The limits of Trevor's limits

Trevor Phillip’s idea of a four term limit on MPs' careers to increase the diversity of the back benches is getting a bit of a kicking on the blogs. Even the usually mild mannered Sunder Katwala declares the idea ‘entirely unworkable’. Luke Akehurst goes further saying the proposal is ‘profoundly undemocratic’ and would lead to a dearth of candidates talented and experienced enough for the cut and thrust of front bench politics. He points out that Churchill, Thatcher, Atlee, Foot, Benn, Disraeli and Gladstone would all have had their parliamentary careers cut short if Phillip’s proposal had been in place.

I do think Phillips is on a bit of a hiding to nothing with his suggestion of a four term limit, although I sympathise with the motives behind it. As Katwala points out there is no guarantee such a policy would end up increasing the proportion of ethnic minority MPs – both Keith Vaz and Diane Abbott would have had to leave parliament at the last election if it had been in place. In addition the proposal could end up creating its own diversity problems by artificially lowering the average age of MPs in parliament. Katwala warns that the proposal would ‘significantly cull the number of MPs aged over 65, despite that being the fastest-growing section of the population’.

Both Akehurst and Katwala are surely right that instead of proposing artificial time-limits on MPs careers Phillips ought to be concentrating on ways in which the process of selecting parliamentary candidates can be made more open to ethnic minorities. Indeed, analysis of recent parliamentary intake and selections suggests that may already be happening. The Fabian Society have calculated that by 2005 7.5% of the new parliamentary intake were non-white MPs, and there was a similar proportion among candidate selections. According to the research Labour is selecting BME candidates in 10.5% of new candidate selections (ie, where a sitting MP is not running again) and this rises to over 15% in Labour held seats. Since black and ethnic minority citizens make up 8% of the population, Labour has a strong case to make that judged on statistics its selection procedures are representative. Although admittedly, at the current rate of turnover, it will be a long time before the House of Commons reflects the full diversity of British society. Trevor clearly doesn't want to wait; but is there any other democratic option?

Dialogue with Iran is what is needed not Isolation

Iran has been in the news over the last few days for all the good reasons and for all the bad ones. But we have to stay positive and realise that following policies of isolation and inaction will not improve relations or prevent the newspapers being filled with all Iran’s negative aspects. Some on the left oppose the negotiations manly due to a lack of understanding of Iran’s history hoping that by opposing a government that the people helped to put in place will somehow convert them to western liberal democracy. The approach by the Tories, outlined by William Hague last year, that Europe should “carry a bigger stick to Iran” will not advance our position either. As a BBC poll last moth shows these are clearly a foolish approaches.

      There is a perception that the conservatives in Iran have mass support. The current conservative President Amadinejad won an unexpected victory in 2005 with only thirty-seven percent of the vote. The latter was assisted by the ill thought out policy of the Bush administration’s “Axis of Evil” politics, failing to recognise the mood for rapprochement in Iran at the time. As an opinion poll back in 2002 in Tehran highlighted, two thirds of Iranians wanted direct US-Iran talks. Amadinejad’s share of the vote is an even paltrier figure when one considers that the liberal reformer Mohammad Khatamy won the two previous elections in 2001 with forty-nine percent and in 1997 with 57 percent of the vote. There is much talk that he could stand again this June and if a positive diplomatic narrative can persist then maybe it could counter the Iranian people’s apathy. But Britain must not acquiesce to those in this country or those in Iran who fear this and must be seen to be following the policy of re-engagement that Barack Obama is pursuing.

      I admit that horrendous crimes occur in Iran, that I, and many people in the West find abhorrent, but it is not through isolationism and sanctions that we will force a people to share our resentment for such actions but by the persuasiveness of our arguments. A dialogue of civilizations is needed not a barrier between them. This is why I recommend to everyone the new British Museum exhibition currently on display, which is free thanks to your Labour government. I recommend it, especially for all Foreign Office staff on the Iran desk, because it is by returning to an understanding based on mutual respect out of which Anglo-Iranian relations began that will show us how to help share our problems and our values.

