tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-39521088992187646332024-03-18T03:00:30.684+00:00A Scottish LiberalSaorsa - Cheartais shòisealta - In-ghabhalachtAndrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02027368242570244912noreply@blogger.comBlogger623125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3952108899218764633.post-19750381400974101552024-03-15T20:35:00.010+00:002024-03-16T19:36:22.407+00:00Does anyone care about Nagorno-Karabakh?<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgO4rWHlVQ3LZni1PORq6YgapSEdsymuHIpUI7rQz7lyDMc3YTRsvqNczAdDCco3sMNohoFro_J8-L-YhYMd8U6-h4U9_TmLabAmygMbor36IZLukD7k3gqODSu7e6gqS009mqyZalym757jb2VbVdyeK0Mbn7P9E4r7WD3cfJK8be4dbTzkUuIZrmu0Ak" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="586" data-original-width="880" height="330" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgO4rWHlVQ3LZni1PORq6YgapSEdsymuHIpUI7rQz7lyDMc3YTRsvqNczAdDCco3sMNohoFro_J8-L-YhYMd8U6-h4U9_TmLabAmygMbor36IZLukD7k3gqODSu7e6gqS009mqyZalym757jb2VbVdyeK0Mbn7P9E4r7WD3cfJK8be4dbTzkUuIZrmu0Ak=w496-h330" width="496" /></a></div><br /><br /><p></p><p>For a couple of days in early October 2023, the world's news media suddenly became interested in Nagorno-Karabakh, a semi-autonomous largely Christian enclave within largely-Muslim Azerbaijan.</p><p>After months of unrest an Azerbaijani offensive in September 2023, which followed <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Nagorno-Karabakh" target="_blank">a nine-month long blockade</a> - essentially, a starvation blockade - resulted in Nagorno-Karabakh becoming quickly overrun. Unsurprisingly, Nagorno-Karabakh capitulated within days with the end result a hastily negotiated ceasefire that required the republic to dissolve itself by 1st January 2024.</p><p>Nagorno-Karabakh entered into ceasefire talks from a position of weakness, having been overwhelmed in the first day of the Azerbaijani offensive. Aside from the presence of the Russian peacekeeping command, there was no international oversight or involvement. The largely Christian ethnic Armenians fled en masse.</p><p>Over 120,000 people, nearly the entire population of Nagorno-Karabakh, has been displaced. In my view, the deliberate displacement of an entire people much surely amount to ethnic cleansing and arguably also constitutes either a war crime or a crime against humanity. What I know is that so much human suffering has been caused in the last year while the rest of the world has been largely silent.</p><p>This is, sadly, a crisis that has received very little attention in our news media aside from those days in early October. With the focus on the Israel-Hamas conflict, Nagorno-Karabakh appears to have been entirely overlooked, although the humanitarian situation is both real and ongoing. </p><p>I have searched Hansard for any reference to Nagorno-Karabakh in recent Commons business. As far as I can see, one question was asked by David Duguid (Con: Banff & Buchan) on Tuesday 24th October 2023: “What steps his Department is taking to help ensure that humanitarian support reaches people affected by the conflict in the Nagorno-Karabakh region?”</p><p>He received a response from parliamentary under-secretary of state for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, Leo Docherty, committing to “assess humanitarian needs”. Mr Docherty then took a question from Chris Law (SNP: Dundee West) who urged parliament not to “forget other conflicts around the world in which crimes against humanity have been committed against innocent civilians” and asked the under-secretary whether he agreed that the Nagorno-Karabkah situation “bears the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing”. (Mr Docherty expressed disagreement with that claim.)</p><p>That five-minute exchange is, unfortunately, the entirety of political discussion in the Commons on the human tragedy in Nagorno-Karabakh.</p><p>By mid-January, with some time having passed since that exchange, I wrote to my MP and the foreign affairs spokespeople of the main parties (Conservative, Labour, SNP and Lib Dem) to ask some questions:</p><p>a) What is your position on Nagorno-Karabakh? Do you recognise the right of Nagorno-Karabakh to self-determination? </p><p>b) Do you believe the UK should do more to support the humanitarian efforts? If so, how do you believe the UK should do this?</p><p>c) What “assessments of humanitarian needs” are you aware of the government having carried out since 24th October? </p><p>d) Do you agree that the deliberate displacement of virtually an entire nation, albeit one of 120,000 people, constitutes ethnic cleansing?</p><p>e) What actions, if any, should be taken either against Azerbaijan, or to restore the Artsakh republic? I note that, while state institutions have been dissolved, there has been no formal dissolution of the republic. </p><p>f) How can a lasting peace be created in the area, and what can the UK do to support it? </p><p>I received only one response, dated 1st February, which came from the Foreign Office. It said the government has "consistently called on Armenia and Azerbaijan to resolve their issues peacefully through dialogue and in a manner that fully respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of both states". I was informed the government welcomes UN involvement in delivering humanitarian support and that it has "pressed the Azerbaijani authorities to work to enable former residents to return to Azerbaijan in safety... a meaningful reintegration plan that accommodates the needs of those wishing to return is of paramount importance." The letter closes with a commitment to supporting "a long-lasting peace in the region".<br /><br />All that is good and well but they're the precisely the kinds of words and generic "commitments" I would have expected from a politician or civil servant with little real knowledge of, or interest in, the region. Sadly, these words have been shown to be empty and meaningless following revelations in <i><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/22/uk-firms-azerbaijan-armenians-nagorno-karabakh" target="_blank">The Guardian</a></i> that the UK government actively urged British businesses to take advantage of the humanitarian disaster as a "great opportunity...to collaborate with the Azerbaijan government to provide infrastructure advice to a government which has financial means given that it has very large energy resources". <br /><br />What kind of government would promote the economic "opportunities" offered by humanitarian catastrophe, let alone invite its citizens to "collaborate" with a government that has recently sanctioned ethnic cleansing?<br /><br />But it's not only the UK government that cares little about the plight of the 120,000 displaced Karabakhians. Has anyone else even noticed? Where is the anger, the public outcry, the accusations of ethnic cleansing, the marches calling for a "Free Nagorno-Karabakh"? There have been thousands of "pro-Palestine" demonstrations, but not one highlighting the human rights abuses in Nagorno-Karabakh. Where are the emergency parliamentary debates? Does anyone care enough to get a little bit "shouty", create some placards or wave a Nagorno-Karabkhian flag in protest?<br /><br />I have heard nothing from either my MP or the spokespersons of the opposition parties. It is, of course, their right not to reply. But there has been a troubling lack of any kind of response from the very people who are quite happy to regularly offer their views on Israel-Palestine. Clearly Nagorno-Karabakh just doesn't get people angry in the way that Palestine does. </p><p>I am not wishing to diminish either the significance or the horror of what is happening in Gaza, but the fact that such horrors are happening in one part of the world doesn't mean we should ignore them when they happen elsewhere. Surely, people who passionately criticise what they consider to be human rights abuses and ethnic cleansing in Gaza would find such crimes equally reprehensible in Nagorno-Karabakh? The two situations are far from identical, but in both cases huge numbers of people have been displaced and their futures are far from certain.</p><p>Historically, Nagorno-Karabakh's situation has been a complicated one and Armenian forces have been far from innocent, but in recent years something resembling peace has been achieved through Russian oversight. It is hardly coincidental that Azerbaijan launched its offensive at a time when Russia is pre-occupied elsewhere and that such "peacekeepers" were inactive and disinterested. The sad reality is that the plight of the Karabkhians was not only made possible of a conflict elsewhere but is worsened by indifference to the situation due (in part at least) to political focus on Israel-Palestine. Even before Hamas's Simchat Torah attack, the lack of a co-ordinated international response to the Lachin corridor blockade led Azerbaijan to believe, quite correctly, that it would face no consequences. </p><p>More positively, I note that a Westminster Hall discussion on "<a href="https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2024-0059/" target="_blank">International support for Armenian refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh</a>" is scheduled for Tuesday 19th March. It is focused on the humanitarian rather than political dimension, but this represents a useful development in relieving the refugee crisis in Armenia. It is a necessary conversation to have, but the fact it has taken almost six months to reach this stage underlines the reality that, politically speaking, the people of Nagorno-Karabakh don't seem to matter. </p><p>A humanitarian crisis is a humanitarian crisis. It is no less so when those affected are caught up in a conflict few of us know much about or their sense of nationhood is not one that intersects with our own political identities. </p><p>Azerbaijan is not interested in peace. Its government has stated that it will "guarantee the rights and security of Karabakh Armenians in the same way as any other ethnic minority group in Azerbaijan" - not particularly reassuring given <a href="https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/azerbaijan/#:~:text=On%20September%2022%2C%20the%20UN,and%20other%20protected%20persons%20of" target="_blank">Azerbaijan's historic treatment of minority groups</a>. It also suggests that Karabakhians will not be treated as equal citizens. The Azerbaijani government has also said that any individual who chooses not to accept Azerbaijan’s proposals is free to leave Karabakh, also not entirely reassuring. </p><p>Worse still are reports that "<a href="https://theins.ru/en/news/269956" target="_blank">Azerbaijan is ratcheting up its military rhetoric</a>" and "staking claims to Armenia's entire territory", potentially plunging the wider area into instability and crisis. </p><p>There will be no peace so long as the Armenian and Azerbaijani nations remain hostile towards each other. Unfortunately, there is an enormous human price that is being paid. </p><p>The UK government cannot be trusted to stand up for Nagorno-Karabakh. There are voices crying in the desert, such as Global Witness, but by and large they are not being heard. With neither our politicians nor our news media interested in the ongoing emergency, will anyone step up? Anyone at all? </p>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02027368242570244912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3952108899218764633.post-8113682468517049132024-02-23T17:32:00.005+00:002024-02-25T11:32:36.951+00:00The two-state solution: has its time finally arrived? <p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEipV3b_AC216hDEjLVe-NoTIFajha2e9VnUPD4zV0rb9tKqrlC2FkL0-6pFMY-x5fvp2x51r2xmlRK2e7KnzlijClvUJ2ay4thqvXimS54DGVK3qXvDaEFiBIb_r88w9BWIwZVsvyL7KG1ycf_azpfvF3TrhBUNtBCMeLWCg5pdpJ0_j9FQpq4_oruqWuQ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1000" data-original-width="2000" height="294" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEipV3b_AC216hDEjLVe-NoTIFajha2e9VnUPD4zV0rb9tKqrlC2FkL0-6pFMY-x5fvp2x51r2xmlRK2e7KnzlijClvUJ2ay4thqvXimS54DGVK3qXvDaEFiBIb_r88w9BWIwZVsvyL7KG1ycf_azpfvF3TrhBUNtBCMeLWCg5pdpJ0_j9FQpq4_oruqWuQ=w587-h294" width="587" /></a></div><br /><br />From the official Israeli perspective, the war in Gaza has one aim - the elimination of Hamas.<br /><br />So far, it's not going particularly well. <p></p><p>That is not surprising. Despite the IDF being well-equipped and well-funded, a ground war is Gaza was never going to be a walk in the park. <br /><br />Also, for reasons I previously explained in my post of 25th October entitled "<a href="https://scottish-liberal.blogspot.com/2023/10/how-do-you-solve-problem-like-hamas.html" target="_blank">How do you solve a problem like Hamas?</a>", a war with a terror organisation is seldom won through conventional military means. As I pointed out in the early days of the war, "any 'solution' achieved purely through the use of force is likely to be counter-productive: kill one terrorist and three more will rise up in their place... Extremist ideologies cannot simply be countered through the use of military force." It was also obvious to me back then that "<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Montserrat; font-size: 16px;">actions against innocent civilians that cause disproportionate human suffering will only strengthen Hamas", that "a</span><span style="font-family: Montserrat;"> worsening of tensions is in no-one’s interests other than Hamas" and that the Israeli offensive was "counter-productive". I added that "the danger is that Israel gives Hamas everything it wants. The death toll in Gaza is already helping them win the PR war, while establishing them – and not the PLO or Fatah – as the "true" Palestinian resistance."<br /><br />Everything I said would happen is happening. That is not because I am some kind of expert in international relations, but because it should be patently obvious to anyone. As I also said on this blog - as early as 8th October - "Hamas must be resisted. But how Israel 'defends itself' matters - it cannot be given carte blanche to use these attacks to punish Palestinians." It was not hard to foresee the consequences of military interventions that would inevitably hurt Palestinians living in Gaza far more than they would hurt Hamas.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Montserrat;"><b>An editorial</b></span></p><p>Why am I revisiting this today? I was reading the <i>Jewish Telegraph</i> this morning - always something worth reading, I should add - when I came across an editorial column arguing that Prince William's recent calls for a ceasefire were unhelpful. The editor, Paul Harris, made some very timely remarks about the Prince of Wales' role and why perhaps it is not useful for senior Royals to wander into the political sphere. But he also had this to say:<br /><br />"[William], like Israelis and onlookers throughout the world, must also be saddened by the deaths of innocent Gazans, which are the direct fault of Hamas, and not of Israel, as so many are trying to suggest. Of course, it is Israel’s action in the terror enclave that has led to such massive loss of life, but the terrorists of Hamas have embedded themselves in densely populated areas, in schools and in hospitals, in the cynical knowledge — and with no thought for the obvious result of Israeli action on those sites — that world opinion will be on their side as Israel is cast as the aggressor...</p><p>"...Israel cannot leave the job part complete. Had Hamas immediately released the hostages rather than taunting Israel from the outset as if they were trophies, the military response might well have been less intense, albeit no less comprehensive in its mission to eliminate Hamas. Only Israel can decide when its operation in Gaza should end, and however unpleasant some of the concomitant results appear, this is a war and no leader from any other country, or indeed royals, watching from afar, has the right to dictate to the Jewish state. It merely plays into the hands of those whose intentions towards Israel and Jews are anything but benign."<br /><br /><b>My response to the four principal points</b><br /><br />Mr Harris raises some points that I think are important to address. While I agree with him that Israel had every right to look to eliminate the threat of Hamas - indeed, I would go so far as to say they<i> have a responsibility to</i> - I am not so sure I can defend the strategy to date.<br /><br />Firstly, to say that the deaths of innocent Gazans are solely the fault of Hamas is too simplistic. Yes, Hamas bear responsibility. But so too does the misguided Israeli strategy, which was always likely to prove self-defeating. There were various possible approaches that Israel could have taken towards Hamas, and it needs to own its own actions. Acting in anger and outrage, Israel responded exactly as Hamas wanted it to.<br /><br />Secondly, Mr Harris is absolutely right when he observes that "Hamas have embedded themselves in densely populated areas, in schools and in hospitals", that Hamas had no thought for the impact of Israeli action on those sites or that world opinion would shift against Israel as it is "cast as the aggressor". But all that was foreseeable. I said as much in my piece dated 8th October. The Israeli government should also have been able to see that, as should the editor of the <i>Jewish Telegraph</i>. No doubt Hamas understood this only too well. And so the question has to be asked: why did Israel commit itself to a course of action that would inevitably play directly into Hamas's hands? All this could have been avoidable had Israel considered alternative possibilities. Israel knew the nature of Hamas before 7th October and knew full well that the terrorists had "embedded themselves"; despite this, it pressed ahead with actions that would inevitably be construed by the outside world as having "no thought for the obvious result". Again, Israel must take some responsibility. </p><p>Thirdly, Mr Harris talks about completing the job. He has already explained why Israel is losing the PR war and why military means alone are proving difficult. What he seems to imply here is that more of the same will eventually result in the desired outcome. I would counter by suggesting Israel will never be able to "complete" the impossible task through military means and that the only guaranteed outcome from continuing the approach<i> ad infinitum </i>will be the loss of more civilian lives. The sooner Israel realises it cannot win this war, at least by following its current strategy, the better. Nothing will be achieved by seeking to "complete" the destruction of Gaza: it certainly won't achieve the destruction of Hamas. <br /><br />Israel would be best advised to rethink its strategy rather than refusing to alter course. If Israel is serious about removing the threat from Hamas then it needs to radically change direction. That, of course, is anathema to Benjamin Netanyahu and Likud, but to many Israelis and Jews - who, like Mr Harris, are saddened by the destruction in Gaza - considering an altogether different approach to Hamas may not only seem sensible but necessary.<br /><br />Mr Harris's final point is that only Israel can decide when its military operations should end. Of course he is correct. However, I reject the implication - and apologies to Mr Harris if I'm misreading him - that non-Israelis have no right to argue against actions that are self-defeating, futile and causing unnecessary human suffering while strengthening their supposed target. Yes, Israel must make its own decisions but cautioning Israel on the wisdom of actions that are already failing is not "dictating to the ||Jewish state". An a non-Israeli I would ask the Israeli government to consider the effectiveness of its current strategy and to act in ways that serve the interests of all who live within the State of Israel. </p><p><b>The wider issue</b></p><p>There is a wider issue here. Understandably, Mr Harris is thinking in terms of how<i> Israel</i> defeats Hamas. I'm afraid I find that way of thinking too narrow - we should be thinking more in terms of how the international community can defeat the threat of Hamas. The military destruction of an entire terrorist group, especially one that is as well-funded and well-resourced as Hamas, is unrealistic. I suggested on 25th October that there were possibilities for isolating Hamas that could involve other nations, particularly in the Arab world. However, no-one is going to ally themselves with Israel's current assault on Gaza.</p><p>Isolating Hamas is the best course of action. It is quite clear that Netanyahu's government either fails to grasp this or has no idea how to achieve it. Only yesterday, <i><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/22/israel-wants-administrators-without-hamas-or-pa-links-to-run-gaza?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1708632593" target="_blank">The Guardian</a></i> reported that "Israeli officials have said they want to use local administrators without links to either Hamas or the Palestinian Authority to run Gaza, and will set up small scale trials of the scheme as soon as 'the right people step up to the plate'." That anyone thinks that would work, or be acceptable to Palestinian people, is laughable. One way to isolate Hamas is the emergence of another voice for Palestinian self-expression, which must necessarily come from within Palestine. This must happen in collaboration with Arab states, who may be uncomfortable with the growing power of Hamas on their doorsteps but feel unable to be seen openly supporting Israel. The question is how this can be achieved so long as those Palestinians who may have once had little truck with Hamas are understandably reluctant to be perceived as collaborators with Israel. </p><p>Israel's government seems determined to act in counter-productive fashion. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has called for tight restrictions on Muslim prayers including limiting the numbers of worshippers at the Al-Aqsa Mosque during Ramadan - the implication being that Israel is now at war with Islam. This proposal has been denounced by the <a href="https://www.spiritofthegalilee.org.il/?fbclid=IwAR3DkLxZYCqabek0c5n38JPCS-h-dbLFqS1xmSXGKc0HkToMh8BfnUAgouU" target="_blank">Spirit of Galilee</a>, an Israeli Jewish group that advocates religious pluralism and peaceful co-existence. In a statement the group has said: "The Muslim citizens of Israel are not enemies. We are all neighbors and partners. In the name of the spirit of Israeli unity, in the name of the basic human values of respect and solidarity, of 'Love your neighbor as yourself,' a doctrine at the foundation of the faith of all religions." Aside from the religious objections, it is stunning that Mr Ben-Gvir fails to appreciate the security implications of his proposal. <br /><br />Hamas will never be defeated so long as Benjamin Netanyahu is literally calling the shots. No Palestinian group will be willing to enter discussions with him; in any case Mr Netanyahu is reluctant to acknowledge any Palestinian group. It is this approach that has actually empowered Hamas and continues to do so.<br /><br /><b>The two-state solution</b><br /><br />There has been a lot of call for ceasefires, which will inevitably change little. What is more encouraging has been the re-emergence of discussions around a two-state solution. In recent years it seemed like there was little chance of this ever materialising in the near future, not least because the Israeli Prime Minister and his party are implacably opposed. Israel, naturally, refuses to countenance the idea while Hamas wants nothing other than the obliteration of Israel. But these intransigent, uncompromising perspectives are proving an obstacle to what most people want to see: a lasting peace. US President Joe Biden has been most vocal in calls for a resurrection of the two-state solution, but he is far from alone: many EU states, Arab leaders, Australia, Canada and even China support it. In the UK, the Liberal Democrats are committed to the two-state solution. Why? Because it is becoming apparent that the status quo is inviable and that no other "solution" is going to work.</p><p>There are obvious challenges to the two state solution, not least Prime Minister Netanyahu and the fact that Israel's offensive in Gaza has had the unfortunate effect of increasing support for Hamas in the West Bank. This has resulted in PA President Mahmood Abbas refusing to condemn Hamas's atrocities outright, which in turn has led to further mistrust between Palestinians and Israelis. Israel's plans for a post-Hamas Gaza, unsurprisingly look like a blueprint for endless occupation, meaning few Palestinians have any faith in being allowed to build a viable free state. </p><p>But there is hope. While Hamas's stock has increased in the West Bank this is not true in Gaza. The fact that Netanyahu is so opposed to PA involvement in Gaza means that, for the first time in many years, Palestinians see PA/Fatah oversight as a realistic alternative to Hamas rule. Also, the survival of the Netanyahu government is by no means assured and, in the aftermath of protests, there is a tantalising possibility of a new, altogether more moderate and pragmatic, government taking control. The likes of Benny Gantz, a former general and IDF chief who is now an opposition leader serving within the emergency war cabinet, may well be among the voices of reason in the coming months putting pressure on the incumbent Prime Minister. A realist and the most popular politicians in Israel at the moment, Gantz understands the importance of continued US support for IDF funding and that Israel cannot "defend itself" or "stand alone" indefinitely. He is a key figure in what will happen next and, while not commanding a majority in the Knesset, could well create major problems for Netanyahu if he reaches the point where he can no longer serve in cabinet. Next week's municipal elections may give the outside world a clearer idea of Israeli citizens' views and levels of support for Likud and opposition parties and could spell the beginning of the end for Netanyahu.<br /><br />Netanyahu's persistent rejection of the two-state solution has been guided by the need to shore up his right-wing coalition. But the political landscape is changing and Israel needs the US more than ever as it becomes more internationally isolated. The master of survival, Netanyahu will need to reach some kind of understanding with the US if he is to continue in office. <br /><br />The question of what happens in Gaza is central. Netanyahu's plan is a non-starter. Arab neighbours are not going to invest in the rebuilding of Gaza without guarantees of some kind of process by which Palestinian independence can be obtained. Israel cannot afford to rebuild while leaving a decimated Gaza in ruins will only guarantee Hamas' continued rule. With nowhere else to go, could Benjamin Netanyahu finally be persuaded it is in his own interests to pursue peace? </p><p><b>The end goal</b></p><p>So, how can Hamas be defeated? The most obvious way is through a peace process with the end goal a two-state solution. Paul Harris asserts that Israel must be allowed to complete the job, but which job is he referring to? If it is the destruction of Gaza, then no - Israel must be actively discouraged from further counter-productive actions. But if, as I understand, Mr Harris means the weakening and eventual elimination of the threat from Hamas, then I agree. Israel must pursue this - but it would be better advised to achieve this through means that are likely to prove effective.<br /><br />With or without Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel must finally realise that Hamas can only be eliminated not through an unending and brutal military conflict but a route to peace. This should not only establish the basis for a Palestinian state, but should also normalise relationships between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and potentially other Arab states. More calls for a two-state solution from the international community, including potentially a UN resolution that builds on <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-Nations-Resolution-181" target="_blank">Resolution 181</a> and <a href="https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/SCRes242%281967%29.pdf" target="_blank">Resolution 242</a>, could be far more effective than calls for ceasefires in bringing Israel to the realisation that it must change course.