When I heard the news that there was to be no election after all either this Autumn or, in all likelihood, next year, I thought to myself: 'this stinks' - and I wasn't just talking about Gordon Brown's pantelones. I was looking forward to the contest, especially in my home constituency where we have by far the best candidate of all three parties along with control of most of its wards. However, given a day to reflect, I have concluded that this is in fact the best thing that could have happened to the Lib Dems. Don't get me wrong, they could have done well if an election was called for November, even if they lost a few seats, because Labour and the Tories would finish so close together, the balance of power would rest with us - I mean the Liberal Democrats. It was this that got me thinking today.
The Liberal Democrats have perpetually been in something of a political quagmire since their inception in 1988. They have no track record on being in power nationally - not since the days of Lloyd George anyway- and with no real natural core vote like Labour or the Tories and no distinctive identity to make clear how a Lib Dem government would be different from any other, many people dismiss them as being merely a protest party despite the fine work of many Lib Dem councils and MPs throughout the country. The elctorate needs to believe that the party they're voting for can run the country, and as long as the Lib Dems lack this experience, a natural core vote and a distinictive identity to get them up the opinion polls, their future chances of forming a government will remain increasingly bleak. In other words, at this point, the only way the Liberal Democrats could convince the people they were ready to govern would be if they were in government.
Ironically, however, the resurgence of both Labour and the Tories, albeit at the Lib Dems' expense, marks a unique opportunity for them for if there had been an election in November, regardless of who won, the Lib Dems share of seats would almost certainly have exceeded the difference between the Tories' and Labour's totals, forcing whichever of the two formed a government to court the party's support in order to get their own legislation through Parliament.
It is this that should be shaping the Lib Dem campaign; not trying to form a government and be the biggest party in Parliament - even the most enthusiastic supporter knows that won't be happening any time soon- but on holding Labour and the Conservatives, regardless of which one forms a government in 2009, to account. Furthermore, the party leadership should refrain from making any major policy proposals to allow Parliamentary candidates to tailor their campaigns to the most pressing local issues in each seat, deciding centrally only the party's key positions and beliefs. This would prevent major inconsistencies in party pledges from emerging whilst concentrating the leadership's efforts on crafting a truly unique and comprehensive identity for the party. Most importantly though, it would allow the Lib Dems to do what they do best; vigorous and committed local campaigning focusing on local issues and increasing the party's share of seats in Parliament constituency by constituency.
The logic of such a strategy is that the party need not worry about appearing as the protest party when the public already perceive them to be just that. Instead, such a perception should be welcomed and recognised for what it is - a license to criticise without the expectation of proposing policy. At a time when vast swathes of the public are highly suspicious of the two leading parties' motives and methods and unclear at times of how the two are even any different, a party that marketed itself specifically as the Devil's advocate would surely be welcomed with open arms by the electorate.
Once the election was over, with the difference in seats between the Tories and Labour likely to be quite small, the Lib Dems would then be able to use their presence to influence if not decide the passage of legislation, either as an independent third party or as a coalition partner in the government. Hence, by building on the step by step progress in constitutencies across the country and their existing MPs' enduring reputations for commitment, competence and candour along with a freshly forged and distinctive identity and presence in government, the Lib Dems could finally be a force to be reckoned with. However, such a transformation would also require the party to address the issues of party unity, funding and leadership that continue to hinder its progress.
Until then, Ming Campbell and the Liberal Democrats need to recognise that the public cannot be fooled that easily -as Gordon Brown is learning right now- and that they will need to do more than pretend they are as big as the Conservatives and Labour to convince the public they are. So rather than constantly trying to punch above their weight, they should embrace their size and the opportunities that come with being the protest party and simply say: we may be small, but we bite! Thankfully, Gordon Brown has given them an extra two years to find their feet and become the real opposition.
Sunday, 7 October 2007
Friday, 5 October 2007
Throw out the targets, Camden needs more bobbies on the beat!