 

DIY Dentistry

The spectre of millions of desperate British people resorting to do-it-yourself fillings and extractions has reared its ugly little head again today, with the results of a new Which? survey into DIY dentistry featuring prominently on the BBC News and Telegraph websites this morning.

This time the results of a survey of 2631 adults have been extrapolated to give the shocking and not very statistically sound news that 3 million people have resorted to undertaking their own dental treatment. Whilst some reporting does point out that the motivation for their doing so is not revealed by the report, the implication of this ongoing narrative is clear. The state of dentistry and the attendant images of suffering grandmothers wielding pliers on mouthfuls of rotting teeth are often held up by critics as the starkest example of perceived failure of New Labour reforms of the health service as a whole.

Whilst there were undoubtedly challenges brought about by the introduction of wide-ranging reforms in April 2006, root and branch change of the dental health commissioning system was never going to be easy. It is clear that while access has greatly increased in some areas, there are those where it is still unacceptably difficult to get NHS dental treatment. However, nearly three years on, it is about time to move the story on. Ultimately, it is the vision of a fair, comprehensive and locally responsive dental service that meets the needs of all users that is at the heart of the reform project. What we have now is stable platform on which to achieve it. We are still moving toward the goal, with all ten NHS Strategic Health Authorities aiming to deliver full access by 2011 at the latest. At the end of last year an independent review was also announced to look into a number of factors, including how to improve allocation of funding and address some of the issues highlighted by the Health Select Committee in 2008.

With so much progress and investment being made to fix what was a broken system, it is a shame that this unhelpful and ghoulish story keeps reappearing. At best it is a distraction from the real work to be done and at its worst it is discouraging people from accessing the many excellent dental health services that are already out there and available to them.

Love's Labour's Found

Labour’s relationship with the arts has sadly been characterised first by the cringeworthy Cool Britannia period and thereafter by savage attacks on Labour in government by people such as David Hare. But before the community turned on its erstwhile allies, there was a strong sense that Labour was the true party for the arts, most notably represented by the creation of Arts for Labour in 1981. Thatcher’s savage cuts and promotion of commerce and industry to the detriment of high culture galvanised the arts world and many in it vocally supported Labour in 1997.

We may have fewer luvvies prepared to stand up and champion Labour as the rightful party of the arts, but it’s great to see Eddie Izzard and Kevin Spacey supporting today’s announcement that Labour will provide 618,000 free theatre tickets to under 26 year olds in over 200 theatres up and down England. At a time when the industry fears the public will desert expensive theatre going, it’s great that the government is prepared to help drum up audiences, but more importantly to introduce a new type of audience to the stage.

It was Labour who introduced free entrance to our museums and galleries, enabling thousands of citizens and their families to access our cultural treasures for the first time. Now thousands of young people who have been priced out of performing arts will now have the opportunity to enjoy the best that Britain has to offer.

To find out the nearest theatre offering tickets to under 26 year olds click here

Obama the new successor to Tony Blair

At last history is finally giving Tony Blair the credit he deserves, during a time when credit is hard to come by.

“somebody who did it first and perhaps did it better than I will do.”

Above the words of Barak Obama, the most popular world leader on the planet at the moment one could argue. Many today appear to be surprised however that he lavishes praise so highly upon TB. But is it surprising that Obama would wish to align himself with a politician who it is widely known, was so highly popular amongst Americans that at one time they would have chosen him for their leader if given half a chance. One poll a few years back in the US said that 83 percent of Americans trusted Tony Blair and with both conservative and liberals supporting him. This is why it can be argued that Obama, who wishes to replicate that public support and build a coalition similar to that, is Tony Blair’s natural successor. This is something that Obama publicly acknowledges:

“He has been an example for so many people around the world of what dedicated leadership can accomplish”.

But for those of you who are wondering why? Well, here are a few reasons why even Mr Cameron has called TB “remarkable”. The achievements of Tony Blair’s premiership are ones which Obama and any world leader would love to aspire to. 

Northern Ireland.