</p><p>Waiting for the war to burn itself out, at such a time when one or both sides are militarily exhausted, is not desirable not least because it could take several years to reach that point. What is needed is the spirit of cooperation, openness and acceptance embodied by the Spirit of Galilee. So far neither side is willing to make the necessary compromises but political realities - and the costs of continued military failure - may yet see a change of approach from the Israeli government, and possibly even a change of government. <br /><br />As Mr Harris states in his editorial, Hamas has behaved as anyone could have predicted. Hamas is Hamas, created for the sole purpose of eliminating Israel and hardly interested in either a two-state solution of multilateral peace talks. He is also right in that Israel is now being cast as the aggressor, which only serves the terrorist group. It didn't have to be this way and there is still a chance of turning the situation around and working towards an enduring peace, if only Israel comes to understand that its current strategy is doomed to failure. <br /><br />Israel has a choice to make - to work towards peace, which will undermine and sideline Hamas, or to continue on the path towards self-destruction. The two-state solution is arguably the best weapon for ridding the region of Hamas. The road to peace is difficult but with no viable alternative options, perhaps the two-state solution's time has finally arrived? <br /><br /><br /></p>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02027368242570244912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3952108899218764633.post-12993140455093716862024-02-21T16:36:00.004+00:002024-02-21T16:41:01.860+00:00Blessed are the peacemakers?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgV7cLHmrLpY2ti1pRcNCE8yF4mhlXA3yrA2XdRlMloaaFS13hlUCv-Oc5-dS3hjwaYOhh4Bcf_USknWjke3SwLqyCK_n3k-4n62LIAtjVhwfncYNNLpKTeyESzA2JuzdyttSef3iO2PUMMNJeU9sGOZ_sAzcC0jCth6iUVm2jihdNyMf8zK9FMzrMq6NM" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="520" data-original-width="1200" height="235" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgV7cLHmrLpY2ti1pRcNCE8yF4mhlXA3yrA2XdRlMloaaFS13hlUCv-Oc5-dS3hjwaYOhh4Bcf_USknWjke3SwLqyCK_n3k-4n62LIAtjVhwfncYNNLpKTeyESzA2JuzdyttSef3iO2PUMMNJeU9sGOZ_sAzcC0jCth6iUVm2jihdNyMf8zK9FMzrMq6NM=w542-h235" width="542" /></a></div><br /><br />Anyone watching business in the House of Commons this afternoon will have witnessed the undignified sight of the SNP, the Conservatives and the Labour Party using the plight of Gazan Palestinians to play an absurd game of political football.<br /><br />None of them come away with much credit from a charade in which party interests come before human rights. <div><br /></div><div>Oh, what a circus it's all been... but the bottom line is that what is happening in Gaza appears to be of secondary interest to the players at Westminster than the usual political games we have come to associate with Opposition Day Motions.</div><div><br />This is not a way to deal with such an important matter of life and death and it reflects badly on our democratic system.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, hasn't covered himself in glory either, parting from convention in order to seemingly placate Labour. The fact that such Parliamentary conventions are themselves outdated and unfit-for-purpose seems to have passed many by; the fact that protocol and process actively undermines authentic debate isn't something that we should be clamouring to uphold. But that's another issue. What's happened today is that arguments about process have taken up far too much time to the detriment of more important matters. <br /><br /></div><div>What I would say is that what we have seen today is shameful. Utterly shameful.<br /><br />Palestinians deserve better. <br /><br />UK Democracy deserves better.<br /><br />Issues around human rights deserve better.</div><div><br /></div><div>And, for me, the biggest disappointment is that the cause of peace in Israel-Palestine deserves better.</div><div><br /></div><div>"Blessed are the peacemakers" said a rather well-known 1st Century Palestinian Jew. There wasn't much evidence today that many of our elected representatives are too interested in peace, simply in themselves.</div><div><br /></div><div>Of course we all want a ceasefire. But what we must be striving for is a much greater prize - that of a lasting peace. It's not an easy thing to achieve, but any meaningful calls for ceasefire have to look beyond the present. This is why Layla Moran is absolutely correct to state that "immediate bilateral ceasefire without mention of two states and regional security risks freezing the conflict again". She is also correct to bemoan the likelihood that a lack of coordination leading to an immediate ceasefire being rejected.</div><div><br /></div><div>Let's be realistic - neither Hamas nor Israel's government are likely to take much notice of whatever Westminster decides. But these discussions and decisions can be useful in shaping our response to the escalating crisis, building a broader consensus and in facilitating possible routes to peace. An opportunity to do something genuinely worthwhile could easily be undermined by tribal politics.</div><div><br /></div><div>If we really care about peace, then perhaps we need to start talking about it. We need to think what it may look like. We need to consider a two-state solution. We need to engage with the questions of how to solve a problem like Hamas... and a problem like Netanyahu/Likud. We have to be advocating solutions that are practical, that involve other key players in the region. We also may want to think about how a ceasefire may open up possibilities for peace, and how opportunities created by any ceasefire should be used to work towards it. <br /><br />At the moment I see plenty of slogans but few ideas. For example, those who are happy to openly call for a "free Palestine" are a little coy when it comes to the detail of what a "free Palestine" may actually look like, and where Israel fits in. </div><div><br />It seems to me that many of our elected representatives are more concerned with being right - and being seen to be right - than with doing what is right. The tragedy is that this state of affairs serves no-one.</div><div><br /></div><div>That is not to say I can't find agreement with much of what has been said this afternoon. Just a few moment ago Kit Malthouse, not someone I always agree with, stated that there can be no military victory over Hamas and that every Israeli bomb is a recruiting sergeant for Hamas. How can we persuade Israel of the futility of its current self-defeating strategy? He said he despaired at "the UK [being] trapped in crazy battle of semantics" over the wording of the calls for a ceasefire, adding that voters "have no clue what we're doing any more".</div><div><br /></div><div>Mr Malthouse is absolutely correct. I understand that wording and process matter (I can fully understand why the SNP's motion, which does not mention the 7th October attack by Hamas, is problematic) but what is being discussed here is merely the basis for the first step towards peace. Surely it shouldn't be hard to find a way forward?</div><div><br /></div><div>I have no idea how Parliament will vote later today, but this is no way to handle this issue. </div><div><br /></div><div>So yes, like so many I want the violence to stop immediately. But unless we can follow that up with a coherent plan to pursue a lasting peace, it will simply be another wasted opportunity. And unless Parliament can get its act together and cease the infuriating games, why should anyone have faith in it to do anything - or be anything other than an out of touch place full of self-interested, self-serving people? </div><div><br /></div><div>"Blessed are the peacemakers?" If only we could find some. <br /><br /></div>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02027368242570244912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3952108899218764633.post-39473024325615054952024-02-20T19:28:00.004+00:002024-02-20T22:38:49.038+00:00There must be no room for antisemitism in the Lib Dems<p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg2GScrAnZrRnlN9svPXGrm2w2_5V7sly9HGaCBRFPvvfU8bQQWLiU3d6sRah0QKNLMys7Bx1LqiW40dJYOHhmrm2iTJKvYjevRs9b4TaeLI7Jb4gpERD5wrlg7BHzpqGgXqdNiMl4JJ6KvrLDGYtL3wjC_Bb-OQ0AhO3sGz0KDLj8UiUU06p_8X0Ew8YQ" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" data-original-height="540" data-original-width="960" height="296" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg2GScrAnZrRnlN9svPXGrm2w2_5V7sly9HGaCBRFPvvfU8bQQWLiU3d6sRah0QKNLMys7Bx1LqiW40dJYOHhmrm2iTJKvYjevRs9b4TaeLI7Jb4gpERD5wrlg7BHzpqGgXqdNiMl4JJ6KvrLDGYtL3wjC_Bb-OQ0AhO3sGz0KDLj8UiUU06p_8X0Ew8YQ=w526-h296" width="526" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">(Photo: Equaliteach)</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br />The preamble to the Liberal Democrats constitution reads: "The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity."<p></p><p>It shouldn't really be too contentious that a party with such beliefs and values would be opposed to racism, sexism, or other forms of discrimination.</p><p>And yet today it has been confirmed that a Lib Dem councillor - previously leader of the Lib Dem group on the local council and a former mayor - <a href="https://thestrayferret.co.uk/police-arrest-harrogate-councillor-pat-marsh/" target="_blank">has been arrested for anti-Semitic posts on twitter</a>.</p><p>I do not know Pat Marsh and my first reaction was to ask what she could possibly have written for the police to become involved. Her local newspaper did not publish the now-deleted tweets but fortunately others managed to capture them.</p><p><br /></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg2KiYGXceiC5TBMss9VtnJ6aHQ1Dj0ID3QSBGTP6RDkXLUD0qFched7TBoEW9IweXN0vJkJBqFmRAJSlGaStXPH-1heJERCwOgMEQo3ExD0ntyAZAIG9BWLWlSYMxSCxOsfF24R3QKuL1oUO19pX3xMmCC7zjuGQHERBxIuKHf1CJc0g7Mj1UCqtUNgkk" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="778" data-original-width="954" height="385" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg2KiYGXceiC5TBMss9VtnJ6aHQ1Dj0ID3QSBGTP6RDkXLUD0qFched7TBoEW9IweXN0vJkJBqFmRAJSlGaStXPH-1heJERCwOgMEQo3ExD0ntyAZAIG9BWLWlSYMxSCxOsfF24R3QKuL1oUO19pX3xMmCC7zjuGQHERBxIuKHf1CJc0g7Mj1UCqtUNgkk=w472-h385" width="472" /></a></div><br />There were more like this.<br /><br />Inevitably there have been the usual "free speech" advocates who see in this nothing more that a mild criticism of Israel's government. But most people recognise that a line is crossed when you accuse a group of people, especially one defined by either race or religion, for the actions of a few. <br /><br />Note that Cllr Marsh does not call out Benjamin Netanyahu or other Israeli political leaders. Instead she addresses her comments at "you Jews". There can be no excuses for calling Jews "a disgrace to the world" or "evil". Invoking the memory of the Holocaust is also not remotely helpful.<br /><br />Jewish people are, not surprisingly, as diverse a group as any other. They do not think alike. They do not all agree when it comes to politics. They don't share the same perspective on issues such as Zionism, the future of Palestine, Israel's current leadership (the anti-Netanyahu protests in the last year underline this) or the approach towards Hamas. <br /><br />To refer to any religious group as "evil" in and of itself is an expression of intolerance. I'll go further - it's an expression of hate. And this happened over a period of several weeks. <br /><br />Cllr Marsh isn't just someone having a rant on twitter. She is an elected representative who was the leader of the local council grouping. She was publishing her tweets as a representative of the party and as such she had a responsibility to be careful in how she expressed herself. I find it hard to believe that anyone with a modicum on understanding would realise that it is offensive - not to mention wrong - to talk about Jews in this fashion.<p></p><p>I have no time for those defending her. If she was referring to Israel's government then she should have mentioned it and criticised specific actions. She did no such thing. It is quite clear she aimed her comments at Jews and the best thing that can be said is that she is unable to separate Jewish people from the government of Israel in her thinking. <br /></p><p>I am pleased <a href="https://www.harrogateadvertiser.co.uk/news/politics/former-harrogate-mayor-and-liberal-democrat-councillor-suspended-over-series-of-antisemitic-comments-4524590" target="_blank">our party acted to suspend Cllr Marsh</a>. I cannot comment on the police involvement, but I will say that tweets of this nature not only risk bringing our party into disrepute but - more seriously - can seriously undermine and damage community relations between religious communities. I don't know what kind of Jewish community there is in Knaresborough, but at a time when many Jewish people are fearful of wearing a Star of David necklace in public or putting a mezuzah on their front door, anti-Semitism from elected representatives is irresponsible. <br /><br />The Lib Dems have done the right thing. As a spokesperson explained, "the minute we were aware, she was reported and suspended from the party and removed from the council group. This matter now rests with the police."</p><p>I am less pleased that Cllr Marsh appears not to have apologised and has simply vowed to continue to serve as an independent councillor. I suspect the standards board may have something to say about that. Demonstrating a total lack of insight, <a href="https://www.harrogateadvertiser.co.uk/news/politics/former-harrogate-mayor-and-liberal-democrat-councillor-pat-marsh-refuses-to-resign-following-antisemitism-row-4525604" target="_blank">she has denied that her tweets were in any way anti-Semitic</a>.</p><p>Cllr Marsh is reported to have said "all I want is peace". To which I can only respond by saying that making hateful statements online is not the way to achieve it. </p><p><br /></p>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02027368242570244912noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3952108899218764633.post-7805705184821356282024-01-10T17:45:00.010+00:002024-01-11T09:35:43.219+00:00The Post Office Scandal - The Scottish Dimension<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIUWreo7CH65dumuIajZbKO7tVhVHvNOOOXBtfVPNiAWG5KU-zEfzSKmhzEm3AuktlwxH-dcQCwgMAVOIMfiiH8xh-SFQb91k5dcBdCpFUbbJ2chBB2bb4xwDQ0Zo6GzkqAOVomMTtC6oX6CZTMDdQqruMSzYYtBUMAIfOPS2erz1YqHqozu23OiKoEyQ/s1024/justice.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="585" data-original-width="1024" height="298" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIUWreo7CH65dumuIajZbKO7tVhVHvNOOOXBtfVPNiAWG5KU-zEfzSKmhzEm3AuktlwxH-dcQCwgMAVOIMfiiH8xh-SFQb91k5dcBdCpFUbbJ2chBB2bb4xwDQ0Zo6GzkqAOVomMTtC6oX6CZTMDdQqruMSzYYtBUMAIfOPS2erz1YqHqozu23OiKoEyQ/w521-h298/justice.jpg" width="521" /></a></div><br /><br />If there is one think everyone in the UK is agreed upon at the moment it is that the Horizon scandal represents a terrible and devastating miscarriage of justice.<p></p><p>The ITV drama <i>Mr Bates v The Post Office</i> follows events through the experiences of Alan Bates, a a former sub-postmaster who identified problems with the Horizon IT system in the early days and later helped to create a campaign group to highlight both the nature and scale of the problem – as well as the impact it was having on so many innocent people.</p><p><i>Mr Bates v The Post Office</i> has touched on politics, as it should. In referencing a letter from Ed Davey to Mr Bates in which the then Lib Dem minister for Postal Affairs initially suggested a meeting would achieve little, the drama has led to several people unfairly targeting Mr Davey as somehow principally responsible for the appalling miscarriage of justice. As <a href="https://scottish-liberal.blogspot.com/2024/01/ed-davey-and-horizon-scandal.html" target="_blank">I explained in a previous piece</a>, that is simply unfair – and <a href="https://twitter.com/ShyamaliRodrig1/status/1744485367556743496" target="_blank">Mr Bates seems to agree</a>.</p><p>The ITV series, which still has two episodes to run, has spurred many influential people into overdue action. According to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/10/rishi-sunak-announces-plan-to-pass-law-quashing-horizon-post-office-scandal-convictions" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>, the Prime Minister has today announced “a plan to grant an unprecedented blanket acquittal for hundreds of post office operators wrongly convicted in the Horizon IT scandal”. This is an unprecedented step but, with every conviction looking decidedly unsafe and the process of revisiting convictions on an individual basis proving painfully slow, there is a certain amount of sense in legislating for blanket exoneration.</p><p>If parliament approves this legislation, as surely it will, the affected sub-postmasters will all have their convictions overturned by the end of this year. They will also be entitled to an agreed level of compensation.</p><p>My understanding, however, is that Rishi Sunak’s proposal will not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland, which have their own devolved responsibilities for justice. This brings me to the broader question of the issue of Scotland’s sub-postmasters wrongly convicted for fraud and theft.</p><p><b>We haven’t heard enough about the Scottish dimension. </b>ITV have focused on Mr Bates, Ed Davey and Paula Vennells, the Post Office Ltd’s CEO from 2012 to 2019. The drama has not considered the roles of other Post Office CEOs. It’s not really focused on Fujitsu’s failings, nor the failure of Ed Davey’s predecessors and successors to do anything meaningful (at least Mr Davey met with Mr Bates’ campaign group despite initial rejection). In looking at the issue through the experiences of one man, much of the bigger picture is lost. Crucially, it doesn’t tell us about the plight of the sub-postmasters based in Scotland who were prosecuted differently and under a completely different jurisdiction. </p><p>What <i>Mr Bates v The Post Office</i> does well is to highlight how easily the system of private prosecutions can be abused. There are huge questions about how, why and when private prosecutions should be brought in future because they have been shown to perpetuate <i>injustice</i> rather than justice. Over 700 sub-postmasters were privately prosecuted by Post Office Ltd, something that simply couldn’t happen in Scotland. While, technically speaking, private prosecutions can be brought in exceptional circumstances, there have only been two such instances in the last century.</p><p>The Post Office’s Horizon system was operational UK-wide, but as justice is a devolved issue the legal approach taken in Scotland was necessarily different. Consequently, the “lessons to be learned” and the questions that need to be asked are not necessarily the same ones that apply to individuals and bodies in England. </p><p>In Scotland approximately 100 prosecutions were brought by the procurators fiscal. Significantly, the procurator fiscal service is a Ministerial Department of the Scottish Government. It is also significant that all prosecutions in Scotland were public, and came under the oversight of Scotland’s justice ministers. </p><p>Last week SNP elected representatives, including Joanna Cherry, gleefully pointed the finger at Ed Davey and the Liberal Democrats. She tweeted: “With government comes responsibility. Lib Dems in the frame for fobbing off the victims of Post Office miscarriages of justice.” Another SNP activist told me that the spotlight on Ed Davey is justified because he is the only former responsible minister who now leads a political party. They would both have been better advised to turn their attentions closer to home because Scotland’s record is even more shameful, if that is possible. </p><p>Firstly, the absence of private prosecutions here means that cannot be used as a legitimate excuse for legal failures. The fact that prosecutions in Scotland were public meant that <b>the prosecutor had a responsibility to make clear that the individual on trial was not alone</b>, as they (and their legal advisors) were led to believe, but that there were several near-identical cases. Why were prosecutors not more honest and forthcoming? </p><p>Secondly, as <b>Scots law requires corroborated evidence</b> (a higher test than in England and Wales) why were so many of these prosecutions successful? It would appear that the sole source of alleged guilt was the Horizon system. Why was other evidence apparently not required? Was our legal and justice system undermined by a willingness to accept Post Office evidence as entirely trustworthy and reliable? With no obvious corroborated evidence, how did these cases even come to trial? Which IT specialists were offering evidence or advice? We need to know what evidence the procurators fiscal had available to them and, if they chose to proceed purely on the basis of Horizon records, why. We also need to know whether judges or sheriffs were biased towards believing a "respectable" organisation such as the Post Office and whether this affected outcomes. </p><p><b>In short, does the way prosecutions were managed in Scotland prove that our legal system is not only defective but entirely unfit for purpose?</b></p><p>Thirdly, unlike in England and Wales, it took until last year (2023) for the first wrongful conviction to be overturned. <b>Only two appeals have, to date, been successful.</b> Why is this? The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) has contacted 73 convicted sub-postmasters since 2020 – of 16 people who came forward only six have so far been allowed by the SCCRC to proceed to appeal. <b>Why the low uptake and why the low approval rate?</b> <b>There are clearly barriers to justice under the Scottish system – what are they?</b></p><p>Fourthly, no Scottish justice minister ever met with Mr Bates’ group, Justice for Sub-Postmasters Alliance (JFSA). Neither did Humza Yousaf, in his three years as justice minister, ever attend any meeting at all in relation to the horizon scandal – something confirmed by Conservative MSP Russell Findlay in <a href="https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/official-report/search-what-was-said-in-parliament/meeting-of-parliament-09-01-2024?meeting=15633&iob=133389" target="_blank">Topical Question Time</a> yesterday. This defies belief. </p><p>The cabinet secretary for justice and home affairs, Angela Constance, responded to Mr Findlay: “It is unfortunate that Mr Findlay has sought to overly politicise the matter when the problem has been in the making since 1999 and was caused by a UK-wide body—the Post Office—that has been scrutinised under reserved powers by successive UK Government ministers. He is correct in saying that the Post Office cannot prosecute in Scotland. Only the Crown Office, which is independent of politicians, can prosecute in Scotland. If the scandal shows us one thing, it is the value of having an independent prosecution system, not one in which a vested interest such as the Post Office is able to pursue prosecutions.”</p><p>Which on one level is perfectly reasonable. However, when justice ministers were involved in no meetings whatsoever at a time when the justice system has clearly failed innocent people, then it does call into question how much “scrutiny under reserved powers” is being carried out. It certainly makes SNP attacks on Ed Davey appear rather misplaced, and arguably hypocritical. If questions are to be asked of Ed Davey and other UK ministers (and I think they should be) then – for the sake of balance – other questions should also be asked of Cathy Jamieson, Kenny McAskill, Michael Matheson and Humza Yousaf. </p><p>I don’t for a moment suggest that these ministers were in any way responsible for implementing the Horizon system in the first instance. Neither do I accuse these ministers of collaborating with the Post Office or of being wilfully negligent, but I will say that gross miscarriages of justice occurred on their watch with the usual prosecutors’ responsibilities and requirements for corroborated evidence seemingly falling by the wayside. That is not a great look and should be of concern to anyone who cares about justice. At the very least, standards were not what they should have been. I'd go as far as to say this saga has fatally undermined any faith the public can have in the justice system.</p><p>Ms Constance’s response to Mr Findlay is also interesting for other reasons. She talks of “the value of having an independent prosecution system, not one in which a vested interest such as the Post Office is able to pursue prosecutions” and I’d love to agree, not least because that<i><b> is</b></i> a much better system. But the evidence of the Horizon convictions in Scotland is that <b>the outcomes were no better for Scottish sub-postmasters.</b> Indeed, even with an independent review commission (SCCRC), fewer appeals have been successful (2 out of approximately 100 convictions, or 2.0%) than in England and Wales (93 out of approximately 700, or 13.3%). </p><p>In the same debate, the SNP’s Fergus Ewing argued that “any conviction that resulted from the introduction of the flawed Horizon system must be unsafe and flawed and should be quashed” and urged the Scottish government to “work with the UK Government, [to] consider introducing emergency legislation, if necessary, so that the greatest miscarriage of justice of our time can be redressed”. Ms Constance responded by saying “we have an open mind about the best way forward”. </p><p>Rishi Sunak, for all his faults and failings, has at least committed himself to pursuing a particular outcome that would, if approved, ensure that sub-postmasters in England and Wales belatedly receive the justice they have been denied for so long. The Scottish government cannot afford to be non-committal or be playing “catch-up” to events in the rest of the UK.</p><p>Indeed, <b>Scottish politicians cannot wash their hands of responsibility for this miscarriage of justice.</b> Under Scots law, in Scottish courts and under an independent prosecution system, Scottish sub-postmasters who had become victims of Horizon’s failures fared no better than their English counterparts. The very system whose checks and balances should have ensured justice for the sub-postmasters instead failed 100 innocent people. I am afraid, unlike Angela Constance, I do not consider that to be a system I can take pride in. </p><p>In a sense there are two different scandals here. Both share a common root cause – the failure of the Horizon IT system and the aggressive and dishonest approach taken by the Post Office. But while in England and Wales the scandal is one of how private prosecutions allowed the Post Office to evade scrutiny, in Scotland the scandal is the failure of a supposedly independent and fair justice system. </p><p>As Fergus Ewing suggested, the first step for Scottish government is to commit itself to righting past wrongs. Given the lack of progress the SCCRC is making, it would seem reasonable to work with Westminster to ensure that the same outcomes applying to sub-postmasters in England and Wales will also be applied here in Scotland. </p><p>But that cannot be allowed to be the end of the matter. 100 Scottish sub-postmasters were let down by the very system that should have served them. Serious questions need to be asked of the Crown Office, the procurators fiscal, the judicial system itself and justice ministers. No stone should be left unturned in the quest to ensure there is no repeat of this shameful episode.</p><p>__________________________________________________________________________________</p><p>Update, 10.1.24<br /><br />Since writing this, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67926583" target="_blank">some additional relevant information</a> has come to light:<br /><br />* The Crown Office was first informed of possible issues in May 2013.<br /><br />* Kenny MacAskill, justice secretary in 2013, said that he had "no recollections" of any discussions with prosecutors or the Lord Advocate at the time.</p><p>Given the Crown Office was aware of problems in 2013, why did prosecutions continue? Why was the justice minister not made aware?