Still Meh 2 AV?

Like many, I have been asked several times if I’m voting Yes or No to AV. I admit to having been non-committal until this weekend. Having had some time to organise my thoughts and read the materials from both camps, I think I have come to a synthesis of views. There are essentially two arguments.

First, that it will change the outcome of elections and lead to a different number of seats for the parties than would happen under the current system. This is the argument the No 2 AV campaign has focussed on: that coalitions will be a permanent part of the landscape, using the discredited Liberal leader, Nick Clegg, as their bogeyman.

Let’s go down to first principles on this argument. Representative democracy, for better or worse, seems to be the least crap mechanism for securing some measure of accountability between government and citizen in the polity. But it is a deeply imperfect way of translating the will of the people into a legislature, government and executive. We know that 57.3% of voters in the last election didn’t trust the Tories and yet here we are today. When we consider democracy means rule by the people, it seems an embarrassing fudge to call our system democratic in its purest sense.

AV can right some of that. To translate the will of the people more accurately. It is for that reason that the Tories – who are furiously trying to gerrymander constituencies right now and fix this Parliament to five years length to reap the benefits of their gerrymandering – oppose it so vehemently. It will crush them. Perhaps forever.

But, second, it can also change the nature of politics. This is what the Yes 2 AV campaign focuses on. However, their argument has been surprisingly feckless and negative. It has predicated what should be a positive argument on the same hypocritical sneering towards politics that the Fourth Estate have used to slowly poison our democracy. “Make ‘em lazy politicians, what with their snahts in the trough, work ‘arder.” I know many politicians. The last thing I would describe them as is lazy. Cynical, perhaps. But lazy, no.

AV has a chance to heal the damage of the last few years. To provide a platform for success to those that aren’t simply masters of the militaristic discipline of electioneering but that can gain the most affection from the broadest possible franchise. It can lead us out of this mire that we advocates of the virtue of civic duty find ourselves in today into a less oppositional politics. One that is about mutual respect and communalism. It gives us an opportunity to refute the negativity and fissiparity that the Murdoch/ Rothermere press revel in and that leads to the very cynicism that is slowly destroying our democracy.

For these two reasons, I’m voting Yes to AV.

Posted in Elections | Tagged | 1 Comment

Why multiculturalism DOES work

In Munich, a foreign-born leader, a master spinner with an anger problem, stands up and gives a speech that makes the Far Right cheer and those of foreign descent fear they are once again to be persecuted for the actions of a minority. Yes, David Cameron’s speech at an international security conference has rightly received a lot of attention. Fox News in the States had it on repeat. Sadiq Khan, Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, said it was unwise. Me? Well I’m just your average guy but, really, it upset me to see the Prime Minister of my country asking 2.5 million Muslims to take responsibility for people they don’t know, don’t want to know, while all they really want is to sit and watch telly with a kebab nestled in their tummies. Yes, like real Englishmen.

Cameron in his focus on imposing behavioural norms is harking back to falsified halcyon days of British monoculture. It never existed. As someone put it recently, “Where does he think the Angles and Saxons came from!” It is an utterly facile interpretation of our country. In modern Britain all of us engage in a reflexive process of creating identity that shamelessly steals from all cultures. The white kid who’s a Buddhist vegetarian, loves rap and kung fu movies. The son of Muslims who went to Cambridge, loves bacon and cried when Ross broke up with Rachael (ahem). Multiculturalism, for me, is not so much a political philosophy than a quite literal description of most of our lives. From heterogeneous cuisine, music and literature to our sporting, cultural and political figures.

London in particular is an exemplar of the successes of British multiculturalism. It is a city of hugely diverse cultures. That, as Ken Livingstone once observed, lives to the highest aspirations of Millian liberalism. It is a city that crams eight million individual stories into a tangled web of interdependence and, for the main part, mutual respect. And we are broadly tolerant. The Tube, where everyone’s gazes criss-cross so no-one has to suffer the indignity of meeting another’s eyes is one extreme of our culture of “let each live without interference.” On the other end of the spectrum we have cultural phenomena like the Notting Hill Carnival, exhibitions of exquisite Muslim art and tapestry attended by people from all faiths and cultural backgrounds and sweaty New Year’s Eves in Trafalgar Square where hundreds of languages mingle, sharing universal joy for the New Year and a desperate need to go to the loo.