Although some argue John Major began negotiations it was Tony Blair’s ability at getting people to sit down at the negotiating table to talk that the discussions to a conclusion. The latter is a view shared by two politically opposed American presidents and lessons that need to be learnt if a solution in the Middle East is ever going to be achieved.

Education.

So important he said it three times and increased spending to levels unseen before. I am one of Blair’s babes (in the educational sense) and under his premiership I was the first generation of my family to access higher education through his policy of EMAs and increase in funding that went towards inner city state schools coupled with the commitment for more state school pupils to go onto university.

Crime and a more tolerant society.

The streets are safer now than they were before Tony Blair was in office. Tough on crime and the causes of crime opened a debate on not only how to tackle crime but also how to prevent it. Preventative policing was championed under TB. Crime statistics show an 18 percent drop in reported crime and more police numbers on the streets than ever before. As for society and the police force, the removal of institutional racism from within the force not only brought racial harmony within the force but also within society. Racially motivated assaults are now more widely recorded than ever before, and as the last weeks race row confirms the tolerance society now demands. The inclusion and recognition of the gay community within our society through his many policies that included; their permission within the arm services, civil partnerships and adoption rights. Contrast that with Cameron who opposed Section 28 and described it as a “fringe” issue.

The Third World and Climate Change.

The environment came to the fore of politics under his leadership. Climate change was pursued with targets to limit emissions and a global debate on it reduction ignited. Live Aid and the reduction in Third World debt was an area that without the support given to it by Tony Blair would never have had such a sonorous effect on other world leaders. Compare that with leading conservatives in this country who describe third world people as piccaninnies and wind turbines as pigeon death traps. Obama describes these people rightly as “light weight”.

What one must conclude is that where Blair led others followed. The march by conservatives to the centre ground is not only apparent in this country but also in the USA. The reason why Tony Blair was able to achieve all this was by his policy of inclusion on political lines, not through the ideological pigeon holing that came before him. Barak Obama has realized this and that is why he wishes to follow the path trail blazed by Tony Blair that only by focusing on values and not ideologues will progress ever be achieved.

Draper V Dale round two

The head of BBC One Jay Hunt gave an excellent interview on the Today Programme this morning explaining the reasons behind the decision to suspend – not ‘sack’ - Carol Thatcher from the One Show for her ‘golliwog’ remarks.

She made two important points. First, that the comments were not made in ‘private’ as Thatcher’s supporters have claimed but in a BBC green room with 12 other people present (including journalists), with Carol on BBC time in her role as a reporter for the One Show.

Second, that the BBC has a responsibility to its audience and that it simply was not appropriate to employ someone who thought it was acceptable to use the word ‘golliwog’ as a joke – a term viewed as a highly offensive and indeed racist by a sizeable proportion of the BBC audience.

Meanwhile the spat between Derek Draper and Iain Dale over the controversy continues to rumble on. My blog on the affair yesterday which was cross-posted on Labour List seems to have generated a fair bit of comment. One commentator Adam in London raised the issue of BBC double standards over its treatment of Chris Moyles, Jonathon Ross and Russell Brand in comparison to Thatcher. My response, which I also posted on the Labour List site, is below:

Can't argue with you on the point about Chris Moyles and I am not here to defend the BBC. He should be sacked. He won't be, because he is too popular, but then that's ratings for you. They do funny things to to director generals' heads. Ditto the case with Russell and Brand.

Nonetheless the BBC was right to fire Carol Thatcher over her comments, however innocuous they may seem. After the Celebrity Big Brother debacle broadcasters began to realise that the only way to deal with racist language was to operate a zero tolerance policy towards it; otherwise they can be accused by their audiences of turning a blind to or even condoning racist attitudes - which is exactly what happened in the case of Big Brother and Channel 4.

Of course if an employee at a 'normal' organisation had used the same phrase as Thatcher the sack would rightly have been seen as a bit of an over reaction, although some form of disciplinary action would surely have been appropriate.

But the fact is the BBC has its reputation as a public broadcaster to think about and for the reasons mentioned above simply can't be seen to tolerate the use of such language by its employees. Thatcher ought to have known the word 'golliwog' was likely to cause offense to sizeable proportion of her audience, even if she didn't intend to be racist. She is the daughter of a former PM, after all.