</p><p>I also note that <span style="background-color: white; color: #141414; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: inherit; font-weight: inherit;">Deputy Crown Agent Kenny Donnelly said: "COPFS estimates up to 100 Scottish cases may be affected.</span><span style="color: #141414;">This is lower than in England and Wales due to COPFS policy decisions made in response to awareness of the Horizon system issues, and the fact that all cases in Scotland were prosecuted by the procurator fiscal under the application of Scots criminal law." This seems like a weak attempt to assert the superiority of Scotland's legal system over that of England and Wales. However, I am not sure I agree with his logic. As a proportion of the total number of sub-postmasters, I imagine 100 in Scotland is actually higher than the 700 in England and Wales. <a href="https://www.postalmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/12_Total_number_of_Post_Offices_since_1854.pdf">In 2010 there were 11,905 Post Offices in the UK</a>, of which <a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmscotaf/writev/postal/ps004.htm">1,446 were in Scotland</a> - it's not difficult to see the real reason why there were fewer prosecutions in Scotland. </span></p><p><span style="color: #141414;">Let's not spin this as somehow being a positive reflection on Scotland's justice system - it isn't. We need to own our failures, learn from them and address them. </span></p><p><br /></p><div><br /></div>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02027368242570244912noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3952108899218764633.post-22122959548324343652024-01-07T14:36:00.020+00:002024-01-08T00:14:14.890+00:00Ed Davey and the Horizon scandal<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggP4D4b3oVbaGjhbaFLIR5cv8k7q1GZTczvChBsHInX0tOHcDLVH2iwjd5m36ksjHp6tfJRMM2aTc2wFS5OeS8AcLiAG-gYmEDaOLj-YuHRvaRjL8n59Eigqxi7aSSGDCprmuuEK5lHDw29ajhkpbrg5XTuMDPb-lENmC8-u2fgWXUaA4o5XCthc0Yx50/s2048/davey.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1152" data-original-width="2048" height="291" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggP4D4b3oVbaGjhbaFLIR5cv8k7q1GZTczvChBsHInX0tOHcDLVH2iwjd5m36ksjHp6tfJRMM2aTc2wFS5OeS8AcLiAG-gYmEDaOLj-YuHRvaRjL8n59Eigqxi7aSSGDCprmuuEK5lHDw29ajhkpbrg5XTuMDPb-lENmC8-u2fgWXUaA4o5XCthc0Yx50/w516-h291/davey.jpg" width="516" /></a></div><br /><br />In the last few days the Lib Dem leader, Ed Davey, has been the focus of questions about his role in the Post Office Horizon scandal.<div><br /></div><div>ITV's drama <i>Mr Bates v The Post Office </i>has, unsurprisingly, led to the expressions of anger at the miscarriage of justice and the dishonesty of the Post Office. It has also, less understandably, resulted in a focus on Mr Davey - who has been portrayed by some news outlets as a useless minister who refused to meet Mr Bates and naively believed Post Office management. Others, such as Kelvin McKenzie, have gone so far as to say Davey's "refusal to meet Mr Bates makes him unsuitable for your vote". Today's <i>Sunday Times </i>accuses Mr Davey of "shrugging off warnings". <br /><br />Meanwhile, on social media, attacks from Labour and Conservative representatives and activists have become rather personal. The Daily Mail's Andrew Pierce has pointed out that Mr Davey worked for the same legal firm that represented the Post Office, with the implication being that his association with. Herbert Smith Freehills prevented him proactively supporting the sub-postmasters. Others suggest Mr Davey's inaction was responsible for the scandal that unfolded. .</div><div><br /></div><div>So, let's have a look at the facts.</div><div><br /></div><div>Alan Bates was a sub-postmaster who began asking questions about the Horizon IT system as early as 2000. <br /><br />In 2009 Bates helped to create the Justice for Sub-postmasters Alliance campaign group (JFSA).</div><div><br /></div><div>Bates and, later, JFSA sought meetings with government ministers to discuss their concerns. Several Labour ministers refused to meet with them from 2003 onwards.</div><div><br /></div><div>On 20th May 2010 Ed Davey was appointed Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs. On the day of the appointment, Mr Bates wrote to Mr Davey requesting a meeting - a response from Mr Davey stated: "the integrity of the Post Office Horizon system is an operational and contractual matter for Post Office Ltd. While I do appreciate your concerns and those of Alliance members, <i>I do not believe a meeting would serve any useful purpose</i>."</div><div><br /></div><div>Despite this apparent initial rejection Mr Davey did meet a representation from JFSA, which included Mr Bates, in October 2010. </div><div><br /></div><div>In response to that meeting, Mr Davey wrote to Mr Bates on 7th December 2010: "Following our meeting, the points you raised as chairman of JFSA are being followed up on my behalf by officials as part of our dialogue with the company. However, as I made clear at the meeting, neither I nor the Department can intervene in cases which are sub-justice or where court action had been determined, as in Mrs Misra's and Mrs Buffrey's cases." Mr Davey also emphasised he had reassurances from the Post Office in regards "the integrity of the Horizon system". </div><div><br /></div><div>Consequently, Mr Davey was the first minister on record to meet with Mr Bates and the JFSA.</div><div><br /></div><div>Lib Dem MPs, including Mr Davey, later called for a full, independent inquiry into the Horizon scandal. Conservative ministers were opposed to this.</div><div><br /></div><div>Adam Crozier, current chairman of the BT Group, served as chief executive of Post Office Ltd until 2010. It was under his watch that prosecutions of sub-postmasters began at an average of one per week. <br /><br /></div><div>Paula Vennells took over as chief executive of Post Office Ltd in 2012 and held the role until 2019. She continued the tactic of prosecuting sub-postmasters for fraud, false accounting and theft <i>despite increasing evidence suggesting the Horizon system was at fault</i>. She received a CBE in 2019 New Year Honours List for "services to the Post Office and to charity". </div><div><br /></div><div>In December 2019 the High Court awarded compensation to sub-postmasters amounting to £58million. Mr Justice Fraser criticised the Post Office's "institutional obstinacy", which he claimed amounted to "the 21st century equivalent of maintaining that the earth is flat".</div><div><br /></div><div>In response to that, here are a few of my views:</div><div><br /></div><div>Firstly, the Horizon scandal represents a terrible miscarriage of justice. It cannot be allowed to be repeated, and the lessons from the experience must be well and truly learned. </div><div><br /></div><div>Not one conviction is safe, and every sub-postmaster found guilty of fraud, theft or false accounting during this time should have their convictions overturned. </div><div><br /></div><div>The tragedy - and it<i> is</i> a tragedy for anyone on the receiving end of what was allowed to pass for justice - is not primarily a political one. I do think there are questions for successive ministers with responsibility for the Post Office to answer questions but this has to be with a view to establishing facts, what people knew, and what ministers were told. Questions should not be asked in an attempt to turn the scandal into a political football.</div><div><br /></div><div>Ed Davey is correct - ministers have no right to intervene in such cases. They are also accountable to government. But that wouldn't necessarily mean a meeting would be unhelpful, and clearly Mr Davey changed his mind at some point between May 2010 and October 2010. I agree with those who suggest Mr Davey was wrong to have refused a meeting in May, but if we're going to be critical on that point we also have to be critical of earlier Labour ministers and later Conservative ministers who also refused to meet with Mr Bates and the JFSA. <b>Labour do not get a free pass here.</b> Mr Bates was expressing his concerns for years and Mr Davey was the first minister to take the time to listen to him. Attempts to portray Mr Davey as somehow exceptional and uniquely obstructive are as dishonest as the Post Office's attempts to claim Horizon was a flawless and accurate system.</div><div><br /></div><div>Both Mr Bates and Mr Davey, albeit from different perspectives, have noted that Post Office Limited lied for years - to the public, to sub-postmasters, to the media, in the courts and to ministers. It is not surprising that successive ministers took seriously the advice of the civil service, which itself trusted the Post Office. This is not an excuse, but the wider context of how ministers work needs to be understood.</div><div><br /></div><div>As for the accusation that Mr Davey worked for the same legal firm that represented the Post Office - this is technically correct. But he worked as an advisor on environmental law. There is absolutely no reason why he should even be aware of the firm's other legal activities. I have worked with a firm of solicitors in relation to mental health law and know most of their mental health solicitors, but I don't involve myself with their civil and criminal work and wouldn't know who their clients were - and, due to confidentiality rules, neither should I. This is desperate stuff. </div><div><br /></div><div>It is curious that many of those who are outspokenly critical of Mr Davey are happy for Paula Vennells to retain her CBE. Whatever Mr Davey's mistakes as a minister - he admits he believed the Post Office, and regrets he didn't do more to help - he was not involved with bringing the prosecutions against sub-postmasters and was not in a position to prevent them. </div><div><br /></div><div>Ed Davey was certainly no worse than other ministers with responsibility for the Post Office, and arguably better because, despite his initial refusal; he<i> did</i> meet with Mr Bates and JFSA and listened to their concerns. Of course, with hindsight we can reasonably point out that more could -<i> and should</i> - have been done. But that criticism applies to countless others across all parties who took Post Office reassurances at face value.</div><div><br /></div><div>One of the by-products of the politically-motivated focus on Mr Davey is that it distracts from the real issues at stake. It is right that we should be angry, but that anger is best directed elsewhere. While there are some questions that Mr Davey and others should answer, there are far more pressing questions I'd like to ask Ms Vennells. I'd like to ask her about why she withheld evidence of Horizon's unreliability. I'd like to ask her about her tactics, which effectively amounted to bullying sub-postmasters into admitting wrongdoing. I'd like to know if she feels she deserves the millions paid to her in performance-related pay. I'd also like to ask her when she'll be handing back her CBE. </div><div><br /></div><div>I want to see justice for everyone affected and there's still some way to go on that score. It is positive that the ITV drama has raised public awareness, but that alone doesn't address injustice and neither do personal attacks on ministers. Instead, we need to investigate further (as is happening). It is not enough to compensate victims (even that process is overly-complicated and hampered by bureaucracy) but to ensure<b> every conviction is quashed</b> and those responsible for unnecessary human suffering are held accountable. To date only 93 convictions out of approximately 700 have been overturned and that simply isn't good enough. We need to know why things happened, and also whether those responsible acted illegally in misleading ministers and pursuing non-existent sums of money from innocent people.</div><div><br /></div><div>Personally, while I'm highly critical of Mr Crozier, Ms Vennells and Fujitsu (who created and developed the software) I also have criticisms of the legal profession and the lack of checks within the prosecution system. For example, one thing notable from the ITV drama was the way in which individual sub-postmasters believed they were alone. While we can blame Post Office dishonesty for that, it should also have been obvious to legal practitioners that a proliferation of cases against sub-postmasters was a significant development with equally significant implications. Why did HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) not find this unusual? Surely it didn't seem plausible that hundreds of sub-postmasters were turning to crime -<i> and the same type of crime </i>- at roughly the same time? Why was the prosecutor (the Post Office) not pressed by defence counsel or judges about similar cases? Why were Horizon records alone accepted as evidence to confirm fraud or theft given that any IT system can have its flaws and glitches? Why is it acceptable for the Post Office to act as prosecutor? Why, even after Horizon's failings have become public knowledge, is the appeals process being overseen by the Post Office - the very entity that caused the problem? There are serious questions to be asked of a justice system that found hundreds of innocent people guilty of the same non-crime. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>This isn't about Mr Davey, who held at best a relatively insignificant peripheral role. </b>He, his predecessors and his successors may have made mistakes, not least in believing what Post Office management and civil servants told them. Davey and other ministers, reassured by dishonesty from those they trusted, must have proved very frustrating for JFSA. I'm not going to defend them as such other than to say it's hypocritical for Labour to be pointing accusatory fingers, but let's not lose sight of the fact that real responsibility lies with Adam Crozier, Paula Vessells, Fujitsu and endemic corruption at the Post Office. Our anger would be better directed at those actually responsible, and to call for lasting changes to our legal and corporate practices to avoid a repeat of the scandal. </div><div><br /></div>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02027368242570244912noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3952108899218764633.post-64453050606404150182023-12-30T19:01:00.005+00:002023-12-30T19:01:49.221+00:00My predictions for 2024<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg55wcmu5c1asI_fazsVM_ia1YHfyfvbHfGPDB4Fv9elahJyAE6CmmRMz7lH3TpMaJmOJ8B13KhbR5dbM6sv1bszPl91bItRkBxCd_X7UfHODc2AmfjsnIN902CRnRITPMqg18bihx8Ek1Ms746RLpdNf-6zS81q8hUFmmLzWzCWj14q3KOAADbOmwa1_U/s822/2024.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="822" height="175" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg55wcmu5c1asI_fazsVM_ia1YHfyfvbHfGPDB4Fv9elahJyAE6CmmRMz7lH3TpMaJmOJ8B13KhbR5dbM6sv1bszPl91bItRkBxCd_X7UfHODc2AmfjsnIN902CRnRITPMqg18bihx8Ek1Ms746RLpdNf-6zS81q8hUFmmLzWzCWj14q3KOAADbOmwa1_U/w400-h175/2024.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />It’s that time of year again – when I make predictions for the coming year.<p></p><p>Unlike <a href="http://scottish-liberal.blogspot.com/2022/12/my-predictions-for-2023.html" target="_blank">this time last year</a>, I’m afraid I can’t indulge in any self-congratulation for what I correctly predicted. Yes, I forecast more “steady but unspectacular progress” for the Lib Dems, no real improvement for the Conservatives under Sunak, Dominic Raab resigning over bullying allegations and things not being “plain sailing” for an SNP with heightened “internal tensions” emerging. However, none of that will have been remotely surprising for anyone with any understanding of the political climate.</p><p>Similarly, my prediction about the state of US politics merely stated the obvious, as too did the projection that Celtic would be league champions. </p><p>One prediction I am quite proud of from last year is in relation to Poland: “Ultimately, the PiS will remain the largest party but without a majority, even with the support of its Zjednoczona Prawica (United Right) partners. A new centrist government will be the likely outcome, but it will be an uneasy alliance hampered by the worsening economic picture.” Well, that is exactly what has happened and Poland finally has a non-PIS government. I wish Poland every success as its new leadership tries to reverse the damaging effects of PiS rule.</p><p>What did I get wrong? Well, the result of the Czech presidential election didn’t go the way I predicted, although I am quite happy to have been wrong on that count. The East African economic union didn’t materialise. My expectation that Elon Musk would no longer be involved with twitter at the end of the year was clearly misplaced, There was obviously quite a lot I didn’t foresee, including the resignation of Nicola Sturgeon and the turmoil that would create. Neither did I predict the shocking events of 7th October in Israel nor Azerbaijan’s seizing of Nagorno-Karabakh (the social cleansing and lack of interest from the world media that followed were utterly depressing) – although in fairness I doubt many others did either.</p><p>So, what do I think will happen in 2024? </p><p><b>POLITICS</b></p><p><b>The Liberal Democrats</b></p><p>2024 is going to be a General Election year. How good will it be for the Lib Dems? </p><p>In all probability, it will be good enough for the leadership to claim credit for making progress, but not sufficiently good to silence critics who feel more could have been gained with a more positive and focused campaign. The party will do well in several formerly Conservative-held seats and will also pick up a few constituencies in Scotland, but will fare less well where Labour are stronger. </p><p>The Lib Dems will have a well-developed but unexciting policy platform, which won’t really matter in an election in which tactical voting to keep out the Conservatives reaches levels not seen since the Blair years. Lib Dems will finish with around 25 seats – a welcome return to 1992 levels - as Labour secure a landslide victory, picking up well over 400 seats with 42% of the vote.</p><p>Constituencies gained by the Lib Dems will include Guildford, Lewes, Taunton Deane, Eastleigh, Eastbourne, Hazel Grove and Dumbarton East.</p><p><b>The Conservative Party</b></p><p>Jeremy Hunt will unwisely use his budget to appeal to Conservative core voters, alienating others in the process. Expect a “giveaway” that includes inheritance and income tax cuts. Unfortunately for Hunt, the public won’t really feel the benefits of the budget immediately: despite falling inflation, consumer prices will remain high.</p><p>2024 will mark the end of the Conservative Party’s time in power – and the beginning of a descent into factionalism that will see the party rip itself apart in opposition. Rishi Sunak’s ineffective leadership will see the Conservatives faring even worse in a General Election than they did in 1997, taking less than 30% for the first time since... well, the emergence of party politics. Many high-profile sitting MPs will lose their seats, among them Lee Anderson, Tobias Ellwood, Iain Duncan Smith, Andrea Jenkyns, Penny Mordaunt, Esther McVey, Grant Shapps and Jacob Rees-Mogg. </p><p>Following catastrophic defeat in the General Election, Sunak will immediately step down as leader. With many would-be successors having lost their seats, Suella Braverman will emerge the winner in a leadership contest that will be, in many respects, a fight for the soul of the party. Hailed by Nigel Farage as “a great result for Britain”, Braverman’s election will merely serve to underline the membership’s decision to take the path into the political wilderness. </p><p>A small group of MPs, backed by a surprisingly large number of councillors, will propose a breakaway party to “reclaim Conservatism” from Braverman’s “neo-fascism”. Unfortunately its “leaders” will prove to be as inept as the government they served and their efforts will come to nothing.</p><p><b>The Labour Party</b></p><p>Labour will begin the year believing they don’t have to do much aside from take advantage of the Conservatives’ current predicament. And in that belief they will be absolutely right. </p><p>Labour will win the Wellingborough by-election in a contest that, like Mid Bedfordshire, will have them and the Lib Dems both offering themselves as the party best placed to “keep the Tories out”. The toxic campaign will set the tone for the coming General Election and make clear that Labour are uninterested in collaboration.</p><p>Keir Starmer will make no bold promises going into the General Election, not least because he has no need to. Preferring to be “all things to all people” and focused on highlighting the incumbent government’s ineptitude and inhumanity, Starmer will project the Labour Party as “ready for government”. Whether it is well-prepared to meet the challenges of rebuilding the country is another question entirely but, faced with the choice of a Starmer premiership or more of the same from Sunak & Co, most voters will decide change is better. </p><p>Labour will easily triumph in the General Election and will secure a result even more sensational than the one Tony Blair achieved in 1997. Corbynites will immediately disown it.</p><p>In Scotland, Labour will take several seats from the SNP including most of the Glasgow constituencies and several in the central belt. Labour won’t quite be back to the level of dominance in Scotland the party enjoyed in the late 1990s, but it will once again hold a majority of Scottish seats in Westminster. This will have been achieved in spite of rather unadventurous leadership, with Labour merely exploiting opponents’ weaknesses.</p><p>In London, Sadiq Khan will win the mayoral election despite significant backlash against ULEZ. </p><p><b>The Scottish National Party</b></p><p>2024 is going to be a difficult year for the SNP. Humza Yousaf, already not looking entirely convincing, will stumble from one crisis to another. His misfortunes will be caused mainly by events outwith his control, not least the inquiry into SNP finances. </p><p>Yousaf will come under fire for the SNP’s lacklustre performance in the General Election, in which the SNP will lose just over half of their Westminster seats. It will become abundantly clear that the SNP’s ascendancy in Scotland is over. An increasingly divided party will find itself in an existential crisis, especially when a couple of senior figures opt to join Alba. Yousaf will resign late in the year, opening the way for a leadership contest even more toxic than the last one – which Kate Forbes will win comfortably. </p><p><b>International</b></p><p>Russia will continue on the route to inevitable military disaster in Ukraine. The stalemate is unlikely to be broken in 2024, but the ongoing conflict will become embarrassing for Vladimir Putin. Several Russian officials will either disappear, eat something poisonous or fall out of windows in 2024. Putin will of course win the Presidential election with an implausibly large share of the vote. </p><p>Joe Biden, like Keir Starmer, knows that winning the presidential election is just a question of taking advantage of opponents’ predicaments. The question of whether Donald Trump can even stand in the election will dominate the political conversation, and the Republicans will find it impossible to unite around anyone. They will eventually settle on Ron De Santis – perhaps “settle” is too strong a word – who will lose, much to the delight of arch-Trump supporters. </p><p>What will happen in Israel? For many months, little will change due to the intransigence of Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas’s lack of interest in peace talks. In the rest of the world, it will become increasingly difficult to have a rational and nuanced conversation about the future of Israel-Palestine. Eventually, speaking from a position of weakness, Hamas will reluctantly agree to discussions; Netanyahu, under pressure domestically, will refuse any engagement with “the enemy” before sensationally quitting. With Netanyahu out of the way, the door will be open for conversations that may see some steps towards peace being made.</p><p>No-one will be talking about the genocide and social cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh, nor the 300,000 displaced victims of diplomatic failure. A peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia won’t be forthcoming either. </p><p>Poland’s new coalition government – despite being hampered by conservative president Andrzej Duda – will begin to implement a pragmatic centre-left package of reforms. This will include protecting the judiciary from political interference, although it will take time to reverse PiS appointments. The coalition will increase the minimum wage and child benefit payments and, while Duda is likely veto any steps towards increasing abortion rights and LGBTQ+ rights in the immediate future, political conversations around these issues will become more inclusive and acknowledge changing social attitudes. Expect a stronger EU-focus and economic improvement.</p><p>The Belgian federal election in June will result in current PM Alexander de Croo leaving office, but negotiating new power-sharing arrangements will prove very difficult. In Austria, the Freedom Party (FPÖ) will once again create the usual fears of “a far-right surge” without actually taking power – on this occasion the party’s pro-Russian stance and support for Covid conspiracies will limit its appeal to centrist voters. </p><p><b>FOOTBALL</b></p><p>All of a sudden it seems the Scottish Premiership has become interesting again. Actually, I’m not so sure it has, but at least it has become a contest between two teams. Celtic will win the league title by a single point, thanks to a late winner in a bad-tempered derby match. Another close-fought race in the Championship will see Dundee United eventually take the crown with Raith Rovers being promoted via the play-offs. League One and League Two will be won by Falkirk and Stenhousemuir respectively.</p><p>Rangers will win the Scottish Women’s Premier League with Celtic as runners up, the first time the “Old Firm” have taken the two stop spots. It will also be the first time since 2003 that Glasgow City have finished outside the top two – expect more of the same in future seasons. </p><p>In England, Aston Villa will; have a fantastic season but will finish up in fourth place. A strong performance from Manchester City in the final third of the season brings them into contention in a fascinating three-horse race that also includes Arsenal and Liverpool. Arsenal will emerge triumphant after a dramatic final day that sees the Gunners beat Everton 2-1.</p><p>The winners of the Championship, League One and League Two will be Leicester City, Portsmouth and Mansfield Town respectively. The Women’s Super League will be won by Chelsea.</p><p>The European Championship will see some surprise results – including Scotland earning a draw with Hungary and a win over Switzerland to move beyond the group stage. England will reach the semi-finals before losing to Croatia (again). The Croats will themselves be beaten by France in the final (again). </p><p><b>ELSEWHERE</b></p><p>The Church of England will move into the next stage of discussion about same-sex unions. These will, unfortunately, be of similar character to previous such conversations.</p><p>Nigel Farage and his Reform Party will poll reasonably well in the General Election without winning seats – essentially ensuring an even larger scale of victory for Labour. After years leading his various parties, Farage will become reconciled to the Conservative Party late in the year and will be offered a peerage in Rishi Sunak’s resignation honours list – much to Nadine Dorries’ fury.</p><p>An October General Election will really mess up everyone’s party conference plans. </p><p>Team GB will perform very well at the Olympics in Paris, finishing fourth in the overall medals table. </p><p>Under Elon Musk’s ownership, X/Twitter will be overtaken by Threads as the leading text-based social media platform. Musk will seek to sell X/Twitter, but it is clear to prospective buyers that the platform’s time is up. </p><p>2024 will be the year in which AI-generated media becomes a problem, especially as search engines will initially be unable to detect it. AI-generated content becoming more pervasive will create new opportunities for lawyers, however...</p><p><b>IN LIGHTER VEIN</b></p><p>An American actor is chosen to be the next James Bond. For some reason this will be incredibly controversial.