But let’s be straight here. That wasn’t what David Cameron was attacking. He wasn’t really attacking multiculturalism. He was attacking political extremism. And that’s where his speech unravels and its pernicious intent is so clear. By conflating religious identity with political extremism in such a fluid and lazy way, and not least of all in the backdrop of hundreds of crazed Far Right extremists chanting, “Allah, Allah, who the fuck is Allah?” in Luton, he gives credence to the widespread view that Islam is somehow antithetical to Western liberalism. It’s an old tale. Richard Hofstadter’s classic essay on the paranoid style in American politics seems somewhat instructive here (or is drawing on arguments from an analysis of American politics too multicultural?). In his analysis, the mad screeches of a few misanthropic malcontents from one part of society (whether Masons, Catholics, socialists or militant Blacks) is conflated with genuine threats from extremists and then the broader group. It is legitimised by semi-respectable institutions conducting their own “inquiries”. McCarthy, for example. And then sold by a craven media that breathes on the oxygen of scandal and fearmongering.

To those that are really scared, let me assure them of a few things. Most of the “divergent” or “alien” cultures in the UK love this country. We don’t denigrate our home by calling it “Broken Britain.” For me, as the son of immigrants that were shown love and acceptance by their adopted home, and whose children were given every opportunity, regardless of the colour of their skin, let me tell you that I know this is truly a Great Britain. Just as you fear terrorism, we fear terrorism. We get the same Tubes, the same buses, the same flights. And we feel as powerless as you do to stop them. Political extremists that want to impose their bonkers worldview on all of us are as terrifying to me as they are to you, whether they happen to be Muslim, Christian or Jewish, Taoist, Buddhist or Sikh. Or the BNP. Like you we want a nice supper, to put our feet up, watch t’telly, have a cup of tea and get on with our lives – lives that we Londoners share with people from all parts of Britain (Manchester for me), from all religions, of all colours and of all races. For David Cameron to pretend otherwise – that you or I could possibly do something to stop extremists that we don’t know or have anything to do with – is the most pernicious of all lies.

Originally published in Tribune

In Munich, a foreign-born leader, a master spinner with an anger problem, stands up and gives a speech that makes the Far Right cheer and those of foreign descent fear they are once again to be persecuted for the actions of a minority. Yes, David Cameron’s speech at an international security conference has rightly received a lot of attention. Fox News in the States had it on repeat. Sadiq Khan, Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, said it was unwise. Me? Well I’m just your average guy but, really, it upset me to see the Prime Minister of my country asking 2.5 million Muslims to take responsibility for people they don’t know, don’t want to know, while all they really want is to sit and watch telly with a kebab nestled in their tummies. Yes, like real Englishmen.

Cameron in his focus on imposing behavioural norms is harking back to falsified halcyon days of British monoculture. It never existed. As someone put it recently, “Where does he think the Angles and Saxons came from!” It is an utterly facile interpretation of our country. In modern Britain all of us engage in a reflexive process of creating identity that shamelessly steals from all cultures. The white kid who’s a Buddhist vegetarian, loves rap and kung fu movies. The son of Muslims who went to Cambridge, loves bacon and cried when Ross broke up with Rachael (ahem). Multiculturalism, for me, is not so much a political philosophy than a quite literal description of most of our lives. From heterogeneous cuisine, music and literature to our sporting, cultural and political figures.

London in particular is an exemplar of the successes of British multiculturalism. It is a city of hugely diverse cultures. That, as Ken Livingstone once observed, lives to the highest aspirations of Millian liberalism. It is a city that crams eight million individual stories into a tangled web of interdependence and, for the main part, mutual respect. And we are broadly tolerant. The Tube, where everyone’s gazes criss-cross so no-one has to suffer the indignity of meeting another’s eyes is one extreme of our culture of “let each live without interference.” On the other end of the spectrum we have cultural phenomena like the Notting Hill Carnival, exhibitions of exquisite Muslim art and tapestry attended by people from all faiths and cultural backgrounds and sweaty New Year’s Eves in Trafalgar Square where hundreds of languages mingle, sharing universal joy for the New Year and a desperate need to go to the loo.

But let’s be straight here. That wasn’t what David Cameron was attacking. He wasn’t really attacking multiculturalism. He was attacking political extremism. And that’s where his speech unravels and its pernicious intent is so clear. By conflating religious identity with political extremism in such a fluid and lazy way, and not least of all in the backdrop of hundreds of crazed Far Right extremists chanting, “Allah, Allah, who the fuck is Allah?” in Luton, he gives credence to the widespread view that Islam is somehow antithetical to Western liberalism. It’s an old tale. Richard Hofstadter’s classic essay on the paranoid style in American politics seems somewhat instructive here (or is drawing on arguments from an analysis of American politics too multicultural?). In his analysis, the mad screeches of a few misanthropic malcontents from one part of society (whether Masons, Catholics, socialists or militant Blacks) is conflated with genuine threats from extremists and then the broader group. It is legitimised by semi-respectable institutions conducting their own “inquiries”. McCarthy, for example. And then sold by a craven media that breathes on the oxygen of scandal and fearmongering.