Last night I attended the Swiss Cottage Safer Neighbourhoods meeting, a recent innovation of the Metropolitan Police Force...whoops I mean Metropolitan Police Service - the difference being that now if your local constable fails to deliver your justice on time and with a smile on their face, you are encouraged to put a complaint in their comments box.
Seriously though, these meetings are a great idea and you do feel like you're being given an opportunity to air your grievances to those who need to hear it most and hold them accountable for it. The panel is composed of two PCs and two PCSOs and is chaired by a sergeant, but appears to be run clandestinely by Waitrose where two of the panel members work as managers. Their secret identity was only revealed last night when one of the audience members questioned the chain's security policy following her grand-daughter's harrassment by another customer only to be assiduously rebuffed by them as if they had been personally accused of the offence themselves. On the other hand, this tiny hall, temporarily converted into a bastion of local democracy, was inundated by free food and drink to encourage people to attend and stay after...all courtesy of Waitrose of course, so the jury's still out. Nevertheless, I am eagerly awaiting the day I see one of their Ocado delivery vans engaged in a high speed car chase down Finchley Road with makeshift police sirens loosely attached to the roof.
However, the meeting was not all poops and giggles. There were many complaints that the police were not doing enough to tackle street violence, gang culture and general acts of agression, wreckless disregard and intimidation ranging from loud drunkards to erratic drivers. Indeed, several members of the audience each had a story to tell about how they had suffered over the last few months and their displeasure at the police service's perceived unresponsiveness. Their frustration was exacerbated when the panel reviewed their top three target crimes in ascending order of priority, identifying where local police efforts should be concentrated - robbery 3rd, motor vehicle crime 2nd and burglary top of the list - only to exclude anti-social behaviour or even violence against the person entirely from this list. When called up on this, they insisted that it would not be a practical use of police resources.
Now this would seem quite a shocking statement to make at the best of times to an audience that had just raised anti-social behaviour as their biggest concern, but consider in addition to this the Met's own crime figures for August of this year and it becomes simply astonishing. For example 'Violence against the person' accounted for 510 of 2,903 crimes committed in Camden, exceeding the combined totals of robbery (79) and motor vehicle crime (382) over the same period. Nevertheless the panel defended their position on the grounds that the police service is so small that the only way it can effectively tackle crime is to isolate key areas where crimes most frequently occur and post officers there to ward off and arrest criminals. Similarly, they have targets for dealing with crimes most frequently reported which also help to determine where their officers will be posted. The problem with tackling anti-social behaviour and even violence and intimidation therefore is that a) it can, and does, happen anywhere in around the area and b) due to the sporadic nature of such crimes, people don't always report them, especially if it's just a case of being disturbed or scared by noisy louts where the offence is more psychological than physical, as there is little the police can do for them after the incident has occured.
As taken aback as I was by the frankness of the panel in responding to these questions as they essentially refused to take any action on the grounds that doing so would confound their complex targeting system, I also had a lot of sympathy for them. They were, after all, just doing their best with what they had and indeed had been successful in overseeing a reduction in crime on the same period last year. However, the meeting did open my eyes to the real problem which lies in the the transformation of the police from a force to a service. Where once, the police might have guarded their respective communities through a decisive presence on the streets in the form of the revered bobby on the beat with the sole aim of enforcing the law, they are now constrained by targets, regulations and endless paperwork where the aims are now to offer value for money and avoid getting sued. Don't get me wrong, I have no wish to see Judge Dredd chairing the next Safer Neighbourhoods meeting, but when you consider the closest thing we have to regular bobby patrols these days are Police Community Support Officers who seem to only just have the power to give offenders a stern talking to and a mean stare as if to say "you're lucky that this uniform gives me as much power to arrest you as that guy from the Village People, otherwise you'd be in big trouble", then you've got to wander, surely there's got to be a better way.