</p><p>Douglas Ross will stun political observers when he sensationally steps down as leader of the Conservatives in Holyrood. The reasons for his decision will not be immediately obvious until video footage comes to light showing him calling fellow Tories “b*****ds” and “pr**ks” and complaining that he’s given up being a top referee “for this sh*tshow”. </p><p>GB News will change its name to GB Talk to avoid giving the impression that it is, in fact, a news channel. By the end of the year, mounting losses will see the channel become a subscription-only online “service” loved by some but ignored by most. </p><p>After losing all of its deposits in the 2023 General Election, Laurence Fox will deregister the Reclaim Party. Withdrawing from politics, he vows to establish a new charity to support vulnerable white males in the face of the “feminist agenda” and “general wokery”.</p><p>Mrs Brown’s Boys will surprise TV audiences when it broadcasts a genuinely funny episode.</p><p>UK rail services will remain awful and overpriced. </p><div><br /></div>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02027368242570244912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3952108899218764633.post-54998294015039480112023-10-30T19:04:00.009+00:002024-01-14T22:12:29.964+00:00What would a "Free Palestine" look like?<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi09cJ-isJ2e16U31NOvqVwXRc1PxiQZhCjhlw3aal3wAWuy46hD7MkPGpNNtzV6abbyxz8ZZFHQ11bxu1ELKDjF-x7ffJGLdiRlT_QukJxPZQsfJDP6VyNhAplP6hLRR53SVaanfOnUyIRIHckbLaoW2TZoLJ493Ep7vsYBTnrYpaQzAci7azbs2n2EeM/s738/palestine.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="432" data-original-width="738" height="276" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi09cJ-isJ2e16U31NOvqVwXRc1PxiQZhCjhlw3aal3wAWuy46hD7MkPGpNNtzV6abbyxz8ZZFHQ11bxu1ELKDjF-x7ffJGLdiRlT_QukJxPZQsfJDP6VyNhAplP6hLRR53SVaanfOnUyIRIHckbLaoW2TZoLJ493Ep7vsYBTnrYpaQzAci7azbs2n2EeM/w472-h276/palestine.jpg" width="472" /></a></div><br />In recent weeks there has naturally been what I’ll diplomatically call a lot of talk about “Free Palestine”.<p></p><p>Most of this rhetoric is quite clear in one thing: Palestine must be free from Israel. But, aside from that, there is no clear narrative around what a Free Palestine would look like, what it would mean in practical terms for Palestinians, Israelis and geopolitics, or what kind of Palestinian state is being advocated.</p><p>The complete absence of any clear vision for Palestine means it’s very difficult to know what is being called for, other than an end to the status quo (which can be a useful start with any protest). But it matters because there are competing visions out there, with very different ideas of what a future Palestinian state should be.</p><p>Let’s start with Hamas. There’s no equivocation there: Hamas exists to eliminate the State of Israel and replace it with an Islamic state. What Hamas intends to do with the 6.8million Jews who live in Israel is left to our imagination. Uprooting almost 7 million Jews to give land “back” to Palestinians while creating a new Islamic state in the image of Hamas’s fundamentalism is a recipe for disaster that any progressive “pro-Palestinians” should wish to avoid – and that’s if we accept the more optimistic interpretation of Hamas’s intentions.</p><p>The Palestine Hamas desires would make Saudi Arabia look like a haven of Liberalism by comparison. “Pro-Palestinians” who criticise Israel’s human rights record and accuse it of apartheid would presumably have no wish to replace Israel with an Islamic apartheid state with even less enlightened attitudes towards human rights.</p><p>So, if we’re not so keen on Hamas’s worldview, what about the Free Palestine Movement? Much newer than Hamas, the FPM emerged around 2003 and, similarly, opposes the existence of Israel. It also supports Bashar al-Assad and the Ba’ath Party is Syria. Its leader, Yasser Qashlaq, is happy to express his views on Jews, who he describes as "dregs of European garbage", a "gang of criminal murderers", and "human pieces of filth". He does have a clear idea about what should happen to Jews when Israel is finally eradicated – deport them all to Europe. I very much doubt he’s given much thought to how that will work in practice. </p><p>Previously active in Gaza, as it has turned its attentions towards military involvement in Syria the FPM now has very little presence in Palestine and is based in Damascus. It therefore has limited scope for influence in the current situation, although its essential belief that the elimination of Israel is necessary before any Palestinian state can be created sadly appears to be gaining traction. </p><p>Next, there is the<i> other </i>Free Palestine Movement. Yes, there is more than one – this one is based in the US and is an accredited NGO on the United Nations. Unsurprisingly, this FPM is a very different entity and exists to “defend and advocate for the human rights of all Palestinians, and in particular the right of access to all of Palestine”. That sounds altogether more reasonable, as does its mission to “challenge Israeli policies and actions that deny Palestinians their human rights”. So, a positive start – but what vision does this organisation have for a future “Free Palestine”?</p><p>Apparently, none. Its <a href="https://freepalestinemovement.org/points-of-unity/" target="_blank">Points of Unity</a>, published on its website, recognises various rights including “the right of all refugees and exiles and their heirs to return to their homes in Israel and all territories occupied by Israel; to recover their properties, and to receive compensation for damage, dispossession and unlawful use of such property.” But on the question of what a Free Palestine might actually look like, the organisation refuses to be drawn – a bit odd considering its name. All it will say is that it “adhere[s] to the principle of Palestinian oversight, that whatever we do must respect Palestinian will, and in particular the Palestinians directly affected by our work”.</p><p>Positively, it agrees to “the principles of nonviolence and nonviolent resistance in word and deed at all times” but it’s hard not to feel that its lack of any kind of firm vision for a “Free Palestine” helps create a vacuum that the likes of Hamas are willing to fill.</p><p>A British organisation, the <a href="https://palestinecampaign.org/" target="_blank">Palestine Solidarity Campaign</a>, was established 40 years ago and similarly exists to champion human rights. It patrons include - <i>ahem!</i> - former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. A look at its website will tell you that the PSC believes in the rights of return and self-determination, but again lacks any kinds of insight into what its version of a "free Palestine"might be other than general references to "democratic rights and social justice". (As an aside, the PSC states that it does not support a particular political party in Palestine - given the fact that there are only two parties of any real significance, Hamas and Fatah, that statement is somewhat concerning.) <br /><br />You'd think somebody somewhere would have a clear and definite idea about not only what freedom should look like but the processes needed to get there. I have searched the websites of other UK-based pro-Palestine organisations without success - it's as if "Free Palestine" is a mere mantra.</p><p>So, what about Fatah? Fatah is an interesting organisation, which is much stronger in the West Bank than in Gaza. Fatah has been around since the 1950s and its founder members included a young Yasser Arafat. It has a colourful history that is worth looking into for wider context, but which I won’t consider here. </p><p>Since renouncing terrorism in 1988, Fatah has become a social democratic Islamic party that successfully nominated Mahmood Abbas to the presidency of the Palestinian Authority in 2005. The party also did reasonably well in the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, securing over 41% of the vote and finishing in second place (behind Hamas). However, since then internal splits, accusations of corruption and an archaic structure have combined to weaken its appeal and arguably the absence of further elections since 2006 is the only reason why Hamas has not been able to capitalise on that weakness. Animosity between Fatah and Hamas (Hamas effectively pushed Fatah out of Gaza and have consistently sought to undermine them in the West Bank) has kept Palestinian opposition to Israel divided, with Fatah preferring the option of diplomacy rather than armed struggle. It is currently a member of Socialist International and has observer status within the Party of European Socialists, demonstrating a degree of respect on the international scene.</p><p>So, what are Fatah’s hopes for a future Palestine? I'm not going to suggest Fatah is a group of moderates but – unlike Hamas – it <i>does</i> recognise Israel’s right to exist, although it wants to revert to the 1967 borders. It does not believe in the legitimacy of Hamas’s approach. To all intents and purposes, Fatah advocates a two-state solution and sees any future Palestinian state as existing alongside an Israeli state. As members of the PLO, Fatah supports the settlement as outlined in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords" target="_blank">the 1993 Oslo Accords</a>. That much is positive.</p><p>Those of us who depend on the UK news media would be forgiven for not knowing that Fatah exists, with most reporting framing the narrative in Hamas's terms. And yet, Fatah remains a significant player in Palestine – and could potentially see its stock rise if Hamas is either militarily defeated or loses support among its base. Fatah is likely to have a role to play in determining future outcomes and perhaps it is time for the outside world to listen. An obvious advantage in engaging positively with Fatah would be to marginalise Hamas, especially if the Arab world recognises Fatah as the Palestinian organisation best placed to achieve a lasting peaceful outcome.</p><p>And what of Israeli perspectives? Netanyahu’s Likud party has historically opposed Palestinian statehood and has no interest in revisiting the peace process, preferring to keep Palestine divided. <a href="https://yeshatid.org.il/" target="_blank">Yesh Atid</a> – Israel’s main opposition party – is an observer member of Liberal International and, by comparison with Likud, has more moderate positions of economic and security matters. More importantly, it wishes to re-enter peace talks: its leader, former Prime Minister Yair Lapid, has talked of “the need to work with the Arab world and the international community to create a new leadership in Gaza, which will likely include the Palestinian Authority.” But once again there is a frustrating lack of detail as to what exactly he and his party are working towards and Lapid has previously <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/lapid-charms-the-lefties-at-nys-92nd-street-y/" target="_blank">summarised his position</a> in very general terms as "not looking for a happy marriage with the Palestinians but for a divorce agreement we can live with". On the plus side, he is at least determined to "reach out and try to find a working compromise" and sees possibilities in a two-state solution, albeit with somewhat different views to Fatah on how it would work in practice.<br /><br />With the policy of dividing the Palestinian parties having yielded terrifying results, both Likud and YA are committed to displacing Hamas – potentially opening the doors to talks with Fatah (by default the only sizeable Palestinian party remaining). Such common ground as exists between Fatah and YA could at least provide the starting point for meaningful and productive dialogue. </p><p>Are there any other expressed visions of what a Palestinian state could look like? Well, yes – various academics, politicos and think tanks have their own views. But, frankly, no-one is listening to them. It seems to me that anyone who desires a “Free Palestine” must support either the Hamas model or the Fatah/PLO model – there are no other relevant players. For “Free Palestine” to become more than a slogan or a fantasy it needs to develop into a coherent policy, supported by a plan through which to achieve it.</p><p>Sadly, many of those advocating for “free Palestine” are not making the distinction between the competing visions. What does “freeing Palestine” actually mean? My guess it is means very different things to different people. To some, it means the total eradication of Israel. For others, it implies the mass murder of Jews on a scale far worse than what occurred on Simchat Torah. Lest anyone thinks I am exaggerating, I personally have seen “pro-Palestinian” protesters carrying banners unequivocally calling for the genocide of Jews. That they are a minority voice within such demonstrations is true, but the inescapable fact is they are not afraid to express their hate and intolerance.</p><p>Others will support a two-state solution while there may be many who, like the US-based FPM, have no clear idea and simply wish to delegate any such decisions to the Palestinian people. The difficulty with the latter approach is that it fails to take account of the fact that no decisions can be made with, by, or about Palestine without having an effect on Israel; it also fails to ask what happens if Palestinians use democracy to smash democracy by supporting Hamas’s vision of the future. </p><p>Still others will perhaps not have engaged at all with the question of what a “Free Palestine” means in practical terms, focusing instead on immediate questions of rights and social justice. For many, “free Palestine" is an emotional cause or a general aspiration rather than a clear, rational policy. They cannot see beyond current concerns, as if the detail is somehow irrelevant and can be left for a future time.</p><p>But it matters. And it matters because if Palestine is to be “free” we have to have a clear idea of what that freedom should look like. I desire a Palestine in which Palestinians are free from the terror of Hamas, an organisation content not only to undermine the PLO and Fatah – and with them any hopes of a peace settlement – but also carry out mass murders. A free Palestine must be free from the kind of tyranny with which Hamas has governed Gaza in recent years. I desire a Palestine in which Palestinians are free from the destructive effect of Netanyahu/Likud policy. I hope for a Palestine in which Palestinians can take their future into their own hands - they deserve better than either Israeli occupation or Hamas rule. I want to see a settlement in which Palestinians and Israelis live in peace, respecting each others’ cultures and recognising each others’ states. </p><p>That simply won’t happen if Hamas gets its way. Palestine under Hamas would be anything but free. Whatever we may think about the rights and wrongs of the establishment of the State of Israel, simply dissolving it and replacing it with a fundamentalist Islamic state would represent a strange kind of “freedom”. </p><p>A “Free Palestine” has to become more than either the delusional dream of European leftists or the aspiration of Islamic fanaticism. Palestine will be free when the cycle of suspicion, intolerance and distrust in finally broken. Palestine will be free when both nations work together to construct a more humane world. I look forward to the creation of a Palestine that not only exists alongside Israel, but has positive, normalised, relations with it. I look forward to a Palestine based on human rights and respect for all. </p><p>If we're talking seriously about a "Free Palestine" then our conversations have to move beyond criticisms of Israel, Instead, they must address questions of democracy, human rights and freedom of religion - and perhaps even the kinds of relationships it will have with neighbouring states.</p><p>For an authentically "Free Palestine" to materialise, Hamas must be defeated. Whatever the eventual success or otherwise of Israel's military operations, Hamas's influence will not be ended by military means alone. A political problem requires political solutions. Those who care about the freedom of the Palestinian people must support a plan for a peaceful settlement and a route to achieving it, supporting the players most committed to making it happen.. </p><div>A “Free Palestine” is indeed something worth aspiring to. It will take significant changes in both Israel and the Palestinian territories (not least in terms of the personnel in charge) but another world is possible – a world in which Palestinians and Israelis can be partners in peace. </div>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02027368242570244912noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3952108899218764633.post-77430794892424085972023-10-25T17:07:00.010+01:002023-10-25T22:08:09.585+01:00How do you solve a problem like Hamas?<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh7xpsbfnL2zm6gDSih-nIG_Kpd6fpBjZIt0oNIsXkuRuTpdxJDJzf7rja3uLsld0ETD3Gos8uz2v1ADkG2COosleQd8Vv36oBNxzGplbT655nXbmtCSxtwBGsxXkS09Z5D4Cl4mqR8Y-phwkZU3Iwwhl6YsQRKrfprSvhk033gLGVaUZtQDkDUXIkoQGo" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="640" height="259" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh7xpsbfnL2zm6gDSih-nIG_Kpd6fpBjZIt0oNIsXkuRuTpdxJDJzf7rja3uLsld0ETD3Gos8uz2v1ADkG2COosleQd8Vv36oBNxzGplbT655nXbmtCSxtwBGsxXkS09Z5D4Cl4mqR8Y-phwkZU3Iwwhl6YsQRKrfprSvhk033gLGVaUZtQDkDUXIkoQGo=w460-h259" width="460" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;">(Photo: BBC)</div><p><br /></p>I have previously written of my horror at the events of 7th October and the need for calm heads rather than emotive responses (<a href="http://scottish-liberal.blogspot.com/2023/10/we-need-calls-for-calm-not-war.html" target="_blank">We Need Calls For Calm, Not War</a>) but in a short time the situation has – both regrettably and predictably – escalated significantly. <p></p><p>And so I turn my attentions to a slightly different question that perhaps isn’t being asked sufficiently as opinion on complex historical, political, religious and social questions descends into simple binary thinking. It is not enough to “stand” with one side or the other, amplifying prejudices and grievances. Instead, anyone who desires a lasting peace in the area (or any kind of peace at all) needs to be seeking solutions, however improbable that seems at the moment. </p><p>The question I have been asking is this: <i>how do you solve a problem like Hamas? </i></p><p>The first thing I will say is that question isn’t intended to suggest Hamas is entirely, or even principally, responsible for the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian issue. After all, Hamas was only created in 1987 and there have been so many other influences on events. However, what cannot be denied is that Hamas are now central to those events and no solution will be possible without involving them in one way or another. There are of course three generalised approaches to Hamas – first, that of Israel, which aims to eradicate it; secondly, to support it as a band of freedom fighters struggling for the freedoms of Palestinians; thirdly, to bring Hamas into talks about ceasefires and, moving forward, plans for longer-term peace.</p><p>All of those approaches are flawed for various reasons, but at least the latter acknowledges that no peace is possible without Hamas being either eliminated (highly improbable) or convinced to put aside the aims as stated in the <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp#:~:text=Article%20Thirteen%3A&text=Abusing%20any%20part%20of%20Palestine,over%20their%20homeland%20they%20fight) (equally unlikely in the current political climate" target="_blank">Hamas Covenant</a> (equally unlikely).</p><p>So, how<i><b> do</b></i> you solve a problem like Hamas?</p><p><b>Firstly, it must be recognised that Hamas is a problem. </b>Now, I’m not suggesting that Hamas is the only problem in Israel-Palestine, but I think we should all be able to acknowledge that the kinds of unspeakable atrocities that occurred on 7th October constitute crimes against humanity. If we can’t accept that, then perhaps we are part of the problem. Simchat Torah 2023 was arguably the worst day for nation of Israel since its formation and if we cannot feel some degree of empathy with Hamas's victims then we are tacitly supporting terrorist activity.</p><p>It must be acknowledged that Hamas’s very identity is part of the problem. Admittedly, Hamas is a problem that the State of Israel has helped to create (it was actually formed with Israeli encouragement to counter the PLO) but we need to recognise what Hamas is – <i>and what it is no</i>t. Hamas – or, to give it its full title, Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya (Islamic Resistance Movement) – is not a liberation organisation for Palestinians, but a jihadist movement. Its covenant, or founding charter, opposes the “secularism” of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), sees anti-Israel resistance as the responsibility of every Muslim (“In [the] face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.”) and views the complete destruction of Israel as necessary before a Palestinian state can be created. Tellingly, Article 13 states the belief that “there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad” and that negotiated settlements are simply impossible – so talk of two-state solutions and peace processes aren’t likely to get very far with Hamas. </p><p>Hamas have been nothing other than consistent with their stated philosophy over the last 35 years. The Hamas Covenant’s anti-Jewish nature is obvious; while not surprising, these are the words or religious fanatics, not an organisation focused on the humanitarian rights and living standards of Palestinians. Hamas is not merely a political organisation fighting a political battle.</p><p>It has been concerning to see many who understandably identify with the Palestinian cause either excuse or legitimise Hamas’s shameful actions. The irony that many who rightly criticise Israel’s government for its human rights abuses now offer support to an organisation that exists to create its own apartheid state is stunning. I am a believer in Palestinian freedom, but my idea of what that should look like is very different to Hamas’s. </p><p>Hamas is not officially recognised by Arab nations. While support for the Palestinian cause runs high, few (aside from Qatar) are happy to back Hamas. Jordan, Egypt and even Saudi Arabia have been content in recent weeks to reiterate criticisms of Israeli policies towards Palestinians but have stopped well short of offering anything resembling support to Hamas – perhaps due to domestic fears of the threats posed by Hamas-sympathetic opposition groups. Bahrain and the UAE have gone so far as to condemn Hamas’s attacks on civilians. It is worth noting that the Arab League recognises the PLO – <i>not Hamas </i>– as “the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people”. </p><p>While tensions have escalated, talks aimed at normalising relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel have stalled (Hamas’s attacks may well have been aimed at disrupting these talks). The former – while understanding the need to demonstrate its pro-Palestine credentials – is clearly uneasy about openly supporting a terrorist organisation.</p><p>And that’s the point – Hamas<i><b> is</b></i> a terrorist organisation. Saudi Arabia understands this. Egypt and Jordan understand this, so does the PLO. No doubt many people living in Gaza and the West Bank (where Hamas has been actively undermining the Palestinian Authority and its ageing president, Mahmood Abbas) understand this too.</p><p>The first step to resolving the problem of Hamas is to understand its nature. Too many of us, especially in “the West”, want to reinvent them as freedom fighters for a cause we believe in, naturally sharing our aims and values. It would be difficult to see an organisation less committed to creating the kind of state so many Western pro-Palestinians want to see.</p><p>So, if we’ve got past point 1 and recognised that Hamas is a problem, what next? How do we go about actually solving that problem?</p><p><b>The way to deal with Hamas is NOT to respond as Israel has done.</b> Israel has acted entirely predictably, but not in the interests of Palestinians or even Israeli security. It is understandable that Israel wants to ensure that Hamas will never again be able to mount the kind of attack it did almost four weeks ago, but how is it possible to neutralise such a threat? </p><p>As I pointed out in my previous piece, actions against innocent civilians that cause disproportionate human suffering will only strengthen Hamas and any “solution” achieved purely through the use of force is likely to be counter-productive: kill one terrorist and three more will rise up in their place. While ousted from power, the Taliban was not wiped out out by a much better-equipped military operation and is now back in power in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda has similarly far from disappeared. Extremist ideologies cannot simply be countered through the use of military force.</p><p>Of course, Israel is part of the problem too on multiple levels – <i>but it at least has an opportunity here to also demonstrate its willingness to be part of the solution</i>. Sadly, Benjamin Netanyahu is no Yitzhak Rabin. What Israel could have done in the aftermath of Hamas’s atrocities is to seek international co-operation and put some pressure on Arab nations to take responsibility for resolving the conflict. Saudi Arabia, for example, may be understandably keen to express its support for Palestine but economic pragmatism means it won’t want to keep a deal with Israel off the table for too long. A worsening of tensions is in no-one’s interests other than Hamas – and its fundamentalist allies in Arab states. The likes of Saudi Arabia would have the religious authority to counter the claims made my Hamas that its actions are sanctioned by Allah. </p><p>Countering shocking human rights abuses in Israel with the creation of a humanitarian crisis in Gaza is not acceptable. Just as I will call out Hamas as terrorists, so too am I willing to state that Israel is breaching international law in its blockade of Gaza. It is also totally counter-productive: even if Israel was successful in killing every member of Hamas, the human cost would be enormous. Would Palestinians thank their “liberators”? Israel has to develop a policy that will help it contribute to the peace, and that surely involves improving rights and conditions for Palestinians. The best way to neutralise support for Hamas isn’t through a brutal military response that harms civilians disproportionately, but by addressing grievances and injustices.</p><p>The US supports Israel’s right “to go after Hamas leadership”, but how is this realistically achievable through action in Gaza? This approach is flawed precisely because much of Hamas’s leadership is not actually in Gaza: Hamas is not a Gazan people’s army but a jihadist network. Ismail Haniyeh, chair of Hamas’s political bureau, is known to be in Qatar. Other leaders are in Turkey, protected by Recce Tayyip Erdogan <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/turkeys-erdogan-says-hamas-is-not-terrorist-organisation-2023-10-25/#:~:text=ANKARA%2C%20Oct%2025%20(Reuters),protect%20Palestinian%20lands%20and%20people" target="_blank">who denies Hamas is a terrorist organisation.</a> Violations of international law against the people of Gaza are only going to strengthen the position of Hamas’s leaders living safely abroad, not weaken them.</p><p>The Israeli government has played directly into Hamas’s hands. The mission to “eliminate Hamas” may have bought Netanyahu some political time but it will not achieve its stated aims. Just as the “war on terror” didn’t create a safer world and only helped to birth Islamic State (ISIS), the war on Hamas is doomed to failure. Israel has a right to defend itself, but any defence surely has to improve rather than reduce Israel’s security? Already it’s looking more like a war on Gaza than a war on Hamas, and that is because the Netanyahu government has no idea how to deal with the latter.