And don't give me that guff about what she said was in private and therefore somehow off limits. Why is something any less offensive because it happens to be said behind closed doors?

To go back to Iain Dale's role in the whole affair, by leaping so readily to Thatcher's defense I think at best he has been quite naive and worse rather insensitive to the effect the everyday use of such language has on ethnic minorities. He should apologise, and move on.

Iain Dale's doublespeak

Quite a spat seems to be brewing between stalwarts of the political blogosphere Derek Draper and Iain Dale about the latter’s defense of Carol Thatcher over her sacking from the BBC for her behind the scene’s utterance of the word ‘golliwog’.

This certainly seems to be a bit of a hot button issue for Dale. In response to a blog I posted in January on Prince Harry’s now infamous use of the word ‘paki’ the Tory blogger commented to clarify his remarks about the use of the word being ‘acceptable’ in those terrible 1970s sitcoms such as Mind Your Language, before it was monopolised by the National Front as a term of hate.

I wasn’t entirely convinced by his answer then and I don’t think his defense of Carol Thatcher’s remarks is particularly convincing now. On Sunday Dale wrote an excellent rejoinder to a vile column by Peter Hitchens in the Daily Mail challenging the casual homophobia that seemed to belie his every word. Why, then, can’t Dale see that the same level of scrutiny ought to apply to the casual bandying about of offensive and racist terminology by overpaid celebrities?

Karl's Roving eye for Cameron?

A fascinating article in the New Republic by Sam Tanenhaus on the death of American Conservatism following the 2008 US election.

The editor of the New York Times Book Review argues that through successive Republican administrations the party has transformed itself from a mainstream political force into a counter-revolutionary ‘movement’ - one that reached its apotheosis in the neo-conservative charge of George W Bush’s foreign and domestic policies. By doing so, however, it lost sight of an older Burkean tradition of American conservatism more interested in conserving and protecting the institutions of civil society than waging culture wars against them.

Tanenhaus suggests that it is this tradition of mainstream American conservatism, progressively vacated by the Republican party over the past half century, that Barack Obama successfully monopolise in his bid for the White House last year; territory the party will have to win back if it is to stand any chance of re-election.

What is fascinating about Tanenhous’ analysis for a British audience is the way his diagnosis of the contemporary American conservative movement mirrors the debate that took place in the Conservative party over the legacy of Thatcherism after the party’s 1997 defeat. Thatcherism too was seen as a ‘movement’ that ultimately consumed and undermined the conservative foundations on which it was built, allowing New Labour to step in and make its pitch on the centreground. Similarly, much of David Cameron’s appeal to his party has been based on a repudiation of rigid Thatcherite dogma and a return to an older ‘realist’ British Conservative tradition embodied in the legacies of Disraeli and Burke. Indeed, Tanenbaum’s concluding advice to America’s conservatives could have been copied straight out of the Cameron playbook:

What our politics has consistently demanded of its leaders, if they are to ascend to the status of disinterested statesmen, is not the assertion but rather the renunciation of ideology. And the only ideology one can meaningfully renounce is one's own. Liberals did this a generation ago when they shed the programmatic "New Politics" of the left and embraced instead a broad majoritarianism. Now it is time for conservatives to repudiate movement politics and recover their honorable intellectual and political tradition. At its best, conservatism has served the vital function of clarifying our shared connection to the past and of giving articulate voice to the normative beliefs Americans have striven to maintain even in the worst of times. There remains in our politics a place for an authentic conservatism--a conservatism that seeks not to destroy but to conserve.

So will the GOP follow in Cameron’s footsteps? Under the potential leadership of the increasingly influential failed vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, it seems unlikely. In the past political inspiration have tended to flow the other way across the Atlantic, not least in the influence exerted by Bill Clinton and his New Democrats on Messrs Blair and Brown. But is it just a coincidence, I wonder, the sudden interest a senior member of the Republican inner circle seems to have taken in the internal machinations of the British Conservative blogosphere?