Seriously though, these meetings are a great idea and you do feel like you're being given an opportunity to air your grievances to those who need to hear it most and hold them accountable for it. The panel is composed of two PCs and two PCSOs and is chaired by a sergeant, but appears to be run clandestinely by Waitrose where two of the panel members work as managers. Their secret identity was only revealed last night when one of the audience members questioned the chain's security policy following her grand-daughter's harrassment by another customer only to be assiduously rebuffed by them as if they had been personally accused of the offence themselves. On the other hand, this tiny hall, temporarily converted into a bastion of local democracy, was inundated by free food and drink to encourage people to attend and stay after...all courtesy of Waitrose of course, so the jury's still out. Nevertheless, I am eagerly awaiting the day I see one of their Ocado delivery vans engaged in a high speed car chase down Finchley Road with makeshift police sirens loosely attached to the roof.
However, the meeting was not all poops and giggles. There were many complaints that the police were not doing enough to tackle street violence, gang culture and general acts of agression, wreckless disregard and intimidation ranging from loud drunkards to erratic drivers. Indeed, several members of the audience each had a story to tell about how they had suffered over the last few months and their displeasure at the police service's perceived unresponsiveness. Their frustration was exacerbated when the panel reviewed their top three target crimes in ascending order of priority, identifying where local police efforts should be concentrated - robbery 3rd, motor vehicle crime 2nd and burglary top of the list - only to exclude anti-social behaviour or even violence against the person entirely from this list. When called up on this, they insisted that it would not be a practical use of police resources.
Now this would seem quite a shocking statement to make at the best of times to an audience that had just raised anti-social behaviour as their biggest concern, but consider in addition to this the Met's own crime figures for August of this year and it becomes simply astonishing. For example 'Violence against the person' accounted for 510 of 2,903 crimes committed in Camden, exceeding the combined totals of robbery (79) and motor vehicle crime (382) over the same period. Nevertheless the panel defended their position on the grounds that the police service is so small that the only way it can effectively tackle crime is to isolate key areas where crimes most frequently occur and post officers there to ward off and arrest criminals. Similarly, they have targets for dealing with crimes most frequently reported which also help to determine where their officers will be posted. The problem with tackling anti-social behaviour and even violence and intimidation therefore is that a) it can, and does, happen anywhere in around the area and b) due to the sporadic nature of such crimes, people don't always report them, especially if it's just a case of being disturbed or scared by noisy louts where the offence is more psychological than physical, as there is little the police can do for them after the incident has occured.
As taken aback as I was by the frankness of the panel in responding to these questions as they essentially refused to take any action on the grounds that doing so would confound their complex targeting system, I also had a lot of sympathy for them. They were, after all, just doing their best with what they had and indeed had been successful in overseeing a reduction in crime on the same period last year. However, the meeting did open my eyes to the real problem which lies in the the transformation of the police from a force to a service. Where once, the police might have guarded their respective communities through a decisive presence on the streets in the form of the revered bobby on the beat with the sole aim of enforcing the law, they are now constrained by targets, regulations and endless paperwork where the aims are now to offer value for money and avoid getting sued. Don't get me wrong, I have no wish to see Judge Dredd chairing the next Safer Neighbourhoods meeting, but when you consider the closest thing we have to regular bobby patrols these days are Police Community Support Officers who seem to only just have the power to give offenders a stern talking to and a mean stare as if to say "you're lucky that this uniform gives me as much power to arrest you as that guy from the Village People, otherwise you'd be in big trouble", then you've got to wander, surely there's got to be a better way.
Wednesday, 3 October 2007
I'm confused by Barack Obama's declaration on foreign policy
It's official. If Barack Obama becomes President he will seek the elimination of nuclear weapons as well as increasing foreign aid and deliver a state of the world address. There's more of course, but that's the general jist of it. His justification for these proposals is that the Soviet Union does not exist any more, so does not need to be defended against from the threat of nuclear war, and that instead the focus should be on keeping nukes out of the hands of terrorists - the new threat.
I have just one question: why?