</p><p>Hamas’s attacks on 7th October were so inhuman that they were clearly designed to force Israel into a response. A desire for revenge was understandable. But, in pursuing it, the danger is that Israel gives Hamas everything it wants. The death toll in Gaza is already helping them win the PR war, while establishing them – and not the PLO or Fatah (a social democratic Palestinian national movement) – as the "true" Palestinian resistance. </p><p><b>Which brings me to my third observation on how to defeat Hamas – stop funding them.</b> It’s quite simple isn’t it? Well, no – not really. But the point is pretty straightforward to understand.</p><p>Hamas is well funded by Iran and Qatar. Quite how well-funded is difficult to establish, although the Iranian contribution is estimated to amount to “tens of millions” annually. Qatar appears to have made even larger donation on the supposed basis of providing humanitarian relief to Gaza. This funding actually passes through Israel. </p><p>Is that surprising? It shouldn’t be. Israel has for many years been an enabler of Hamas and Netanyahu has helped build up the organisation. Israel has done nothing to stop the flow of cash (and crypto) to Hamas. Just as Israel encouraged the development of Hamas to challenge the PLO in the late 1980s, in recent years Netanyahu has been keen to set Hamas (strong in Gaza) and Fatah (strong in the West Bank) against each other. This has ensured a divided Palestine, meaning there is no realistic prospect of either a Palestinian state or a return to peace talks. Hamas has been allowed to rule over Gaza unchallenged since it ousted the Palestinian Authority 16 years ago – why? </p><p>As <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/20/benjamin-netanyahu-hamas-israel-prime-minister " target="_blank">Jonathan Freedland</a> made clear in a <i>Guardian</i> piece last week, “none of this was a secret”. Netanyahu remarked at a Likud Party meeting in 2019: “Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas … This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” Israel has intentionally propped up Hamas for years.</p><p>If Israel’s strategy to divide Palestine makes some sense, it inevitably had potential consequences that Netanyahu should have foreseen. In strengthening Hamas, he has weakened not only other Palestinian groups but Israel. Put simply, Netanyahu’s policy has been a catastrophic failure with an unimaginable human cost. </p><p>Netanyahu is completely wrong – those who have the security interests of Israel at heart must oppose bolstering Hamas and transferring money to them. Most Arab states won’t do it. It’s the modern equivalent of paying <i>danegeld</i>, with sadly similar results.</p><p><b>So, my fourth point is this – if you want to solve the problem that is Hamas, the divide and conquer approach must cease.</b> It has self-evidently failed and those behind this policy now have blood on their hands. It is time to do things differently. </p><p><b>My fifth suggestion is that there needs to be a change of government in Israel. </b>Netanyahu has failed. “Mr Security” not only failed to keep Israel secure, his policies have led to exactly where we are now. He has to take responsibility and, ideally, resign. Failing that, he must be ousted. The current war with Hamas has given the Israeli Prime Minister some relief from significant ongoing protests, but the conflict is no reason for him to remain in office. On the contrary, it is a good reason to see him removed. Netanyahu has brought Israel to this point and has no answers to the problems created by his failings of leadership.</p><p>The cycle of violence has to be ended and Netanyahu isn’t going to do that. He’s also been drawn into playing this according to Hamas’s rules. As such, he cannot be part of the solution. </p><p><b>Finally, the Arab world needs to step up.</b> Cautious words are useful, but they are no substitute for a plan of action. Supporters of Palestine can ill-afford for the Palestinian cause to be hijacked by Hamas. Rather than simply refuse to openly support Hamas, it’s time that more followed the lead of Bahrain and the UAE in calling out their terrorism. Once Hamas realises it is isolated – and <i>only</i> when that happens – can there be any scope for bringing them around the negotiating table. The Arab League in particular has a potentially significant role to play in not only urging calm but in playing by terms not set by Hamas. </p><p>Another way is possible, but it requires more than “standing” with one side or the other. If Palestinians and Israelis are to enjoy peace and security then both Hamas’s inflexible, intolerant jihadism and Israel’s divide and conquer outlook must be defeated. </p><p><br /></p>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02027368242570244912noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3952108899218764633.post-56290030973533692242023-10-08T23:06:00.023+01:002023-10-30T19:15:28.569+00:00We need calls for calm, not war<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgydD26DXuBGqBHFGlVoeVItjhnEc8I0BI_9Ei1ExOFtDmKHwn2FvYYpVy18v28NxFeijzPPfRNBdeWMj6r98TnvqPBsRrbn6eq2EO0knaSYbHeJQ0Lt6k4bCfRynORrWq-OF9qigFbKBIg5kQwkYsYfTyr71UyV3xSOInX9sVfPG7f7mMCgBdZXUgYo6I/s1920/israel.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1920" height="244" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgydD26DXuBGqBHFGlVoeVItjhnEc8I0BI_9Ei1ExOFtDmKHwn2FvYYpVy18v28NxFeijzPPfRNBdeWMj6r98TnvqPBsRrbn6eq2EO0knaSYbHeJQ0Lt6k4bCfRynORrWq-OF9qigFbKBIg5kQwkYsYfTyr71UyV3xSOInX9sVfPG7f7mMCgBdZXUgYo6I/w434-h244/israel.png" width="434" /></a></div><br />Like many people, I have been horrified by the news coming out of Israel this weekend.<p></p><p>I have no intention of detailing those dreadful events. They were particularly shocking, not only because they were unexpected (Israeli intelligence services have some questions to answer on that front) and occurred at the end of Sukkot and the Jewish High Holy Days, but because the attacks were so savage, so devastating and directed at innocent civilians. Reports of rape and disgraceful treatment of the dead make it even more horrendous. To call the force used excessive is not to do justice to the full horror of what took place. </p><p>It is no accident that Hamas attacked on the Shabbat following Hoshana Rabbah - the last of the "Days of Judgment". The message is clear. </p><p>At the outset I should state that I am not "pro-Israel", although I believe Israel has a right to exist. I am not "pro-Palestine", although I support the Palestinians' struggle for justice. I would like to see a two-state solution that puts rights first and an end to occupation, which is clearly a long term aspiration; in the meantime I am on the side of human rights and on those who work for lasting peace. My concern is for Israelis and Palestinians - not the Israeli government or Hamas.</p><p>Discussion about these events on social media has been rather depressing, not least because many fail to make distinctions between Israel, its government and Judaism, or between Palestine and Hamas. More concerning still are those who appear unable to speak out against Hamas aggression, presumably on the basis that terrorists who ostensibly share their broad political aims could not possibly be terrorists. This is a dangerous mindset, and no amount of empathy with the Palestinians' struggle (or opposition to the actions of the Israeli government) could lead me to support terrorist activity of this nature. This is not only an attack on Israel; it is an attack on humanity.</p><p>Seeing people "celebrating" these attacks is sickening. I will not do what others have and use this to dishonestly support political claims that multiculturalism is failing, but I see nothing to celebrate in such inhumanity or such blatant antisemitism. Opposition to the Israeli government and even to the existence of the State of Israel itself are understandable political positions, but lionising such violence and glorifying terrorism is something altogether different. Similarly, I have little time for the rampant antisemitism being expressed on social media, "pro-Palestinian" left-wing types calling for the annihilation of Israel or elected parliamentarians saying this kind of thing, as if that justifies the nature of Hamas's atrocities:<br /><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj6DQyTw3tGgTpBvwiLBW4_EE_T24ShbgSVxMhDfsg0mGyhKWEjcLWfS9PQGMyydMIAjANidsPnGrVAkfRp3QDPCRgX3KI5xfd7_bIbTYywRmqsH1rcA1FGDzWHyBuqX72aDOVsdUL9hoCc455Vq7DR3OcpCuFGEgM5DeCxnVD1nTm-21PaugDwqplXMmA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="217" data-original-width="593" height="171" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj6DQyTw3tGgTpBvwiLBW4_EE_T24ShbgSVxMhDfsg0mGyhKWEjcLWfS9PQGMyydMIAjANidsPnGrVAkfRp3QDPCRgX3KI5xfd7_bIbTYywRmqsH1rcA1FGDzWHyBuqX72aDOVsdUL9hoCc455Vq7DR3OcpCuFGEgM5DeCxnVD1nTm-21PaugDwqplXMmA=w468-h171" width="468" /></a></div><br />I'm not sure this is the time to be declaring "Viva Palestine". Hamas is a terrorist organisation and Saturday's attacks were terrorism in action. That should not be a controversial statement. I cannot side with Hamas, and I certainly cannot stand behind their actions. How can anyone reasonably support or excuse terrorism - even tacitly - especially when it manifests itself in rape, kidnap and indiscriminate murder? How could anyone support a terrorist organisation that is not only willing to do those things, but would be prepared to eradicate the entire Jewish population?<div><p></p><p>However, I am also uncomfortable at the initial responses of many other UK politicians - including the Prime Minister. Instinctively, their reaction has been to reiterate Israel's right to defend itself. Of course, Israel does have that right, but how helpful are these statements? Or those who have nothing to say other than "we stand with Israel"? Is it what is needed at the present time? We need calls for calm, not war.</p><p>Yes, I stand with the victims of this violence. But I do not stand with Benjamin Netanyahu. I would not want my sympathy for those affected by terrorism to be interpreted as support for the regime. I am particularly concerned by his initial reactions, which were to escalate tensions and declare war. I am also wary of the risks posed by the severe retaliation Netanyahu seems bent on, and the inevitable effect this will have on innocent Palestinians. The fact that Israel has a right to defend itself doesn't mean that it must defend itself, and certainly not in ways that seek retribution or revenge and will only serve to worsen a terrible situation.</p><p>I cannot say "I stand with Israel" because I distrust Israel's government to make the right decisions, and I cannot offer my support to reprisals and retribution. Revenge is not, after all, self-defence. Even the understandable desire to "destroy Hamas" is likely to be counter-productive if attempted purely through the use of force: kill one terrorist and three more will rise up in their place. It is also an undeniable fact that the Israeli government has oppressed Palestinians, something that has to be both acknowledged and called out. </p><p>It is not enough to condemn Hamas, although they must be condemned. Neither is it enough to support Israel's "right to defend itself" or to "stand with Israel". Powerful people need to take a stand to bring an end to this conflict, the injustices that have led to it (Hamas's actions, while appalling, cannot be said to be "unprovoked") and to work for a lasting peace in the area. </p><p>75 years after Israel was birthed, the country is clearly in crisis. In recent months Israel has witnessed increased anti-government protests in relation to proposals to bring the judiciary under increased political control. The incumbent government, arguably the most religious and right-wing in Israel's history, has become increasingly out-of-touch with a sizable section of the population that desires a pluralistic, democratic state. Israel's constitution, which was due to be written shortly after the country's creation, has still yet to come into being. Meanwhile, the peace process has effectively been abandoned by Netanyahu and the Likud Party. </p><p>Netanyahu being recalled as Prime Minister while facing an ongoing corruption trial, the undermining of the Abraham Accords and the increasing number of Palestinians being killed in the West Bank by Israeli forces paint a picture of an unhealthy nation. The fact that there has been a corresponding increase in the number of Israelis killed by Palestinian attacks underlines this reality. And that's before we consider the nature of external threats and Hamas's relationships with Iran, Qatar and Syria. </p><p>What is needed isn't blanket support for Israel's right to carry out reprisals, which will inevitably only deepen the crisis. The fact is that Israel is facing multiple crises, many of its own making, and that context needs to be understood. Perhaps if efforts had been made in recent years to address the worsening political unrest in Israel while directing energies into resurrecting peace talks, Hamas may not have felt the need to launch rockets into Tel Aviv. The inaction of the UK, US and other nations may not have caused the current tragedy but has certainly contributed to it.<br /><br />It is too simple to make glib statements of solidarity, to "stand with Israel" and "defend it's right to self-defence". To do that requires no action or engagement with the bigger political, social, religious and historical pictures. It tacitly approves Netanyahu's self-declared "war" while offering no ideas for creating a better future. Unfortunately, prospects for peace are rapidly evaporating.</p><p>Oversimplifying the complex realities of the Israeli-Palestinian issue is dangerous. Reducing intricate situations to simple slogans is like reducing the atom - the end result is likely to be explosive.</p><p>Yes, Hamas must be resisted. But how Israel "defends itself" matters - it cannot be given carte blanche to use these attacks to punish Palestinians. Let's be realistic - the likelihood is that Netanyahu will respond by denying basic human rights to the two million Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip, punishing them for the actions of a terrorist organisation. I am concerned with what Netanyahu may do next; "support" for Israel must not be uncritical and cannot extend to actions against innocent civilians such as cutting off water supplies (or other actions that would cause disproportionate human suffering).</p><p>In the last few years the Israeli government has actively escalated tensions while the international community has done little to help address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What is needed is a belated international effort to resolve - or reduce - long-standing conflict. Meaningful progress on achieving longer-term peace will almost certainly not be achieved quickly, but a de-escalation of the crisis is possible. I do not believe the situation is yet past the point of no return. </p><p>This evening it was announced that the Israeli flag will be flown from all government buildings. As someone who stands with the "ordinary" Israelis and Palestinians who will inevitably suffer unless solutions are found quickly, I want to see so much more than gesture politics. </p><p>Instead of "standing with Israel" or, worse still, refusing to call out terrorism, perhaps the UK's elected politicians would be better advised to actively seek conversations with Israeli and Palestinian leaders to restore calm and ensure the safe release of hostages? There are of course no easy solutions to complex problems, but this situation calls for purposeful efforts rather than simple words. </p></div>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02027368242570244912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3952108899218764633.post-44718695258102566002023-10-06T09:45:00.003+01:002023-10-09T01:21:57.883+01:00Rutherglen and Hamilton West: what did we learn?<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6hgoy4d_2MCc6k8rhNuThGol5OlFtA_flrcSDYw2D-cEjlS_nDgtPGRNg3lWYVeOEZmnMXojRDwyuTe5PObwx53_akLcdJ6sIlCP5Ep2NGJUPLfKKj8RP5SROCCgj-vkkJJ5V0b3NtuXcyAFiujuEl3JbcDuAuo28mitOtfrAdIHHhcUr8PGClTVpn9I/s2840/labour.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1598" data-original-width="2840" height="272" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6hgoy4d_2MCc6k8rhNuThGol5OlFtA_flrcSDYw2D-cEjlS_nDgtPGRNg3lWYVeOEZmnMXojRDwyuTe5PObwx53_akLcdJ6sIlCP5Ep2NGJUPLfKKj8RP5SROCCgj-vkkJJ5V0b3NtuXcyAFiujuEl3JbcDuAuo28mitOtfrAdIHHhcUr8PGClTVpn9I/w484-h272/labour.png" width="484" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>There has been a lot of excitement surrounding yesterday's by-election in Rutherglen and Hamilton West. <p></p><p>In the run-up to election day, various media outlets were suggesting that a Labour victory would be "seismic". After the result was declared, Anas Sarwar called the outcome "seismic", while Keir Starmer reflected that the result was "seismic". The absence of other superlatives underlines an obvious lack of imagination, but is all the excitement justified?</p><p>No... and yes.</p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal">A Labour win in Rutherglen and Hamilton West is hardly a “seismic”
result for Scottish politics. This is a constituency that has only been held by the SNP between 2015 and 2017, and then from 2019 until Margaret Ferrier's suspension a year later. Its predecessor constituencies of Rutherglen and Hamilton/Hamilton South were solidly Labour for decades; the former had never returned an SNP while Hamilton was famously the scene of a remarkable SNP by-election victory in 1967. Labour took the seat back from Winnie Ewing at the 1970 General Election with an 8,582 majority.</p><p class="MsoNormal">Rutherglen and Hamilton West is, historically speaking, solid Labour territory. It was one of only seven constituencies Labour won in the 2017 General Election. Given this, and the backdrop of Margaret Ferrier's inexcusable indiscretions against which the by-election inevitably played out, this was Labout's election to lose. There's nothing seismic about Labour winning in a constituency that has been Labour-dominated since the First World War*, especially when its campaign was so well-funded and with 40 Labour MPs travelling to the constituency during the campaign.</p><p class="MsoNormal">It's worth pointing out that Rutherglen and Hamilton West had the fifth highest level of Labour support in Scotland; by contrast, it was 36th on the SNP's list. Before the result was confirmed, various politicos and media types were already discussing the wider political ramifications. For me, in taking any lessons from the outcome, the key factors would be turnout and the size of the majority. A Labour win, in and of itself, would be pretty inconsequential.</p><p class="MsoNormal">Turnout was low - dreadfully low - at 37.19%. Can we therefore deduce anything from this result? I think we have to be careful when interpreting results against low turnout, but it is perhaps fair to draw comparisons with the 2021 Airdrie and Shotts by-election in which the SNP successfully held off a Labour challenge. This was another central belt seat, which historically had been strongly Labour, and turnout was even lower at 34.3%. Clearly something has changed in the intervening two years.</p><p class="MsoNormal">It a dangerous thing to project by-election results onto national forecasts but, if this performance is repeated at a national election, Labour would be once again the largest party in Scotland. That would be quite a turnaround, but is there any evidence beyond this result to suggest that is likely? At the moment, not really. Before looking like a likely government-in-waiting, Labour firstly has to look like a competent opposition and a force in its former heartlands. This by-election is one significant step on the road to doing that, but it is not in itself evidence that Labour is set to return to its pre-2011 dominant position. </p><p class="MsoNormal">What this result will do is help Labour re-establish itself as a threat in the central belt seats. Labour didn't just need to win in Rutherglen and Hamilton West but to win well. A small majority would have felt like an SNP moral victory. They wanted a result that said "we're back". Labour needed to show convincingly that it can win back voters in places it once took for granted. - and that they have done. Is it a "seismic" result? Probably not, but it does send out some very clear messages.</p><p class="MsoNormal">In years to come commentators may view this result as a significant milestone in the rebirth of Scottish Labour and a return to "normalcy". Similarly, they may also see it as yet another by-election that proved to be a poor indicator of future political events. </p><p class="MsoNormal">The SNP were never confident of winning here - not only because of the Margaret Ferrier issue - and parties lacking in confidence don't win by-elections. That this is a terrible result for the SNP cannot be disputed, but those writing the party off are, to my mind, premature. The SNP is embroiled in its own internal problems at present, which may or may not be resolved by the time the country goes to a national election. There's a lot that will inevitably be played out in the coming weeks and months, which cannot be pre-empted.</p><p class="MsoNormal">Generalising from by-election results is always a dangerous pastime. What is certain is that, while it's a bit early to be pointing to a Labour revival, Scottish Labour is definitely in recovery. A by-election result like this in which they exceeded even their own expectations will only boost their confidence and have the SNP looking nervously at dozens of other constituencies across central Scotland. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i>* Hamilton was solidly Labour from 1918 onwards, barring 1967-70, while Rutherglen had a Liberal MP from 1918-22 and two spells during which it returned Conservative members (1931-45 and 1951-64). </i></p><p></p>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02027368242570244912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3952108899218764633.post-34335727329440634352023-02-28T22:25:00.011+00:002024-01-07T22:18:21.862+00:00It's not a question of faith... it's a matter of politics<p><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivCt-_tBzzwbEvt9nIzZfbkM6P6-fJ4F6YkrWazvp_RyIa8o9jvqC3PiTPzG6PymYF7qynUj3oSpVFMe21udNwri81tM0dd9ljaw1ZdB53J_N_F2dmqZ-mMg4Q-BpMtig-lHdrK_24zikMcbG8nMX3yG2C6EcIwX7obUa8myccpwhfsDVK4cyZ78A7/s1200/forbes.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="799" data-original-width="1200" height="248" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivCt-_tBzzwbEvt9nIzZfbkM6P6-fJ4F6YkrWazvp_RyIa8o9jvqC3PiTPzG6PymYF7qynUj3oSpVFMe21udNwri81tM0dd9ljaw1ZdB53J_N_F2dmqZ-mMg4Q-BpMtig-lHdrK_24zikMcbG8nMX3yG2C6EcIwX7obUa8myccpwhfsDVK4cyZ78A7/w373-h248/forbes.jpg" width="373" /></a></span></div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">It's been a very strange last couple of weeks.<br /><br />First came the shock news that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/15/nicola-sturgeon-expected-to-resign-as-first-minister-of-scotland" target="_blank">Nicola Sturgeon had resigned as First Minister</a>. I don’t think anyone saw that coming and I have to admit to
not sharing the glee that some of my fellow Liberal Democrats expressed at this
development. Nicola Sturgeon has a somewhat mixed legacy, but there can be no
denying her commitment to equalities or her skills as a communicator. In those
respects at least, she will be a tough act to follow.<br /><br /></span><span>In the coming weeks and months we will perhaps find ourselves in a better position to appraise Nicola Sturgeon’s legacy. Personally, the events of the last few days - which I will come to in a moment - have convinced me that her greatest achievement was the cultivation of an image of the SNP as a united party of social progressives, and that her biggest single failure was the lack of succession planning. </span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
<br />
Secondly, we have seen the equally surprising but altogether more ironic
situation in which the Free Church of Scotland has suddenly decided it cares
about liberal values. Seemingly oblivious to its own historic attitudes towards
other Christian denominations, the FCoS has railed against <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi0yZXU-7j9AhVVQ0EAHcxqC_gQFnoECA4QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.heraldscotland.com%2Fpolitics%2F23338967.free-church-criticise-anti-christian-attacks-kate-forbes%2F&usg=AOvVaw31ftXYurWTdxoUr9pK-UJF" target="_blank">what it decries as “anti-Christian intolerance”</a>. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">This is, of course, entirely due to the Kate Forbes saga.
So, just in case you’ve somehow managed to avoid the news for the last ten days
or so, here’s what’s happened so far.<br />
<br />
Following Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation, some of the expected names to put
themselves forward to succeed her surprised many by failing to do so. These
included Angus Robertson. Instead, the three confirmed candidates for party
leader are Kate Forbes, Humza Yousaf and Ash Regan.<br />
<br />
My attention, for the purposes of this post, is turned to Kate Forbes because
of the controversy that has followed the launch of her campaign and because of the way this has fuelled discussion about how faith and politics interact.<br />
<br />
Kate Forbes has never hidden the fact that she is a member of the FCoS. Neither
has she hidden that she has a strong personal faith and has often talked about
it in rather general terms, including <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-57203901?at_medium=custom7&at_custom4=twitter&at_campaign=64&at_custom1=%5Bpost+type%5D&at_custom2=twitter&at_custom3=%40BBCPolitics" target="_blank">during a BBC interview with Nick Robinson</a>. She talked about her personal belief in Jesus Christ as saviour and that she
was made in the image of God. No-one blinked an eyelid, precisely because she
steered clear of distinct questions of policy. Interestingly, she did say in
that interview with Mr Robinson that she was "as guilty as anybody of
tiptoeing around [when it comes to talking about her faith, because of] fear and a sense that the public will think we only speak for our own
rather than speak for everybody". <br />
<br />
The BBC article referred to the beliefs of the FCoS, but Ms Forbes herself did
not reference these. She did not state what her views were on same-sex marriage,
abortion, gender reform... or even the doctrines of election and eternal
security or a raft of other ideas that her church is likely to have views on.
She kept things personal – and when faith is kept personal, as we see, few
people object.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Some will argue that we should have been aware that the
finance secretary had conservative social views, as evidenced by her church membership.
However, to judge people according to their church membership would be unfair.
Everyone is an individual and every church – even the FCoS – has a breadth of
views represented among its followers. Ian Blackford, for instance, clearly takes
a very different line from Kate Forbes on many issues; despite being a member
of the same church he called same-sex marriage "a marvellous thing". I am quite sure that the moderator of the FCoS would
neither require nor expect all members of his church to share precisely the
same views.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">On the first day of her campaign, Ms Forbes got into a bit
of trouble when she told <a href="https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/1627745647356006400" target="_blank">Channel 4 News</a> that she would have voted against
same-sex marriage if she had been an MSP at the time. She promised not to “go back on any rights
that currently exist” but made it clear that her personal view is that marriage
is “between a man and a woman”, irrespective of the current legal position.
This was something entirely new. Some people may have suspected this, but never
before had Ms Forbes actually confirmed that she would have voted that way (and
presumably still would if the opportunity was there).<br /><br />A senior member of Ms Forbes’ campaign team told her on day one that the game
was over. OK, they may have used stronger language, but you get the gist. On day two the finance
minister had to announce that it was not, in fact, over – hardly a great look.