To those that are really scared, let me assure them of a few things. Most of the “divergent” or “alien” cultures in the UK love this country. We don’t denigrate our home by calling it “Broken Britain.” For me, as the son of immigrants that were shown love and acceptance by their adopted home, and whose children were given every opportunity, regardless of the colour of their skin, let me tell you that I know this is truly a Great Britain. Just as you fear terrorism, we fear terrorism. We get the same Tubes, the same buses, the same flights. And we feel as powerless as you do to stop them. Political extremists that want to impose their bonkers worldview on all of us are as terrifying to me as they are to you, whether they happen to be Muslim, Christian or Jewish, Taoist, Buddhist or Sikh. Or the BNP. Like you we want a nice supper, to put our feet up, watch t’telly, have a cup of tea and get on with our lives – lives that we Londoners share with people from all parts of Britain (Manchester for me), from all religions, of all colours and of all races. For David Cameron to pretend otherwise – that you or I could possibly do something to stop extremists that we don’t know or have anything to do with – is the most pernicious of all lies.

Posted in Policy | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Hard sell for Clarke’s prison plan

Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke suggests reducing the number of people in jail. He released his green paper, Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders, to howls of indignation from the right. Clarke has suggested some radical changes to the criminal justice system. Prison should be reserved for the most serious offenders.  Drug addiction, mental health problems and social and economic deprivation are major factors in criminality. By focusing on these  and diverting people from the penal system into treatment, we can liberate offenders from the inexorable cycle of criminal behaviour.

While Clarke’s instincts may be enlightened, swingeing cuts threaten to undermine his reforms. The Justice Secretary recognises that short-term periods of confinement accomplish little by themelves. They are only effective if combined with intensive
multi-agency intervention to help prisoners understand the impact of their crimes and return to society as constructive members of it.

That means help with resettlement (a third of offenders are homeless when they commit their crimes), finding employment and with any substance abuse problems. We can allow people at huge fracture points in their lives to remain locked in a cycle of deprivation, crime and punishment. Or we can intervene with the aim of making a positive difference.

The previous Labour Government created dozens of schemes exploring early diversion from the criminal justice system, recognising that some criminality is the consequences of social and health problems. It introduced restorative justice pilots around the country.  Clarke wants to build on these initiatives. However, the most reactionary government since Margaret Thatcher’s heyday, in which is he is a senior minister, is likely to thwart his good intentions.

Clarke says will he divert offenders to the Department of Health and expand the treatment of drug and mental health problems. Where is the money going to come from? The health service budget is already stretched and the Government is only increasing it by 0.5 per cent in each of the next five years, which represents a decline in real terms. How is it possible to fund treatment for the tens of thousands of addicted prisoners?  Clarke aims to expand pay-for-results diversified offending programmes. He points to Peterborough, where a Labour pilot was funded by a scheme called Social Finance. Since there is a financial crisis, where is he going to find sufficient philanthropists to fund schemes for the whole country?

He says he wants to expand restorative justice. But restorative justice is at an early stage. Its proponents say it can be very effective. Opponents say their experience of restorative justice is rather different.  Without the Youth Justice Board – scrapped in the “bonfire of the quangos” – to identify, measure and disseminate best practice, how can Clarke’s plan become a reality?  Further, the huge cuts to local authority budgets mean hundreds of youth and social workers and other key professionals are going to lose their jobs.

Labour should give cautious support to Clarke’s ideas, track their implementation and protest every time a sensible programme is shut down because of a lack of money. If Clarke’s plans fail because of a lack of funding, and crime and reoffending rise drastically as a result, it will set back the progressive case in criminal justice by decades.

Originally printed in Tribune

Posted in Policy | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Shoah and Righteous Muslims

Today is Holocaust Memorial Day. It is a day that honours our pledge to never forget. And so we don’t. But it is also a time for remembrance and learning. This is a time of great fractiousness between faiths, both here and abroad. In Britain anti-Semitism has been on the rise for some time. This has been driven by prolific ignorance and mendacity, predicated on libels levied against the Jewish people for centuries. And it is also a time of huge anti-Muslim sentiment. Even on the Left we’ve seen idiots equating Muslims or proxy groups with terrorists/ predatory paedophiles/ whatever they fancy that day. As the son of Muslims I genuinely feel more worried about their safety than ever before.