By that, I don't mean to question his intentions but his logic. Nuclear disarmament and nuclear proliferation are two different concepts, so why make a pledge that effectively bags the two together? Furthermore, not only is it possible to restrict proliferation without necessitating disarmament, but on the contrary it is vital. Indeed, to claim that the threat of nuclear war disappeared along with the Soviet Union is dangerously naive. This is not just because of the rekindling of traditional Cold War rivalry of late, but also because it is impossible to predict the future and to be sure that those openly hostile to us won't develop nuclear weapons or that those who already possess them won't one day become our rival or even our enemy.
That said, I completely share Mr Obama's desire to halt proliferation to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists or hostile nation states. Although there are those who argue that the world would be safer place if every nation on the earth had nuclear weapons, installing the MAD mentality that kept the U.S.A and the Soviet Union at arm's length for so may years, such proliferation would be catastrophic. For a start, accidents can happen, not all leaders (especially dictators) are rational actors and arms races are uneven meaning that some states would develop nukes before others, increasing the temptation to launch a pre-emptive strike. Furthermore though, unless every country had the same number of nuclear weapons and the same targeting systems that enable US and Russian missiles alone to take out not just their rivals' biggest cities but the missile silos themselves in one strike, the MAD mentality would be replaced with an incentive to strike first, not second.
The problem with leading by example to achieve this end, however, is that it is impossible to monitor the progress of other countries especially when you consider that the way Pakistan, India and Israel managed to get round the supposedly comprehensive nuclear non-proliferation treaty was to not sign it the first place. Rather, providing security guarantees within the framework of sophisticated alliances between like-minded liberal democratic states such as NATO would be far more effective. Of course, it is essential that these alliances be reinforced by the political and economic support crucial to building and sustaining stable democracies offered by the European Union and their rapidly developing regional counterparts such as the African Union and the Association of South East Asian Nations.
So, I would cautiously embrace Mr Obama's core foreign policy principles just as long as he remembers that making the world a safer place need not take priority over the security of his own country.
I have just one question: why?
By that, I don't mean to question his intentions but his logic. Nuclear disarmament and nuclear proliferation are two different concepts, so why make a pledge that effectively bags the two together? Furthermore, not only is it possible to restrict proliferation without necessitating disarmament, but on the contrary it is vital. Indeed, to claim that the threat of nuclear war disappeared along with the Soviet Union is dangerously naive. This is not just because of the rekindling of traditional Cold War rivalry of late, but also because it is impossible to predict the future and to be sure that those openly hostile to us won't develop nuclear weapons or that those who already possess them won't one day become our rival or even our enemy.
That said, I completely share Mr Obama's desire to halt proliferation to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists or hostile nation states. Although there are those who argue that the world would be safer place if every nation on the earth had nuclear weapons, installing the MAD mentality that kept the U.S.A and the Soviet Union at arm's length for so may years, such proliferation would be catastrophic. For a start, accidents can happen, not all leaders (especially dictators) are rational actors and arms races are uneven meaning that some states would develop nukes before others, increasing the temptation to launch a pre-emptive strike. Furthermore though, unless every country had the same number of nuclear weapons and the same targeting systems that enable US and Russian missiles alone to take out not just their rivals' biggest cities but the missile silos themselves in one strike, the MAD mentality would be replaced with an incentive to strike first, not second.
The problem with leading by example to achieve this end, however, is that it is impossible to monitor the progress of other countries especially when you consider that the way Pakistan, India and Israel managed to get round the supposedly comprehensive nuclear non-proliferation treaty was to not sign it the first place. Rather, providing security guarantees within the framework of sophisticated alliances between like-minded liberal democratic states such as NATO would be far more effective. Of course, it is essential that these alliances be reinforced by the political and economic support crucial to building and sustaining stable democracies offered by the European Union and their rapidly developing regional counterparts such as the African Union and the Association of South East Asian Nations.
So, I would cautiously embrace Mr Obama's core foreign policy principles just as long as he remembers that making the world a safer place need not take priority over the security of his own country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