However, she was determined to create an even worse look by doubling down on
her opposition to same-sex marriage and defending her stance as “mainstream
Christian teaching”, thus insulting the many Christians who take a very
different view. She also talked about having children outside marriage as being
“wrong” and turned on those she accused of seeking to ban people of faith from
high office. New lines were being drawn on which she aimed to fight her
campaign.<br />
<br />
If we weren’t absolutely sure what Kate Forbes’ views were before, we certainly
know now. She is opposed to same-sex marriage. She believes marriage is only between
a man and a woman, which means – by implication – that she does not see the
marriages of several of her parliamentary colleagues as valid. She is opposed
to the recently passed – and later blocked – gender reform legislation and
dismissed it as “<a href=" https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-leadership-contest-kate-forbes-admits-she-would-not-have-voted-for-scottish-governments-gender-recognition-reform-bill-4033579" target="_blank">not a priority</a>”. She believes that it is “wrong” to have children outside of marriage, as
presumably extra-marital sex must also be. She believes there <a href="https://www.thenational.scot/news/23336313.kate-forbes-conversion-therapy-ban-must-respect-people-faith/ " target="_blank">should be exceptions made within anti-conversion therapy legislation for faith groups</a> (she said “we should defend the rights of other minorities like people of faith
when it comes to their freedom of expression, their freedom of speech and their
freedom of practice”). And she believes there is some kind of
anti-Christian conspiracy out there to ensure people of faith are kept out of
high office. <br />
<br />
But one thing is even more obvious – that Kate Forbes is no match for Nicola
Sturgeon as a communicator. What I was most surprised about, given the years
she has had to prepare for this moment, is that she never looked convincing
answering questions that should surely have been predictable, quickly going defensive
and even into conspiratorial mode. There were obvious ways in which she could
have chosen her words more carefully and with which she could have reassured
LGBTQ+ people, political opponents, liberal Christians and the public. The fact
she found herself in a mess largely of her own making says far more about her
lack of political prudence rather than her religious beliefs or personal faith.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">For me, the biggest problem was that her rather weak answers
were the kind of thing I’d have come out with when I was 16 years old (when my
religious outlook was quite similar – I’ve been on quite a journey since). She
didn’t look like a leader-in-waiting. Can I imagine Nicola Sturgeon tying
herself up in knots like that? No. Ms Forbes had time to think through
responses and still managed to come across far worse than Tim Farron did when
facing similar questioning.<br />
<br />
Another issue is the framing of opponents as being motivated by anti-Christian
prejudice. <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64738926" target="_blank">Kate Forbes’ recent attack on John Swinney</a>, claiming that he inferred that people with “Christian views” were
unsuitable to lead, was particularly offensive as Mr Swinney is a Christian and
an active member of the Church of Scotland. Framing the discussion in this way
is not only disingenuous but dangerous, inflaming religious tensions
unnecessarily. What Ms Forbes is effectively doing is spinning a narrative that
her socially conservative views represent the essence of “mainstream
Christianity” and that those who oppose them are, presumably, not Christian. This does little to facilitate understanding
between people of different belief. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">
The awkward but undeniable fact is that Ms Forbes’ beliefs are not the only Christian beliefs
out there. There are Christians and people
of other religions whose faith, like mine, tells them that same-sex marriages are
valid, that conversion therapy is intrinsically evil and that consenting non-marital
sexual relationships are none of our business. There are Christians who support
gender reform. There are many, many Christians who don’t follow the teaching of
the Free Church of Scotland, whose “mainstream” credentials may be – how shall
I put it? – somewhat questionable. <br />
<br />
I have no doubt that Kate Forbes’ conservative political views are the product
of her faith. But they can no more be used to characterise Christianity as,
say, John Swinney’s very different understandings. I welcome the fact that there
are people from diverse faiths and none in our parliament, but ultimately
politicians will be judged by what they believe and how they vote. <br />
<br />
I don’t believe that Kate Forbes’ views are a barrier to her standing for the
office of First Minister. It is for SNP members to decide whether those views
represent them. However, I do have some interest in this because, while I am a
Liberal Democrat, I also want a competent First Minister who is a good
communicator, who understands the needs of others, who values religious
pluralism and who can demonstrate they understand the anxieties, frustrations
and aspirations of minority groups. Moreover, it is absolutely vital we have a
First Minister who, when talking about LGBTQ+ issues, will positively affect
the tone of the public conversation. Can I trust Kate Forbes to lead a positive
discourse around LGBTQ+ inclusion? I’m afraid not. Not when she dismisses those who continue with this line of questioning as <a href="https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/1630184459038257152" target="_blank">not focusing on "what really matters"</a>. Some our our marriages matter, too. <br />
<br />
There have been times when I have supported our outgoing First Minister. And I
have been proud to. I am not sure that I would feel so proud to support a First
Minister who believes my sexual orientation to be sinful, or who believes the
marriages of many of my friends – including a wonderful Christian minister –
are invalid. <br />
<br />
It is not enough to simply “not roll back legislation”. Firstly, nothing is
ever – to use the often misused phrase – “enshrined in law”. Legislation can
always be revisited. Speaking hypothetically, if Scotland gains independence under
Kate Forbes’ leadership, what will the new constitution say about the questions
she’s been so keen to talk about: same-sex marriage, abortion rights or gender
rights? Secondly, there’s a question of influence in play here that is arguably more important than mere policy
detail. A First Minister must govern in everyone’s
interests and cannot simply dismiss public statements on areas of policy as
“matters of faith” as if there should be absolutely no political consequences to unwisely unburdening yourself to Channel 4 reporters. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Kate Forbes has expressed some very strong views. She is
entitled to do this. What she is not entitled to do is portray disagreement
with those views as anti-religious prejudice. Many of us speak against those
views from alternative religious angles. It’s almost as if it is the opinion
that is problematic rather than the faith behind it.</span></p>
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">It doesn’t matter where beliefs come from. However,
it matters greatly how they are expressed. Once a view has been expressed in the public
domain people are entitled to make political judgements. And, while Kate Forbes
clearly has a strong faith that leads her to arrive at particular viewpoints,
what she has verbalised are political opinions. I cannot deny that my own faith
leads me to embrace specific political perspectives and values; however, I
would never ask that I am not judged politically for those beliefs. If I am
standing for public office and people disagree with me, they are more than
entitled to vote for someone else. Being rejected because of your views is a
reality of politics. When my faith manifests itself in political expression, it
will – and should – be judged politically. Religious people don’t get a free
pass.<br />
<br />
Former SNP deputy leader Jim Sillars, defending Ms Forbes, claimed that what is
being discussed are merely “conscience issues”. In times past, LGBTQ+ issues
were generally categorised as such and I can see his argument. But this changes
once rights are established. There was a time when views we would now consider
racist could be freely expressed on the basis of religious freedom. Now
same-sex couples have the legal right to marry, Kate Forbes has shown a certain
amount of intolerance by stating – quite categorically – not only that she would not have voted for the change in the law but that she only recognises
opposite-sex marriages. <br />
<br />
Where I disagreed with Mr Sillars is his suggestion that journalists simply
shouldn’t ask these questions. Why not? Doesn’t the public have a right to
know? Indeed, don’t the media have a moral obligation to establish what
politicians think about the key issues of the day? And even if my MP or MSP
does take a different view on “conscience matters”, can I not check how they
voted and allow that to influence how I vote at the next election? Of course I can, and many voters do. <br />
<br />
When faith is personal few object. What Ms Forbes and her husband think about
abortion, extra-martial sex and so on is a personal matter for them and no-one else. No-one would be
particularly interested in how their religious understandings underpin their
personal decisions. However, when a candidate
for First Minister declares that they would have voted against equality
legislation and comes out in opposition to legislation recently passed by
Holyrood but blocked by Westminster, that is a political statement. The
decision not to pursue legal appeal of the UK government’s Section 35 order is a
political one and not an issue of faith.<br />
<br />
Where does this go now? Most obviously, to the SNP members, who have a very
difficult choice to make. None of the candidates inspire me. I suspect it will
be a close-fought contest between Ms Forbes and Mr Yousaf, and the result may
tell us something about the nature of
the SNP as a party. I suspect that<a href="https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/embarrassed-snp-have-media-blackout-as-journalists-banned-from-leadership-hustings/ar-AA182Rgd?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=8ca57c347cf2434bb9c10119983f7f5f&ei=8" target="_blank"> the SNP’s decision to ban journalists from leadership hustings</a> already says quite a bit about where that particular party
is currently. <br />
<br />
However, the conversation about faith and politics will go on and, sadly, the way it
has been dishonestly framed in this episode will do little for those of us who
care passionately about the public discourse surrounding both. There are mature conversations to be had about
where faith and politics merge, but this toxic “debate” isn’t it.<br />
<br />
If Kate Forbes’ faith or church membership is an issue for you, then I suggest
you grow up. If, however, her personal views are a problem for you – and you
happen to be an SNP member – then vote accordingly. But please, let’s have none
of this nonsense about persecution and people’s faith being a barrier to public
office – she’s the finance minister, for goodness’ sake, and people of faith are disproportionately well represented in our parliaments in both Holyrood and Westminster. It's only since Ms Forbes has revealed her opinions on certain issues that she has attracted controversy, which tells you everything you need to know.<br />
<br />
How people express their faith matters. And I’m afraid Kate Forbes simply hasn’t
expressed herself very well. <br />
<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></span></span>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02027368242570244912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3952108899218764633.post-56955228566476975822023-02-07T15:27:00.016+00:002023-02-08T15:35:10.996+00:00What should the future of social care look like?<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xt4NQqzYWNU" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /><br />Lib Dem leader Ed Davey has managed to generate a fair bit of interest after appearing on </span><span style="color: #202124;"><span style="background-color: white;"><i>Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg</i> and promoting the idea of an increased minimum wage for care staff.<br /></span></span></span><br />During the interview, Mr Davey explained that "when I go and talk to people the biggest thing is the NHS crisis. Non-one thinks there is a silver bullet, a quick fix, but our policy to increase the minimum wage for carers - an extra £2 per hour - would deal with one of the big problems: namely, we don't have enough carers. If we get these care workers, by paying them decently, then we can ensure that people can be discharged from hospital and we can deal with the waiting lists."<br /><br />In an e-mail to party members and supporters, Mr Davey added: "One in seven UK adults has had to stay at home to look after a relative over the last 12 months due to a lack of care workers. One in seven. That is startling.</p><p>"I have spoken before about my experience of being a family carer. When I look at the problems facing our country, I do so through a carer’s eyes. Being a carer of any sort is hard work. The tireless work of family carers helps ease the pressures on our health and social care systems, and our economy. That is the wrong way round."</p><p>He added: "The Liberal Democrats are calling for a new Carers’ Minimum Wage. Under our plan, social care workers would be paid at least £2 an hour more than the current minimum wage. </p><p>"The Conservatives have caused workers to flee the social care sector. Our plan would help attract workers to it. Our policy would reduce the staggering 165,000 vacancies in social care. This would ease pressure on family carers and other services in crisis such as GPs, A&E departments and ambulance services."</p><p>As Laura Kuenssberg herself pointed out, "everyone would think 'I like the sound of that'". But there are real questions to be asked about the future of social care services that really aren't be answered here, and not only Laura's question "but how will you pay for it?".</p><p>Ed Davey, in his e-mail, asked "Why are we in this position?" Unsurprisingly, he went on to blame the Conservative government. Admittedly, the government has little idea about where to go with social care, but it is hardly alone in this. The opposition's plans are poorly developed. Successive governments since the early 1990s have done very little as far as investment in social care is concerned. If you want to understand why private sector social care staff are paid so poorly, you only have to look at how social care is funded.<br /><br />My issue with what Ed Davey is saying isn't that I disagree that care staff need a decent wage. It's that his solution is just a sticking plaster and that he talks as if the system was fine until these awful Tories came along...<br /><br />Our social care model has been "collapsing" for years. Admittedly things are getting worse, and it's impossible to disagree with Mr Davey that "care homes were treated appallingly during the pandemic". But he is completely wrong to refer to the struggles of the care sector as "a Conservative-made mess".because it is the product of three decades of neglect. Mr Davey talks about the Conservatives "destroying our social care system" but the system hasn't fit for purpose for at least 25 years, if it ever really was. A radical Liberal party should be proposing an overhaul of the entire system, not keeping it as it is while paying carers a little more. <br /><br />The Lib Dem leader told Laura Kuenssberg that he would fund the Carers' Minimum Wage by "asking the gambling industry to pay more tax. The gambling industry is causing mental and physical health problems, posing a charge to our NHS, and therefore it's a good idea to ask them to pay more so we can pay carers more. The £2 per hour extra for carers would make a big difference... we can then recruit and retain more carers. You can't sort out the crisis in the NHS unless you sort out the social care crisis."<br /><br />Indeed. But, similarly, you can't "sort out the social care crisis" without a complete rethinking of how the social care system works.<br /><br />My wife works in social care. I have, in the past, worked minimum wage jobs in care homes. Of course we'd welcome an increase in carers' wages. But increasing taxation on one specific industry (there are many others that also are responsible for causing mental or physical health problems) not only seems illiberal but insufficiently imaginative. And the "solution" is unlikely to have the effect Mr Davey thinks - a mere £2 per hour, while a positive gesture, is unlikely to be sufficient to deal with the problem social care has always had in recruiting and retaining staff.<br /><br />15 years ago, when I was a student, I worked night shifts in a care home. Every week there was a new member of staff. If they lasted a month, we were doing well. The company who owned the home was dependent on recruiting care staff from Poland and the Philippines, sometimes on medium-term contracts, who were happy to work for the UK minimum wage and put in far more hours than the regular 48 per week. It was not what I'd call a sustainable model. Workers who were attracted to the idea of caring often didn't stick around because of the realities of what care work is actually like and the way care staff weren't valued (not even by their employer in this case). Why work in such a demanding environment when you can work elsewhere for the same (or better) money? <br /><br />Sadly, in the same home, several members of staff were later found guilty of serious abuses of residents in their care. This abuse took place over a period of a couple of years. Why did it happen? Because of a complete lack of scrutiny and regulation, and because staff who were willing to work ridiculous hours beyond the recommendations of the European Working Time Directive were too valuable to the company. Earlier complaints against such people were dismissed because they were indispensable, and often complainants (generally excellent carers) left instead. The problem of recruitment and retention is not new.<br /><br />Put simply, I'd need to be paid a lot more than £2 above the minimum wage to go back and work in such a place.<br /><br />It's not difficult to understand that uncompetitive pay is a problem. Even care providers see that. But fixing the problem is not so simple - if only an offer of £2 per hour would lead to the recruitment of 165,000 new care staff and - KERBANG!!! - the NHS crisis is also instantly resolved. If only political solutions were so straightforward. Ed Davey talked about there being "no silver bullet" but then produced one. What increasing the minimum wage for carers won't do is deal with other fundamental problems. It's won't address how staff are treated: for example, the issue that private sector social care staff are three times more likely to work on zero hour contracts. It won't address the problem that care providers themselves are often starved of funds. And without systemic change some of our poorest workers will still be pretty poor workers under this proposal, with little scope for career development or progression. Mr Davey doesn't seem to grasp why care work is so unattractive - it's not just a question of pay rates.<br /><br />My wife currently works in an independent living project. Every two years the council-run project is put out to tender in what is effectively a reverse-auction. The provider offering to run the project most cheaply is successful. In real terms, the wages of care staff at their project have fallen as the minimum wage has caught up with their once generous pay. The permanent revolution of the last few years as providers come and go (with two actually going bust and unable to complete their contracted terms) has meant that the scheme has had more managers in the last four years than Watford Football Club. The problem that Mr Davey needs to address is not the gambling industry, but the way social care is financed, the way care and carers are valued more widely, and the way in which providers themselves are funded. It's difficult to invest in your staff when the budget you receive from the local authority is not only woefully insufficient but hasn't even given thought to potential wage increases. <br /><br />I was pleased to hear Ed Davey speaking up for carers. But I'd prefer to hear him explain how social care services can be developed to provide improved training and opportunities for career development/progression for staff, how workforce pressures can be relieved, how stability can be provided for the social care sector, and how providers' budgets can be increased so that they can provide incentives and invest in people. As long as social care is woefully underfunded, care will never be an inviting or rewarding career route, and that's an absolute tragedy.</p><p>What do I propose? <br /><br />Ed Davey (and, indeed, Keir Starmer) need to keep an eye on what is happening in Scotland. The proposals for a National Care Service provide some reasons for positivity. They may not be perfect but, after three decades of social care being ignored, at least the Scottish parliament is attempting to get to grips with it. Elsewhere, social care has become a hot potato that no-one wants to handle (there was a reason Jeremy Hunt so so keen to kick some reasonably well-developed proposals into touch in November last year). </p><p>What Scotland's National Care Service would seek to do is improve "the effectiveness of local authorities’ commissioning practices and their ability to shape a market that is responsive to people’s wants and needs", rather than continuing to depend on a system developed in the aftermath of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990. It hopes to "drive consistency and quality by setting a vision, standards and direction for the social care system at a national level". Significantly, it will aim to "support the delivery of the Fair Work convention that aims to improve the terms, conditions, and pay for the workforce in Scotland." Care boards will be established at local levels to aid integration of social care services. Unpaid carers will be given a right to breaks under the proposals. What the National Care Service fundamentally is being designed to do is "make a commitment to placing human rights at the heart of services" and "frame social care as an investment, rather than a burden". In that respect it represents a massive step forward.<br /><br />The legislation is still under discussion, and I have some concerns about the make-up of care boards, moving some accountability from local to national levels, the current lack of detail about workforce reforms and what exactly the proposed integration between social and health care will look like. There is no proposal (as yet) to introduce changes to eligibility and charging. There are many unanswered questions, and work will have to be done and some compromises inevitably made to keep everyone on board. The passage of the bill is unlikely to be smooth, with significant detail still to emerge. However, this represents at the very least a determination to take a new direction. Westminster politicians should acknowledge what is happening and seek to facilitate similar discussions on how to reshape the way social care is delivered. Let's be realistic, what is currently being discussed at Holyrood - however fraught the conversations is - is much further-reaching that Mr Davey's headline grabbing quick fix. MSPs are engaging with difficult questions, but they are questions that deserve answers. <br /><br />I don't think we have to support the SNP's frustrating approach to service design, or their centralising instincts, to accept that a National Care Service is a good idea in principle. A more liberal model is possible. <br /><br />I would hope that every constituent nation within the UK could introduce a National Care Service, or at least a national "umbrella" system of some kind that brings stability, investment and innovation to the social care sector. These could all be slightly different in some respects, and I would hope they could be designed to allow scope for an element of local or regional flexibility. I believe there must be some localised control within a national framework and that a National Care Service need not look like the centralised bureaucratic project the SNP is proposing. The system needs to be made more generous, with changes made to how - and how much - care users pay. But it also needs to be more responsive to the needs of those who working within the social care system, who have been neglected for far too long. </p><p>Ed Davey is absolutely right - social care has been criminally underfunded - but we need solutions rather than sticking plasters. We also need politicians who can deliver more than empty promises. In 1997 Labour promised social care reform; Blair's government established a royal commission and then did nothing. In 2010, the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition appointed an independent commission; the Dilnot Report it produced made the not entirely radical recommendations to introduce a cap on care costs (at £35,000), introduce a more generous means-tested threshold and "end the postcode lottery" through the introduction of a national threshold for care eligibility. The recommendations were sensible and uncontroversial, yet nothing happened. Legislation was initially due to be implemented in April 2017 and was later brought forward by a year. But still nothing happened. Conversations stalled. Plans for green papers came to nothing. Then, when Boris Johnson came to power, he announced he had a plan, which was not too dissimilar to the Dilnot Report. A date was even set for implementation: October 2023. But then Jeremy Hunt had a rethink, and apparently there are other priorities at the moment. The can has - once again - been kicked further down the road. Meanwhile, social care is unravelling.<br /><br />We are where we are because of a succession of political failures. Unfortunately, this is not merely a political tragedy but a human one.</p><p>Ed Davey is correct in that the way we treat people who work in - and depend on - social care has to change. But that change has to be meaningful - not simply retaining the status quo while giving those on the minimum wage a moderate increase. Wage increases without the necessary structural and cultural changes will change very little. What's needed is ambitious thinking - the kind of thing the Scottish parliament is doing right now. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02027368242570244912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3952108899218764633.post-78390811418484258382023-01-16T21:01:00.013+00:002023-01-17T00:28:21.114+00:00Jack's power grab sets dangerous precedent<p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihdpwiWNNu3Ssiq2UCuVzzq9HlRAn-0EZabky5lotjZWT6OdOOMeOvTODT0W4U1cGnNcbdX-PZ6ECrVAqQVhWKzJ236mn9aYjNfiOcwbtcf6O00QloJVBUJpuR9AZ4MjwkfdH5atGWLEpWxnaKhUsxVaPVjg6mPhnTK0-ZCMo9oc1R4d03C-UFlUDz/s810/jack.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="539" data-original-width="810" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihdpwiWNNu3Ssiq2UCuVzzq9HlRAn-0EZabky5lotjZWT6OdOOMeOvTODT0W4U1cGnNcbdX-PZ6ECrVAqQVhWKzJ236mn9aYjNfiOcwbtcf6O00QloJVBUJpuR9AZ4MjwkfdH5atGWLEpWxnaKhUsxVaPVjg6mPhnTK0-ZCMo9oc1R4d03C-UFlUDz/w400-h266/jack.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Secretary of State for Scotland, Alister Jack (Photo: Daily Record)</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br />The UK government has made a significant and unprecedented intervention this evening to undermine the independence of the Scottish Parliament.<p></p><p>Secretary of State for Scotland Alister Jack made a statement defending Westminster’s decision to block the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) bill: "The bill would have a significant impact on, amongst other things, GB-wide equalities matters in Scotland, England and Wales. I have concluded, therefore, that this is the necessary and correct course of action. If the Scottish government chooses to bring an amended bill back for reconsideration in the Scottish Parliament, I hope we can work together to find a constructive way forward that both respects devolution and the operation of UK Parliament legislation."</p><p>Never before has a Scottish bill been blocked by invoking <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/section/35" target="_blank">Section 35 of the Scotland Act</a>.</p><p>The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) bill was far from perfect. Most legislation is not perfect. However, the Scottish Parliament has previously passed controversial legislation without any Westminster government seeking to use the Section 35 procedure.</p><p>Effectively, this is not a prohibition from Westminster but is actually a direct order from the Secretary of State. While I am sure Mr Jack will have consulted with ministerial colleagues, this amounts to unilateral action. Clearly Mr Jack is applying Section 35 (1) (b), which allows for such action in such circumstances as “the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe [Scottish legislation] would have an adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters”. </p><p>It can, and almost certainly will, be legally challenged. A cynic may suggest this is a simple way of Westminster referring the question of how proposed Scottish legislation would interact with reserved law to the Supreme Court. However, the move is fraught with constitutional difficulties.</p><p>This unprecedented step raises questions relating to democracy and the relationships between the devolved parliaments and Westminster. Despite the much publicised debate surrounding the bill, MSPs of all parties – including those who voted against – were in agreement that this was a devolved issue within the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence. No-one was claiming that Holyrood did not have the right to make its own decisions on gender recognition. After significant debate, MSPs voted by a majority of 86 to 39 to support the proposals. The MSPs in support included a majority of MSPs from the SNP (54 out of 64), Scottish Labour (21 out of 22), Greens (7 out of 7), the Lib Dems (4 out of 4) – and, significantly, two front bench Conservatives. That’s a pretty clear show of parliamentary support across the political spectrum – even less controversial bills often struggle to pass with such clear majorities. And that's because it had been exceptionally well scrutinsed throughout its passage and MSPs from all parties engaged constructively to reach broad concensus.</p><p>Inevitably, many Scots will be asking what right does Westminster has to to interfere with this Bill. That is exactly the correct question. What is so exceptional about this particular bill that previous policy of non-interference has been abandoned? Section 35 is a necessary clause, but was never designed for situations like this.