So today is a good day to be reminded of a moment when these two religious groups were locked in mutual survival, sacrifice, understanding and love. West London Synagogue last night held a talk on the role of Righteous Muslims in the Shoah. Yad Vashem, the place where Israel honours Jewish martyrs in the  Holocaust also honours 70 Righteous Muslims, an honour bestowed by the Israeli Supreme Court of Justice. Muslim men and women in Albania, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Turkey, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, that act as a small subset of the many individuals that resisted the Nazis and saved their Jewish friends and neighbours. Some of their stories involve immense self-sacrifice; unimaginable dangers endured in the name of righteousness and a higher truth.

With little knowledge of these heroes and events in the public sphere some might find this counterintuitive or surprising. After all received wisdom on Jews and Muslims is that of implacable foes squabbling over perceived sleights and legends from generations long passed as well as the modern cancer of ever-escalating violence. But this is a reminder that when we leave aside the extremists, the power-crazed and the just plain evil, most people are capable of extraordinary decency. Perhaps if more of our discourse was influenced by these men and women we’d find it more difficult to demonise each other.

The Q’uran teaches Muslims, “Whoever saves one life saves all of mankind.” Similarly the Talmud teaches Jews, “If you save one life, it is as if you have saved the world.” It is a worthy echo across these Abrahamic texts and a message worth repeating. And one that reminds us why we never forget either the Shoah or the acts of the Righteous Gentiles and the hope their heroism inspired in a time of monumental evil.

Originally posted at Liberal Conspiracy

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 1 Comment

Three new year’s resolutions for Labour

The Labour Party is in a remarkably positive mood as we enter 2011 despite having lost a General Election in May. Polling data, fickle though it can be, indicates that the Coalition are performing poorly enough for Labour to have captured a hefty chunk of voter intention. Enough to, theoretically, win an election held right now against our struggling opponents.

But that will change. The Liberal Democrats are at such a nadir in public opinion that anything short of surreptitious photographs of an illegal dogfighting ring in Cowley Street will be seen as positive as the media tries to find a narrative for the next year.

So it’s time for Labour to consider its 2011. What do we need from Ed and the Party?

First, party reform must take place with ruthless speed. Ed is known as a great listener, but he needs to build an organisation that listens; one that sources insight widely and disseminates it through the core democratic institutions within the Party – CLPs.

Partnership in Power is tottering along and needs replacing with an institutional architecture that reverses the Blairite tendency to centralise decision-making to a small centre and that turned Conference into a shallow media exercise, but rather embraces the wide experience of its phenomenal activist base and encourages dialogue within the whole party.

Second, Ed’s policy review needs to accelerate. As the Coalition wrestles with the complex philosophical melange of Liberal Democrat and Conservative values, featuring reversal after reversal as they play to their respective bases (housing benefits, sentencing for knife crime and school sports among many already this year), Labour needs to set out a cogent alternative.

Shadow Ministers are currently hampered by the lack of strategic direction and their lack of mandate to develop alternative plans. Endless carping and criticism will yield only frustration from the PLP, the media and the public.

Third, it’s time to get the media operation cranked up. The media narrative has been lost; even the turncoats at The Guardian haven’t fully jumped on Ed’s bandwagon. It is agonising to most to acknowledge that the media are important, but let’s face it – they’re the primary intermediator of the political narrative for the majority of people (those that even bother keeping up with these things).

I’m not asking for Ed to genuflect to Murdoch et al. Rather, to ensure that a strategic operation is in place to expose Coalition incompetence, duplicity and malfeasance, to ensure this is sculpted for mass impact and to start setting the media agenda, not limiting us to a paragraph at the bottom of articles on Coalition announcements setting out the “alternate” view.

All three of these aims are interlinked. By shaping and effectively articulating Labour 201X’s philosophical underpinnings, we can source ideas from throughout the party, develop policies that resonate with the public mood and start setting the agenda, rather than reacting to the Coalition’s agenda.

This Coalition is flimsy at best, inexorably fissiparous at worst; it’s time for Labour to put its stake in the ground and use it to start levering apart this Government in anticipation of a General Election any time between now and 2015.

Originally posted at Liberal Conspiracy

Posted in Future of Labour, Policy | Tagged , , | Leave a comment