises have never been popular, especially since it has been long-term government policy to hold down the level of pay for workers in general. I don’t need to remind you that on both sides of the Atlantic; the rich have become a whole lot richer while the main losers have been the middle classes. Of course, the majority of MPs come from the middle classes. As was vogue in the past decades, self-regulation provides opportunities to be creative with what earning potential is out there, with the obvious route being expenses.

It is for that reason that one sees a wide variation in the degree of abuse that members of parliament have inflicted upon the public purse. It ranges from no abuse whatsoever through to the potentially criminal. What is clear is that all members have had the opportunity, many have succumbed to temptation to some degree, sometimes with the result of looking ridiculous, but few have actually been venal.

If the degree of actual corruption has been low, why the massive public uproar? First of all, it is justified. Instead of getting to grips with the issue of pay and expenses, it is an issue that has consistently been avoided by the House of Commons, with reform often being blocked by vested interests. But that isn’t the main reason and let me illustrate the point with a little story.

As some of you may already be aware, I work offshore. My employer used to supply secure parking for the vehicles of those away. Some years ago, this was withdrawn with no alternative being supplied. When I went offshore, I therefore parked my car close to the main reception, in clear view of security. Nothing wrong with that except, as a protest, and against company policy, I did not reverse-park.
Upon my return, I was taken aside by Lachlan, one of the security staff, where I had to explain my vehicular positioning.
“Hmmm. I thought you were up to something Martin. Because you wouldn’t believe the amount of abuse that we have had to put up with. “Can’t you do something about that car?” “Get it towed away!” People were so angry! To them it looked like you were getting something they were not.”
This is the main factor. How often has one heard on recent phone-ins the charge “If I did that with my company I would get fired!” Our MPs have been found guilty of this, the gravest of charges: enjoying privileges, at our expense, which we as common people cannot hope to enjoy.
If true, this insight suggests that our MPs are “out of touch” with the rest of us in the United Kingdom. On one level, this cannot be correct. Our MPs meet with their constituents on a regular basis: listening to our problems and if possible, advising and helping us sort them out. So if many of them are remote, what makes them so?

It is certainly wrong to generalise but since the 1970s there has been the rise of a professional class of politician. Now, I wasn’t going to pick on individual MPs in this article but a great and an early example of this trend is Jack Straw, the current Minister for Justice. Unlike many other Labour MPs, he didn’t come through the union route to politics but became seriously involved in his university days, becoming President of the Students’ Union in 1969. Jack Straw practiced law in the early 1970s but most of his career has been political; working for Barbara Castle as a political adviser and effectively inheriting her seat when she decided to stand down in 1977. It is a pathway to the Commons that has been widely followed since.

For a House that is supposed to represent the whole spectrum of British life and population, a class of professional is not desirable. But wait a minute! Should not a politician be professional? Certainly yes, a person can act professionally on behalf of the people but that is not the same as being a professional politician. For instance, in the dreadful case of the murders of the two French students Laurent Bonomo and Gabriel Ferez, would have led an old-school politician such as William Whitelaw to offer his resignation. There has been no such offer from Jack Straw because, apart from being a back-bencher, what else can he really do? It’s been a very long time since he practiced any other trade. Another example is the current implosion of the Labour Party. MPs are railing against the late-night telephone calls coming from No.10 to constituencies of perceived rebels. As one of the targets, Barry Sheerman MP was on the Today Programme (Radio 4, 5th June), telling of an early morning telephone conversation with a local party member after that person had just been called from Downing Street, wishing for the local party to drag Sheerman in and, hopefully, start the de-selection process. It is hot-house politics: alien from most ordinary peoples’ experience.

And so we return to expenses. . Before that, an MP was allocated three thousand pounds (about £15,000 in today’s money) a year for London living and told to get on with it. The system of self-regulation has been going on since the 1980s so for the vast majority of parliamentarians, it is the only system they have known. And for some of those, it is the only real profession they have known too. Is it any wonder that a few sought to maximize their income and otherwise treat the public purse with negligence and even contempt?

There is a deeper reasoning however, which goes to the heart of how our society is ordered. Do we follow Plato’s vision, where we are all specialists, led by a specialist caste of politician? The alternative view is expressed by Aristotle who states that a man should not entertain the notion of entering politics until the age of thirty. In other words, to have worked a trade, become a parent, fought for the state and generally become a well-rounded citizen before standing for office.

With respect to the many young politicians currently active in all parties, some of which I know personally, in general I would suggest that Aristotle has it right.