</p><p><i><b>The excuse that the bill would have an adverse impact on UK law, specifically the Equalities Act, is just that – an excuse</b></i>. The MSPs voting for the proposal were not telling Westminster how it should approach the process of legally changing gender, even if those MSPs held strong personal views. The bill itself made clear its application to Scotland only and the fact that it would have zero effect on the rest of the UK. No paper has been published to demonstrate how the proposed Scottish legislation would impact on the rest of the UK, negatively or otherwise, and essentially the claim is a personal assertion made by Mr Jack. It is a deeply unsatisfactory state of affairs when UK ministers can not only make such claims without evidence but act on them. <br /><br />Let's be straight here. The Secretary of State for Scotland was fully aware of what was being debated and the content of the proposed legislation. At no point did he make known any concerns that he had, let alone the alleged impact on the Equalities Act. Why wait until now to express any kind of reservations? For weeks he hs said nothing at all, and then - suddenly, and without any apparent process or scrutiny - he declares the legislation will have an adverse affect on the Equalities Act and therefore will be blocked under powers few people were aware of. Is this how UK democracy should function? </p><p>Speaking personally, it seems absurd to argue that Scotland’s arrangements around gender recognition would dangerously undermine the Equality Act when the UK government currently recognises Gender Reassignment Certificates from various other European countries whose legislation has been much more further-reaching than the provisions of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) bill. </p><p><i><b>If devolution means anything, then the right of Holyrood to make its own laws should be protected.</b></i> If Section 35 is ever to be invoked, then it should be required that the Secretary of State in question should publish a detailed paper outlining the impact on UK-wide policy with reference to academic expertise. He should not be able to simply announce “I have concluded...” without an impact assessment as he has today. What we have witnessed this evening is precisely how Westminster should not interfere in Scottish politics. It is not enough to invoke the nuclear option simply because the Conservative government in Westminster disagrees with Holyrood legislation. </p><p>LGBT charity Stonewall has issued a statement in which it calls Mr Jack’s actions "an unprecedented move which significantly undermines the devolution settlement and will unlock constitutional and diplomatic strife.” <a href="https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1615047894402273283?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1615047894402273283%7Ctwgr%5E1149670a593a53c60fb594dec74984cdff611dc5%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Flive%2Fuk-scotland-64294059" target="_blank">First Minister Nicola Sturgeon</a> described it as “a full-frontal attack on our democratically elected Scottish Parliament and its ability to make its own decisions on devolved matters.” It is hard to disagree. </p><p>Indeed, what has been striking in recent days has been the way in which Westminster politicians have made statements about the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) bill without having seemed to have discussed the matter with their Scottish counterparts. For example, when Keir Starmer expressed “concerns” yesterday about “provision in Scotland”, he seemed to be ignorant of the fact that these proposals were supported by Scottish Labour MSPs. Mr Starmer is playing politics, but it is a dangerous game – especially if, as seems the case, he fails to challenge today’s intervention from Alister Jack. By vacillating and remaining undecided, Labour’s UK leasdership will simply be playing into Conservative hands – something I suspect the Conservatives have thought long and hard about. Given Keir Starmer’s inability to get off the fence where gender recognition is concerned, this bill has given Alister Jack the opportunity to present a fight with Scotland in terms that make it difficult for Starmer to pick sides. The Tories sense Labour's weaknesses and are using the question of trans rights as a stick to beat them with, while employing a culture war issue to re-open the constitutional battle with the SNP. It's clever politics on one level, however risky it is on another. </p><p>One thing is certain: the likes of Keir Starmer cannot claim to be acting in Scotland’s interests when they remain on the sidelines, refusing to condemn the power grab. However much he may not want to involve himself in the ensuing conflict, ultimately he will have to. Passivity will serve to undermine not only devolution but the votes and autonomy of Scottish Labour MSPs. </p><p>There are two issues playing out here: one of these is gender recognition reform, while the other is Westminster’s assertion of constitutional supremacy. The two have today become inextricably intertwined. <br /><br />However constitutionally fascinating this situation is, the inescapable tragedy is that the lives of so many people - who the legislation was designed to serve - face an uncertain future. They are debated without being engaged with, and have become overlooked and sidelined as the gender "debate" is cynically used to justify Westminster's war on devolution. <br /><br />There is a very real risk of perceived Westminster overreach, something the SNP will use to its advantage. The Scottish government will inevitably defend its legislation and its right to pass it, and most likely we will experience a protracted legal struggle as the Supreme Court once again is called upon to determine the level of the Scottish Parliament's legislative power. No doubt Westminster has picked the fight and prepared itself for it, but I am less confident that Jack, Sunak & Co understand the risks they are taking. Alister Jack's actions establish a dangerous precedent and have the potential to further erode not merely devolution but the Union itself. </p><div><br /></div>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02027368242570244912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3952108899218764633.post-30356774054814921922022-12-31T12:15:00.002+00:002022-12-31T23:17:23.821+00:00My predictions for 2023<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXciEz5Dh-JDlglsCRxaBvn8uyESZ5rfIG5VrvKCghLtDyTVd3zWdEpXeG2rd0YOT3oAfswzyLvTnee_YDYn52orP1G-Z6EUrGTJGm0xUoogXtySjpVY1vNXzNe4dJY3ZdN_8qG2OCSr5t0qO6rtlJqH49_WEUMdJ6UGWwga_uq6S0x2dB2dlRvTDC/s1024/2023.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="639" data-original-width="1024" height="283" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXciEz5Dh-JDlglsCRxaBvn8uyESZ5rfIG5VrvKCghLtDyTVd3zWdEpXeG2rd0YOT3oAfswzyLvTnee_YDYn52orP1G-Z6EUrGTJGm0xUoogXtySjpVY1vNXzNe4dJY3ZdN_8qG2OCSr5t0qO6rtlJqH49_WEUMdJ6UGWwga_uq6S0x2dB2dlRvTDC/w453-h283/2023.png" width="453" /></a></div><br />Last year, as I have for over a decade, <a href="http://scottish-liberal.blogspot.com/2021/12/my-predictions-for-2022.html" target="_blank">I made some predictions for the coming year</a>. Unusually, I got some things spectacularly right... but of course one or two things not quite so right.<p></p><p>Let’s take a look at some of my more impressive predictions from last year before I look at what 2023 may bring. </p><p>I was right that things would get worse for Boris Johnson and that his MPs would lose patience with him. I was also correct that he would be succeeded by Liz Truss, who would beat Rishi Sunak in the leadership election, and that her choice as chancellor would be an unwise one. She did, however, surprise me in choosing someone even more inept that the person I had suggested. </p><p>I predicted that Liz Truss would “lack both the understanding and creativity to turn her party’s fortunes around and the Tories will finish the year fifteen points behind Labour in the polls.” I don’t think anyone could argue I wasn’t on the money there, but even I didn’t think the PM would be out of Downing Street just 49 days after taking office.</p><p>I said it would be a good year for the Lib Dems in by-elections. While there weren’t a lot of by-elections in places where we could do well, the victory at Tiverton and Honiton underlines the point I was making about the party becoming more electable, especially in Conservative-facing seats. I also predicted that 2022 would be good for Labour although Keir Starmer would appear “cautious and never entirely convincing” – admittedly, most people would probably have come to similar conclusions. </p><p>On the international front I surmised that “It will become increasingly clear that no-one has any idea how to handle Russia”. Sadly, and tragically, this prediction now feels like an understatement rather than an astute forecast. I correctly predicted that Bongbong Marcos would win the presidential election in the Philippines and – in arguably my most impressive political prediction ever – foresaw the Republican Party failing to win a majority in the Senate. “The disunity in the increasingly inward-looking GOP, not helped by Donald Trump being very much in the background, will result in a failure to seize opportunities.” </p><p>I was correct in thinking Emmanuel Macron would regain the French presidency; I was wrong to believe the threat of Marine Le Pen would dissipate, although she only finished 1.2% ahead of Jean-Luc Mélenchon to secure a place in the run-off so my broader argument that the RN is on a downward trajectory wasn’t too misplaced. What else did I get right? In football, I correctly predicted Cowdenbeath being relegated from the SPFL, and Newcastle United avoiding relegation. I am quite impressed that I saw West Indies beating England in the Test series – few others thought that a likely outcome.</p><p>My predictions about the World Cup I think were fulfilled in part – whether you judge the event as being a “disaster” for FIFA and Qatar ultimately depends on your perspective. I was certainly wrong when I said “FIFA [would be] apologising for awarding Qatar the competition in the first instance” but, as former FIFA supremo Sepp Blatter essentially did that in a personal capacity, I’m taking some credit there.</p><p>I correctly forecast that Manchester City would win the English Premiership (admittedly, that wasn’t much of a surprise) and, more impressively, that Fulham, Bournemouth and Nottingham Forest would be promoted from the Championship. Who would have foreseen Forest in the top flight this time last year? </p><p>What else did I get right? “Prince Andrew will come under increased pressure to answer questions about sex abuse and his associations with Jeffrey Epstein. Unfortunately, none of the answers will be provided in a courtroom. “ Tick. “The Commonwealth Games will be a great success for Birmingham.” Tick - well done Birmingham on hosting a great event. “The pound’s value will diminish further and the British economy will struggle on account of several factors.” Tick. “Ladbaby will take their fifth successive Christmas number 1.” Tick. The only thing I got wrong was which Christmas classic they would use for the food-inspired parody.</p><p>For the sake of balance, what did I not get right? Well, I had Steve Barclay down as the new chancellor and although he’s still been over-promoted (to Health Secretary) that has to go down as something I got wrong. I’m afraid my prediction that Péter Márki-Zay would oust Viktor Orbán in Hungary was wildly optimistic. My hope that the Lib Dems would “gather for the first non-virtual conference since 2019” was dealt a blow by the death of the queen, and understandably conference committee made the decision to cancel the event. I was also completely wrong when I suggested Douglas Ross would be finding ways to distance himself from the Conservatives at Westminster in order to make the Scottish Tories more distinctive – he really hasn’t done anything.</p><p>Similarly, I was mistaken in thinking there would be a reconciliation between Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party.</p><p>I also was mistaken when I predicted that Brazil would win the World Cup, that Rangers would win the league and that Arsenal would lift the FA Cup. And I thought South Africa would beat England in the summer Test series. But, on the whole, I think I got more right than wrong.</p><p>So, what will happen in 2023?</p><p><br /></p><p><b>POLITICS</b></p><p><b>The Liberal Democrats</b></p><p>2023 will not be too different for the Lib Dems. Once again they will continue to make steady but unspectacular progress, especially in local elections and parliamentary by-elections in which the party best positioned to beat the Tories will win. The party will do well in formerly Conservative-held seats; less well against Labour.</p><p>The Lib Dems’ success will be built on positioning themselves as the best “anyone but the Tory” option in various places, rather than on policy position or an understanding of how to exploit the current economic situation to its advantage. All the same, progress is progress.</p><p>There won’t be a lot new as far as policy development goes. There will be some fraught internal conversations but fortunately the media – and everyone else – won’t really notice these. </p><p>The party’s first non-virtual conference since 2019 will take place this year. No-one will notice this either. </p><p><b>The Conservative Party</b></p><p>On the plus side, things won’t get significantly worse for Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. More negatively from his perspective, they won’t significantly improve either. His survival is assured as no-one else wants the job, but the mood on the backbenches will be far from positive with few inspired by the government’s cautious approach. Some will go as far as to criticise both the PM and his chancellor for being “too left-wing”.</p><p>Essentially, Sunak will have little control of his parliamentary party, but without an obvious leadership figure to rally around the PM will not feel threatened.</p><p>Factionalism will deepen within the party and an ever-widening gulf will emerge between the priorities of government ministers and backbenchers. </p><p>The bullying controversy around Dominic Raab will intensify and Raab will resign as an MP. The resultant by-election will produce a Lib Dem gain.</p><p>With the Conservative Party will continue to struggle in the polls, Sunak will face two distinct challenges: uniting his party and improving its appeal to the public. His decision to bring Priti Patel back into cabinet will achieve little on either front.</p><p>Despite the High Court ruling that Rwanda deportations are legal, Home Secretary Suella Braverman’s dream of “mass deportations” won’t be realised. Firstly, some influential Conservative MPs and Peers will find the whole scheme morally repressible and will be vocal in expressing their feelings. Secondly, facts will emerge about Rwandan refugee camps and the country’s wider approach to human rights. However, most significantly, the scheme will simply prove impractical and expensive with no impact whatsoever on the numbers seeking to across the channel – and, in the final analysis, hardly worth risking the government’s international reputation for. </p><p>Steve Barclay will look increasingly out of his depth as Health Secretary as the nurses’ strike will be followed by similar industrial action from other health professionals - including junior doctors. His attempts to be tough will do little other than reinforce the idea that he is a bully, out of touch with reality and ignorant of the needs of the Health Service. Barclay’s stint as health Secretary will be brief, but he will remain in cabinet following a reshuffle.</p><p><b>The Labour Party</b></p><p>Not much will change for Labour – let’s be realistic, it doesn’t need to. Benefitting from being way ahead on the polls, Starmer will take a few risks policy-wise – being more assertive on economic policy, for example – but generally speaking Labour’s focus will be on exposing Tory weakness and ineptitude rather than speaking about their own priorities.</p><p>Labour will talk positively about constitutional reform, a federalist UK and changes to the electoral system, but unfortunately this will not be followed up by anything of substance. It will adopt a supposedly “open-minded” approach towards the question of Scotland’s future, essentially underlining its lack of any firm policy aside from opposition to independence. </p><p>A string of by-election successes will help project Starmer as a Prime Minister in waiting. They will also have the effect of silencing the criticisms of those within his own party for whom he simply isn’t “left wing” enough... at least for now. </p><p>Starmer, who has struggled to create a strong Labour “brand” so far during his leadership, will be aided by the Conservatives’ internal turmoil. He will also seize the initiative to better sell himself to the British public, speaking up for striking NHS professionals and other public sector workers. </p><p>Labour will be the big winners in the English local elections (the Lib Dems and the Greens will also fare moderately well). </p><p><b>The Scottish National Party</b></p><p>It’s not going to be plain sailing for the SNP. Low economic growth, increased criticism of domestic policy and internal friction around the route to independence will combine to make this a tough year for the First Minister. </p><p>However, as has been the case so often in the past, she will be fortunate in the counter-productive and counter-intuitive tactics her opponents adopt. </p><p>The new SNP leader at Westminster, Stephen Flynn, will demonstrate his strengths and will prove a methodical questioner at PMQs. He will command respect from opponents but crucially, on some key issues, will take an obviously different approach to Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish government. This will only serve to heighten internal tensions. </p><p><b>International</b></p><p>Russia will continue to struggle militarily in Ukraine. Politically speaking, in spite of the messages from official state propaganda, more and more Russians will begin to see the Ukraine conflict as one that cannot be won. These will include many people around Vladimir Putin himself. Various significant officials will be found dead in mysterious situations, before Putin himself will step down in equally mysterious circumstances. The new Russian leader will initially seek a negotiated peace on his terms, failing to appreciate that Russia is not acting from a position of strength.</p><p>Having seen off his political opponents in 2022, the new challenge for Hungary’s Viktor Orbán will be an economic one. With inflation currently at 22% and likely to spiral out of control, Orbán will come to the realisation that he needs the support of fellow EU member states. Expect Orbán to awkwardly seek to present himself as a European moderniser, rowing back on some of his human rights restrictions and illiberal domestic policies and adopting a more friendly approach towards the EU itself. It won’t be enough to halt the descent into economic chaos, however – by the end of the year Orbán and Fidesz will be faltering following a wave of protests. </p><p>It will be a similar story for PiS in Poland. While not in quite the same dire economic predicament as Hungary, low growth of under 0.5% and a wave of protests about price increases and social issues will undermine support for the incumbent government. The current policy of delaying the impact of inflation until after the Sejm elections will be seen for what it is; sensing the rough seas ahead, President Andrzej Duda will call the elections slightly earlier than anticipated and PiS will offer a populist and seemingly generous slate of policies, none of which are realistic. Revitalised opposition parties, sensing PiS’s weakness, will exploit the economic situation to their advantage with some success. Ultimately, the PiS will remain the largest party but without a majority, even with the support of its <i>Zjednoczona Prawica</i> (United Right) partners. A new centrist government will be the likely outcome, but it will be an uneasy alliance hampered by the worsening economic picture.</p><p>In the US, Joe Biden will surprise a few people when he announces that he intends to run for a second term. The Republican Party will continue to be dominated by the spectre of Donald Trump, who similarly will announce he is running for the presidency shortly before being formally indicted by the Department of Justice in relation to potential violations of the Espionage Act. Other Republicans putting themselves forward to be their party’s presidential candidate will include Mke Pompeo (who will withdraw when Trump announces his own intentions), Ted Cruz and Ron DeSantis. DeSantis will be the firm favourite and the ensuing contest between him and Trump will threaten to split the GOP.</p><p>The Czech presidential election, a genuine three-horse race, will be won by Andrej Babiš of the <i>ANO 2011</i> party. The former PM’s cynically opportunistic tactics will see him narrowly triumph over the nominally-independent Danuše Nerudová in the second round.</p><p>A new political union will emerge in East Africa. Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania will be joined by several other nations in the new project, which will aim to create stronger political, economic and humanitarian ties between member states. Concerns will be expressed by the African union that this new group may be the beginning to the emergence of a new federated East African state with the potential to radically alter the balance of power.</p><p>Bola Tinubu will be elected the new president of Nigeria in a close-run contest that the “Western” news media will shamefully take absolutely no interest in. </p><p><br /></p><p><b>FOOTBALL</b></p><p>It seems irrelevant to make predictions for the least competitive football league in the world, but Celtic will win the Scottish Premiership title. Ross County will be relegated and replaced by Dundee. It’s looking very tight at the other end of the SPFL, but I sense that Albion Rovers will finish in bottom place. They will, however, win the play-off decider. </p><p>I would love to see Arsenal win the English Premiership and it is a distinct possibility; however, I suspect Manchester City’s experience and depth of squad will make the difference in the final analysis. Relegated teams will be Wolves, Everton and Southampton. Burnley, Sheffield United and Sunderland will be promoted to the Premiership.<br /><br />It's a tough call but I'm going to tip Arsenal to win the Women's Super League.</p><p>Manchester United will be sold by the Glazers. This news will be welcomed by United fans until the identities and aspirations of the new owners become clearer.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>ELSEWHERE</b></p><p>We will see a lot more use of artificial intelligence, revolutionising the way we work and live. Generative AI, which creates “novel content”, will require universities to radically review their approaches to student assessment. </p><p>Elon Musk will not be involved with twitter by the end of the year. </p><p><br /></p><p><b>IN LIGHTER VEIN</b></p><p>Elon Musk will find a new hobby. Fortunately, it won’t involve the Republican Party; unfortunately, it will involve an entity previously respected in the scientific world.</p><p>John Cleese will announce a brand new show entitled “And now for something completely different”. Unfortunately, it will be broadcast on GB News, won’t be remotely funny and will in fact be “more of the same”. </p><p>The Eurovision Song contest, held in Liverpool, will be a great success. The United Kingdom will enter a dreadful song, not wishing to host the event two years in succession. It will be won by Poland with a pro-Ukraine song, with the contest’s LGBT+ fans being confused as to whether they should or should not celebrate the Polish victory. Liverpool will benefit massively from the economic boost hosting Eurovision will bring, but one of the few Liverpudlians to get a ticket for the final will create some controversy when they tell the BBC that “it’s all a bit s**t really and only marginally better than watching Everton”. </p><p>The coronation of King Charles III will also be a great success. An unmuted microphone will provide an unexpected twist when a brief conversation between the King and the Queen Consort is accidentally broadcast live. The king will be heard saying nice things about both of his sons and their wives, much to the annoyance of Piers Morgan and the <i>Daily Mail</i>. </p><p>The Labour Party will adjust its position on Brexit. It will move from its current stance of doing nothing about it to saying nothing about it.<br /></p><p>Boris Johnson will step down as an MP to spend more time with his commercial interests. These will include a book in which he not only defends his handling of the Coronavirus pandemic but presents himself as a national hero. The book will contain attacks on Matt Hancock and Dominic Cummings, which will lead the latter to take legal action against the former PM.</p><p>Various Conservative MPs including Nadine Dorries and Andrew Bridgen will express their frustrations with the Sunak government to anyone willing to hear them. They will argue that Britain needs to “return to traditional values”, while regurgitating internet conspiracy theories. They will suggest creating a new breakaway party called <i>Common Sense</i>. No-one will take them very seriously but things will get really bad for them when they are openly mocked by Nigel Farage on GB News. </p><p>With the charts so irrelevant that the 2022 Christmas number 1 secured top spot with a mere 65,000 unit sales, the Official UK Top 40 Charts will be abolished. This decision will initially be met with some sadness by music nostalgics, but there will be some relief that it will prevent Ladbaby taking their sixth successive Christmas number 1 with yet another unmemorable “parody”.</p><p>Basically, 2023 will look quite a lot like 2022 but we may see some moves back towards what we used to consider boring day-to-day politics.</p><p><br /></p>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02027368242570244912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3952108899218764633.post-64653176176008370742022-11-23T11:40:00.008+00:002022-11-23T13:47:01.347+00:00The Supreme Court rules on independence referendum - what next?<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSECc4e9qowzaBgkoDu_LePzefbqtDU-QfB5AQ15-QylWb35bD_HsJIzT4q9IHDVqLXgJAcwcTo2hGVd3HPQ5vYk6aIB0kmS8WNEcK_viRe3vcZiXyWJUoAHI14gEgHo30S7kR8XmyJOWjEfOMUZK3ytr0ueC_Nrj0NL5WiGsBwKWdRYCTRUTuH13B/s1024/Supreme-Court-in-London-External-View-1024x683.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="683" data-original-width="1024" height="249" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSECc4e9qowzaBgkoDu_LePzefbqtDU-QfB5AQ15-QylWb35bD_HsJIzT4q9IHDVqLXgJAcwcTo2hGVd3HPQ5vYk6aIB0kmS8WNEcK_viRe3vcZiXyWJUoAHI14gEgHo30S7kR8XmyJOWjEfOMUZK3ytr0ueC_Nrj0NL5WiGsBwKWdRYCTRUTuH13B/w374-h249/Supreme-Court-in-London-External-View-1024x683.jpg" width="374" /></a></div><br />The Supreme Court has today ruled on the legal position of the Scottish government's right to hold an independence referendum. <br /><br /><a href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2022-0098.html" target="_blank">The verdict can be read here</a>.<br /><br />The verdict is not remotely surprising. It emphasises that the Scottish Parliament has no jurisdiction over reserved matters and that holding a referendum without Westminster's approval would be outwith Holyrood's legislative competence. Clearly the devolution settlement was never intended to give the Scottish Parliament this power and the UK's "defence" was essentially to point to the Scotland Act. <p></p><p>What the verdict does is rule on the legal question asked by the Scottish government. What it does not do is take a political position - it's vital to stress this. The Supreme Court is not acting as an extension of Westminster; neither is it making a direct judgment on Scotland's political status. What it is doing is interpreting existing law.</p><p>The Supreme Court does not create law and neither does it make political decisions. The verdict makes sense, however disappointing it may be for some of us. Whether the Scottish Parliament should have the power to call a referendum is another matter entirely, but that was not the question the Supreme Court was seeking to address.</p><p>What I will say is that the decision to refer the question to the Supreme Court was a political one. The Scottish government knew exactly what it was doing, and while it will be somewhat disappointed by the outcome it will - in all likelihood - come as little surprise. Both the Scottish government and the SNP will have prepared themselves for this and they will have responses planned.</p><p>The immediate effect will be that no independence referendum will now take place in 2023. I may be thinking cynically, but I suspect the Scottish government being told by a UK institution that it has no power to call such a referendum is better news for the SNP at the moment than being given the green light. <br /><span color="inherit" style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: inherit; font-weight: inherit; white-space: inherit;"><br />It's also no great "victory" for Westminster or the Union. While Westminster has the legal right to deny a referendum, it would be counter-productive to do so. Any Westminster government essentially telling Scotland it has no right of self-determination would only be helping to make the pro-independence case. </span></p><p>The Scottish Government didn't go to the Supreme Court because they felt they had a solid case. The government is more than aware of the contents of the Scotland Act 1998 and it was always doubtful that it contained previously unexplored powers to hold independence referenda - after all, the 2014 referendum required Westminster's approval. But there were important legal questions it wanted to test, and it put forward some well-formulated and highly complex arguments. Perhaps more significantly, it knew that it couldn't really lose - even if the verdict did not go their way (as it hasn't) there now exists a legal verdict that independence supporters can argue confirms Scotland's subservient status. The SNP will no doubt claim that the ruling represents another unfair roadblock on the path to independence.<br /></p><p><b>Let me put it bluntly - this was not an unexpected setback for the Scottish government.</b> It is not a bad thing for Nicola Sturgeon. I would go so far as to claim that taking this to the Supreme Court was a strategic masterstroke from the Scottish government.</p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1419; font-family: inherit; white-space: pre-wrap;">This verdict is not quite as significant as some people are claiming it to be. It will not "put the issue of independence to bed for a while" as one BBC journalist has claimed this morning. This is merely the beginning of a struggle between Holyrood and Westminster. The decision of the Supreme Court was never going to be the end of the story, and anyone thinking otherwise hasn't been watching closely.
The Supreme Court decision changes nothing. It merely confirms what was already widely understood. If it wasn't clear previously that talk of an "equal partnership" was utter nonsense, it is now - Scotland can only withdraw from the Union it entered into in 1707 with the consent of other parties. That may be the legal position, but politically speaking it is more than problematic. </span></p><p>What will happen next? Not much really. The proposed October 2023 referendum is now definitely off the table, although how committed the Scottish Government and the SNP were to delivering that is questionable. In the longer-term, the fight for independence will go on and the political conversation around Scotland's constitutional future will continue unabated, albeit against the backdrop of UK institutions being seen to deny Scots a democratic vote. We are likely to experience further disunity, frustration, anger and fragmentation in the coming months and years. . </p><p>The ball is now in Rishi Sunak's court. He's unlikely to make any concessions to the Scottish government at present. Ultimately the Supreme Court's verdict was not really about independence - an issue that can only be decided by politicians and the people of Scotland. Until one side or the other backs down, expect more of the same arguments - only with increased intensity. </p><p><br /></p><div class="css-1dbjc4n" style="-webkit-box-align: stretch; -webkit-box-direction: normal; -webkit-box-orient: vertical; align-items: stretch; border: 0px solid black; box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-basis: auto; flex-direction: column; flex-shrink: 0; margin: 0px; min-height: 0px; min-width: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; z-index: 0;"><div aria-label="" class="css-1dbjc4n r-1ta3fxp r-18u37iz r-1wtj0ep r-1s2bzr4 r-1mdbhws" id="id__tkzw4hxwg5o" role="group" style="-webkit-box-align: stretch; -webkit-box-direction: normal; -webkit-box-orient: horizontal; -webkit-box-pack: justify; align-items: stretch; border: 0px solid black; box-sizing: border-box; column-gap: 8px; display: flex; flex-basis: auto; flex-direction: row; flex-shrink: 0; justify-content: space-between; margin: 12px 0px 0px; max-width: 425px; min-height: 0px; min-width: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; z-index: 0;"><div class="css-1dbjc4n r-18u37iz r-1h0z5md" style="-webkit-box-align: stretch; -webkit-box-direction: normal; -webkit-box-orient: horizontal; -webkit-box-pack: start; align-items: stretch; background-color: white; border: 0px solid black; box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-basis: auto; flex-direction: row; flex-shrink: 0; font-size: 15px; justify-content: flex-start; margin: 0px; min-height: 0px; min-width: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; z-index: 0;"><div aria-label="0 Replies. Reply" class="css-18t94o4 css-1dbjc4n r-1777fci r-bt1l66 r-1ny4l3l r-bztko3 r-lrvibr" data-testid="reply" role="button" style="-webkit-box-align: stretch; -webkit-box-direction: normal; -webkit-box-orient: vertical; -webkit-box-pack: center; align-items: stretch; border: 0px solid black; box-sizing: border-box; cursor: pointer; display: flex; flex-basis: auto; flex-direction: column; flex-shrink: 0; justify-content: center; margin: 0px; min-height: 20px; min-width: 0px; outline-style: none; overflow: visible; padding: 0px; position: relative; user-select: none; z-index: 0;" tabindex="0"><div class="css-901oao r-1awozwy r-14j79pv r-6koalj r-37j5jr r-a023e6 r-16dba41 r-1h0z5md r-rjixqe r-bcqeeo r-o7ynqc r-clp7b1 r-3s2u2q r-qvutc0" dir="ltr" style="-webkit-box-align: center; -webkit-box-pack: start; align-items: center; border: 0px solid black; box-sizing: border-box; color: #536471; display: flex; font-family: TwitterChirp, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; justify-content: flex-start; line-height: 20px; margin: 0px; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: color; white-space: nowrap;"><div class="css-1dbjc4n r-xoduu5" style="-webkit-box-align: stretch; -webkit-box-direction: normal; -webkit-box-orient: vertical; align-items: stretch; border: 0px solid black; box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-flex; flex-basis: auto; flex-direction: column; flex-shrink: 0; margin: 0px; min-height: 0px; min-width: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; z-index: 0;"><div class="css-1dbjc4n r-1niwhzg r-sdzlij r-1p0dtai r-xoduu5 r-1d2f490 r-xf4iuw r-1ny4l3l r-u8s1d r-zchlnj r-ipm5af r-o7ynqc r-6416eg" style="-webkit-box-align: stretch; -webkit-box-direction: normal; -webkit-box-orient: vertical; align-items: stretch; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); border-radius: 9999px; border: 0px solid black; box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-flex; flex-basis: auto; flex-direction: column; flex-shrink: 0; inset: 0px; margin: -8px; min-height: 0px; min-width: 0px; outline-style: none; padding: 0px; position: absolute; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, box-shadow; z-index: 0;"></div><svg aria-hidden="true" class="r-4qtqp9 r-yyyyoo r-1xvli5t r-dnmrzs r-bnwqim r-1plcrui r-lrvibr r-1hdv0qi" viewbox="0 0 24 24"><g><path d="M1.751 10c0-4.42 3.584-8 8.005-8h4.366c4.49 0 8.129 3.64 8.129 8.13 0 2.96-1.607 5.68-4.196 7.11l-8.054 4.46v-3.69h-.067c-4.49.1-8.183-3.51-8.183-8.01zm8.005-6c-3.317 0-6.005 2.69-6.005 6 0 3.37 2.77 6.08 6.138 6.01l.351-.01h1.761v2.3l5.087-2.81c1.951-1.08 3.163-3.13 3.163-5.36 0-3.39-2.744-6.13-6.129-6.13H9.756z"></path></g></svg></div><div class="css-1dbjc4n r-xoduu5 r-1udh08x" style="-webkit-box-align: stretch; -webkit-box-direction: normal; -webkit-box-orient: vertical; align-items: stretch; border: 0px solid black; box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-flex; flex-basis: auto; flex-direction: column; flex-shrink: 0; margin: 0px; min-height: 0px; min-width: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; z-index: 0;"><span data-testid="app-text-transition-container" style="transform: translate3d(0px, 0px, 0px); transition-duration: 0.3s; transition-property: transform;"><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-n6v787 r-1cwl3u0 r-1k6nrdp r-1e081e0 r-qvutc0" color="inherit" style="border: 0px solid black; box-sizing: border-box; display: inline; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 16px; margin: 0px; min-width: calc(1em + 24px); overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px 12px; white-space: inherit;"></span></span></div></div></div></div><div class="css-1dbjc4n r-18u37iz r-1h0z5md" style="-webkit-box-align: stretch; -webkit-box-direction: normal; -webkit-box-orient: horizontal; -webkit-box-pack: start; align-items: stretch; background-color: white; border: 0px solid black; box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-basis: auto; flex-direction: row; flex-shrink: 0; font-size: 15px; justify-content: flex-start; margin: 0px; min-height: 0px; min-width: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; z-index: 0;"><div aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="menu" aria-label="0 Retweets. Retweet" class="css-18t94o4 css-1dbjc4n r-1777fci r-bt1l66 r-1ny4l3l r-bztko3 r-lrvibr" data-testid="retweet" role="button" style="-webkit-box-align: stretch; -webkit-box-direction: normal; -webkit-box-orient: vertical; -webkit-box-pack: center; align-items: stretch; border: 0px solid black; box-sizing: border-box; cursor: pointer; display: flex; flex-basis: auto; flex-direction: column; flex-shrink: 0; justify-content: center; margin: 0px; min-height: 20px; min-width: 0px; outline-style: none; overflow: visible; padding: 0px; position: relative; user-select: none; z-index: 0;" tabindex="0"><div class="css-901oao r-1awozwy r-14j79pv r-6koalj r-37j5jr r-a023e6 r-16dba41 r-1h0z5md r-rjixqe r-bcqeeo r-o7ynqc r-clp7b1 r-3s2u2q r-qvutc0" dir="ltr" style="-webkit-box-align: center; -webkit-box-pack: start; align-items: center; border: 0px solid black; box-sizing: border-box; color: #536471; display: flex; font-family: TwitterChirp, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; justify-content: flex-start; line-height: 20px; margin: 0px; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: color; white-space: nowrap;"><div class="css-1dbjc4n r-xoduu5" style="-webkit-box-align: stretch; -webkit-box-direction: normal; -webkit-box-orient: vertical; align-items: stretch; border: 0px solid black; box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-flex; flex-basis: auto; flex-direction: column; flex-shrink: 0; margin: 0px; min-height: 0px; min-width: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; z-index: 0;"><div class="css-1dbjc4n r-1niwhzg r-sdzlij r-1p0dtai r-xoduu5 r-1d2f490 r-xf4iuw r-1ny4l3l r-u8s1d r-zchlnj r-ipm5af r-o7ynqc r-6416eg" style="-webkit-box-align: stretch; -webkit-box-direction: normal; -webkit-box-orient: vertical; align-items: stretch; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); border-radius: 9999px; border: 0px solid black; box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-flex; flex-basis: auto; flex-direction: column; flex-shrink: 0; inset: 0px; margin: -8px; min-height: 0px; min-width: 0px; outline-style: none; padding: 0px; position: absolute; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, box-shadow; z-index: 0;"><br /></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02027368242570244912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3952108899218764633.post-7028202532445973002022-10-20T22:07:00.014+01:002022-10-20T22:34:34.883+01:00Who will replace Liz Truss as Prime Minister?<div class="separator"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIqBUFeMzpToqA_zkgl5AESGfsE0_9cVBOEsGhk6gXR8wvasyFfl9lYWwUOlU6ykTcW7FTIO4gTzPFGhWY0i2hlv2YIM7uA_CZRYU0_UfuZU4wEJVWN6VMxV1Btrvo4CPKRNqJaEoMU-ytTxejmV01hn8Rkm87kxM2ceLGTahW8osmoLQ-OwXk7kYf/s3000/downing%20street.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1738" data-original-width="3000" height="247" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIqBUFeMzpToqA_zkgl5AESGfsE0_9cVBOEsGhk6gXR8wvasyFfl9lYWwUOlU6ykTcW7FTIO4gTzPFGhWY0i2hlv2YIM7uA_CZRYU0_UfuZU4wEJVWN6VMxV1Btrvo4CPKRNqJaEoMU-ytTxejmV01hn8Rkm87kxM2ceLGTahW8osmoLQ-OwXk7kYf/w427-h247/downing%20street.jpg" width="427" /></a></div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>This is the question everyone is asking. Personally, I believe it's the wrong one but obviously we can't have a country without a Prime Minister and the 1922 Committee have set the wheels in motion for yet another leadership election.<br /><br />So who are the likely candidates? Who will be the next person to attempt the near-impossible task of leading the Conservative party while simultaneously running the country?<br /><br />Here's my review of some of the likely - and one or two unlikely - successors to Liz Truss.<br /><br /><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjw1mp2WEkulHY91ebnQ_CF9dc2CHekJQZv8fkHDjNujOIvBgOFj5-lg5-3H-WTir3XdGVK3xBN7qw976jIqboyCmD13QM_-2riJ3Mpmyroynyx0743Gy-zJw-lP7C2Cyw8NEg7ddnuwMpm0XAmVO0TztjLqxkaM2cWz1frT-uh0kaGNib9HwJG5Khq/s465/Johnson.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="310" data-original-width="465" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjw1mp2WEkulHY91ebnQ_CF9dc2CHekJQZv8fkHDjNujOIvBgOFj5-lg5-3H-WTir3XdGVK3xBN7qw976jIqboyCmD13QM_-2riJ3Mpmyroynyx0743Gy-zJw-lP7C2Cyw8NEg7ddnuwMpm0XAmVO0TztjLqxkaM2cWz1frT-uh0kaGNib9HwJG5Khq/s320/Johnson.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Name:</b> Boris Johnson<div><b><br />Age:</b> 58</div><div><b><br />What would he bring? </b>Experience of actually being Prime Minister, which is helpful. He also has experience of resigning, which may be even more helpful. He is popular among party members and some fiercely loyal MPs. Johnson is no ideologue and is unlikely to oversee a disastrous budget. And let's be honest, he knows how to have a party!<br /><b><br />Should we be worried?</b> Yes. He's Boris Johnson. His supporters seem blind to the fact that he, more than anyone else, is responsible for the current political situation. If Johnson returns for a second spell as PM, just weeks after being ousted, there is a real danger that the Conservatives will turn into the UK equivalent of the GOP. <br /><br /><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhQIb_8onTMQr8Zt3Tk52G9djzIghtvzmO6pS5jiDLQIYJapaVWALoESh7jDx1h07VGWpKXJ6dPBdrh2tfko2rXzhOMxzEBLjWJKWaBEFOrjagiaR3Gl9TQNqxx1fsym2utXYl0Vr06sBIr2L8ihKpKv8CwSQQrI9Xy700IgKyb_6udI2eYU_miwXPK" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="199" data-original-width="320" height="199" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhQIb_8onTMQr8Zt3Tk52G9djzIghtvzmO6pS5jiDLQIYJapaVWALoESh7jDx1h07VGWpKXJ6dPBdrh2tfko2rXzhOMxzEBLjWJKWaBEFOrjagiaR3Gl9TQNqxx1fsym2utXYl0Vr06sBIr2L8ihKpKv8CwSQQrI9Xy700IgKyb_6udI2eYU_miwXPK" width="320" /></a></div><b>Name:</b> Kemi Badenoch<br /><br /><b>Age:</b> 42<br /><b><br />What would she bring?</b> Novelty, a fair bit of noise and a political ideology that is hard to distinguish from the likes of Suella Braverman (see below). Relatively inexperienced politically, having been first elected as an MP in 2019, Badenoch is seen by many as the future of the Conservative Party. Popular with right wingers and those who self-identify as "anti-woke", she is a self-appointed warrior against "identity politics". During the last leadership election she targetted the government's Net Zero strategy as "ill-considered", arguing that it was disadvantaging industry<br /><br /><b>Should we be worried?</b> Yes. Unless, of course, you want a culture warrior as Prime Minister.<br /><br /><br /><p></p><p><b></b></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWLLmHJpFcho0yMxW_PrjCQS0cMAe7fHBhHX-To6hncDNKdcmjgEgzs5lDyzcT1SyS5OzAwi3FwOx9FXp6G-2WPbtJajy8bztbyyJpTD36XCPd3TpHFofqAcI1_-Of-XJnsooy6f5x7qY2gJ_iGV6Lf2DflUgqHCrLbKlNhY7lDwUJx01fKwB5MyA_/s465/Penny.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="310" data-original-width="465" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWLLmHJpFcho0yMxW_PrjCQS0cMAe7fHBhHX-To6hncDNKdcmjgEgzs5lDyzcT1SyS5OzAwi3FwOx9FXp6G-2WPbtJajy8bztbyyJpTD36XCPd3TpHFofqAcI1_-Of-XJnsooy6f5x7qY2gJ_iGV6Lf2DflUgqHCrLbKlNhY7lDwUJx01fKwB5MyA_/s320/Penny.jpg" width="320" /></a></b></div><b>Name:</b> Penny Mordaunt<p></p><b>Age:</b> 49<br /><br /><b>What would she bring? </b>An experienced minister and a very good communicator, Mordaunt came very close to beating Truss into second place during the last leadership election. She is admired by many within and outwith the party as someone who is straight-talking and charismatic. She is undeniably ambitious and, as she showed this week when she responded to an urgent question from Labour in the absence of the Prime Minister, possesses a Machiavellian streak. Tactically far more astute that her immediate predecessors, she is more palatable to non-Tories than many other prospective candidates. She is seen as socially liberal, but only by Conservative standards. Mordaunt has tied herself in knots over transgender self-identification, having previously openly supported self-ID.<br /><br /><b>Should we be worried?</b> Yes. While an obvious asset to her party, it's not entirely clear what policy direction she would pursue if Prime Minister. Early indications in the last leadership contest were that she wanted to make ambitious tax cuts, although the failure of Kwarteng's mini-budget may have resulted in a rethink. Her willingness to move away from previously well-articulated positons (e.g. self ID) brings into question her forthrightness and convictions. She's also not averse to making up false "truths": during the EU referendum campaign Mordaunt made misleading claims that the UK could not prevent Turkey joining the EU. <br /><br /><br /><p></p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikhmkZEkIH6TSOfHyJ9VF3BYHtexoDUZHdkkaVXHqmoPxdXbISuRVIOWnnuFEEkxH0leToe8QIsDEZ1fipreqU2UuM_1I28bWau7Eyjip1P8eGfMtONEhAJI3hAvTEIrvCC15Xs6CQKCqpY-cimVs4ZcaitUL0ZZPwmdodp1C0QabuGokMzzz1P01G/s465/francois.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="310" data-original-width="465" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikhmkZEkIH6TSOfHyJ9VF3BYHtexoDUZHdkkaVXHqmoPxdXbISuRVIOWnnuFEEkxH0leToe8QIsDEZ1fipreqU2UuM_1I28bWau7Eyjip1P8eGfMtONEhAJI3hAvTEIrvCC15Xs6CQKCqpY-cimVs4ZcaitUL0ZZPwmdodp1C0QabuGokMzzz1P01G/s320/francois.jpg" width="320" /></a></p><p><b>Name:</b> Mark Francois</p><p><b>Age:</b> 57<br /><br /><b>What would he bring?</b> Comedy value<br /><b><br />Should we be worried? </b>If he was elected PM, very. But the chances of that are, fortunately, so remote as to be astronomical. <br /><b><br /><br /><br /></b><b><br /></b></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4DKfXKIu8cOynSfYHWDCQuuJBHv_FoIFPnro27IKja0nigxSEML9rhEgafC1fUPeF-9Y_jVECb8vtFyju9BcAvzxL8Q2TeVce7WexpQFk5H4_hVaUzRQG6Zvo7UVANnSujntspCcpdJRjGe0i6aaMGM3F4-x3AEowA1x9uO4m1HqciUo7O7JsxUQa/s1536/Hunt.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="864" data-original-width="1536" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4DKfXKIu8cOynSfYHWDCQuuJBHv_FoIFPnro27IKja0nigxSEML9rhEgafC1fUPeF-9Y_jVECb8vtFyju9BcAvzxL8Q2TeVce7WexpQFk5H4_hVaUzRQG6Zvo7UVANnSujntspCcpdJRjGe0i6aaMGM3F4-x3AEowA1x9uO4m1HqciUo7O7JsxUQa/s320/Hunt.jpg" width="320" /></a></b></div><b>Name:</b> Jeremy Hunt<p></p><b>Age:</b> 55<br /><br /><b>What would he bring?</b> Many would argue that Hunt would bring some kind of stability as a "safe pair of hands". Hunt certainly has extensive ministerial experience, but his time as Health Secretary was overshadowed by allegations that he played fast and loose with scientific data for political purposes. He also caused controversy as Culture Secretary when he suggested that football hooliganism played a significant role in the deaths of 96 at Hillsborough in 1989. Brought in as chancellor recently to avert further disaster, Hunt is unlikely to remain in that role once a new Prime Minister is in office. Hunt finished second to Johnson in the 2019 leadership contest, but a distant second - he is respected by some as a potential "unity candidate" but lacks any significant level of personal support among party members. <br /><br /><b>Should we be worried? </b>He is less worrying than some of the other possible candidates, but his ministerial history gives reasons for concern. Unlikely to put himself forward for the top job.</div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2dCjHyuVegQj2u8zGCaEMPcV6txC8KqLFAf1-QUI1BqND1iZpRVPLJFpSdqnOVFECMp68Sx-h0CUx8pe6v86QTWzP2n9nF7nu22TBp1m7QqqIK7soHFU-A4ZQZthyPwoHvtXcerAL6Pj7e5kqJFg_FobMiYuymX57bbvWsS7p8BTp3HaKWd4F1KxS/s465/Sunak.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="310" data-original-width="465" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2dCjHyuVegQj2u8zGCaEMPcV6txC8KqLFAf1-QUI1BqND1iZpRVPLJFpSdqnOVFECMp68Sx-h0CUx8pe6v86QTWzP2n9nF7nu22TBp1m7QqqIK7soHFU-A4ZQZthyPwoHvtXcerAL6Pj7e5kqJFg_FobMiYuymX57bbvWsS7p8BTp3HaKWd4F1KxS/s320/Sunak.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Name:</b> Rishi Sunak<p><b>Age:</b> 42<br /><b><br />What would he bring?</b> Experience and a reputation for competence. Sunak would be the first UK Prime Minister of Asian heritage. He finished as runner-up to Liz Truss in the members' ballot only a few weeks ago and has the support of many of the parliamentary party. He would also bring some controversy with him - his resignation as chancellor precipitated Johnson's fall from power and this makes him unpalatable to many. He also was responsible for the Eat Out to Help Out scheme and his response to the "Cost of Living crisis" was seen by many to demonstrate how out of touch he was with ordinary people. The non-domiciled status of his wife also brought his personal life - and his tax liabilities - into sharp focus.<br /><br /><b>Should we be worried? </b>He at least had the courage and good sense to call out Trussonomics during the last leadership campaign. On the plus side, he is unlikely to adopt a high-risk economic strategy or do anything to destablise the country. He is also unlikely to embroil himself in culture wars or identify himself with the kind of rhetoric espoused by Braverman and Badenoch. Whether he has the ability to effectively lead the Conservative Party is another matter entirely.<br /><br /><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjQfZWuTndNd-fDbwVoMVQcnhC5EvMN-RbRoioyNb_6YKhS5AOuD4OvuOYHFheCNx1RdAY49L6n7KiANkCuhGWaCXal9KBx8KXEU5hNXbwjq3nt-sE-vJ6b8cJrZ_83_Z2oovzbv1jOyqcs4bLL1wfq9cVyfE1FrFe8-q49WMQMiMg7dyQrTKl4VoOY" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="213" data-original-width="320" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjQfZWuTndNd-fDbwVoMVQcnhC5EvMN-RbRoioyNb_6YKhS5AOuD4OvuOYHFheCNx1RdAY49L6n7KiANkCuhGWaCXal9KBx8KXEU5hNXbwjq3nt-sE-vJ6b8cJrZ_83_Z2oovzbv1jOyqcs4bLL1wfq9cVyfE1FrFe8-q49WMQMiMg7dyQrTKl4VoOY" width="320" /></a></div><b>Name:</b> Suella Braverman<br /><br /><b>Age:</b> 42<br /><br /><b>What would she bring? </b>Dreams of deportations to Rwanda, threats to "tofu-eating wokerati" and an over-inflated view of her own abilities, judging by the letter announcing her resignation as Home Secretary earlier this week. Her greatest political achievement to date was in debunking the theory that there could not possibly be a more inhuman Home Secretary than Priti Patel. Understandably popular with the right-wing of the Conservative membership. <br /><br /><b>Should we be worried? </b>Very. She's Kemi Badenoch on acid.<br /><br /><br /><p></p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAj7AD5YkEsWHng_tokcSfPnVqB-ABpCacvH3--r_2RZuUXe9p1iGSWceWX5E0zNGVuRMzEZdNvnkZba354mJOz-KucnyR47hewGXcwsikyDB_gg8x8gXJQTaZYWLNqx5W-MQ1oDoZk8fU92PzDu5_K08iRpmq3f7NbBfz9rU29VailnFBZstGEY4M/s615/Dorries.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="410" data-original-width="615" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAj7AD5YkEsWHng_tokcSfPnVqB-ABpCacvH3--r_2RZuUXe9p1iGSWceWX5E0zNGVuRMzEZdNvnkZba354mJOz-KucnyR47hewGXcwsikyDB_gg8x8gXJQTaZYWLNqx5W-MQ1oDoZk8fU92PzDu5_K08iRpmq3f7NbBfz9rU29VailnFBZstGEY4M/s320/Dorries.jpg" width="320" /></a><b>Name: </b>Nadine Dorries<br /><br /><b>Age:</b> 65<br /><br /><b>What would she bring? </b>Incoherence and absurdity. Even more comedy value than Mark Francois. <br /><b><br />Should we be worried? </b>Not really. She's likely to throw herself into Boris Johnson's leadership campaign.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></p><p><b></b></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBCVf69ag4IDcVl_82hd9BWGqF0xdVNTxlTUTkLtiRvNRh3ZWwuo3NWyz1vqgxYHLLKoJ7OjFFajkcQoruW-eVk0C6WFzbuvTCC4rTOyLFTYZjF_4sBJuG3GlENkdrqfbx7cJlxy-x1qHniWcJbJMmhjMKNSIMUMbjrYOgwVXSFgngJMXSApL0fSuJ/s2368/Barclay.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1584" data-original-width="2368" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBCVf69ag4IDcVl_82hd9BWGqF0xdVNTxlTUTkLtiRvNRh3ZWwuo3NWyz1vqgxYHLLKoJ7OjFFajkcQoruW-eVk0C6WFzbuvTCC4rTOyLFTYZjF_4sBJuG3GlENkdrqfbx7cJlxy-x1qHniWcJbJMmhjMKNSIMUMbjrYOgwVXSFgngJMXSApL0fSuJ/s320/Barclay.jpg" width="320" /></a></b></div><b>Name: </b>Steve Barclay<br /><b><br />Age: </b>50<br /><b><br />What would he bring?</b> Experience of several (short-lived) ministerial roles. Barclay has the advantage of not being widely disliked. Uninspiring and unexciting, Barclay may in fact be the ideal "unity candidate" that some are looking for. His career to date has been controversy-free - a huge asset. As Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, Barclay oversaw the UK's exit from the EU, which would give him some Brownie points among Conservative members. <br /><br /><b>Should we be worried?</b> Despite having taken on many ministerial roles, he has seldom served for more than a few months. His relative experience counts against him. It's very difficult to know what his policy objectives would be. <p></p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgekfOW1h9JgDxonjkk9-wWZXPfKAM4cFVLgO360rHsMtc2GuLtAtnv1AvQRZ3NZYaagAvfeiUIRDS9CkzE_lTWv923aVVB4CJRxp6dNKRO3E5mSiyE-T-T_S0hXOYbzkut83-p9-GUAZQkcC3Dh0PF1js7O3S7_M_8ml3V6-VUvzozeynFwgIU5kmL" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="240" data-original-width="320" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgekfOW1h9JgDxonjkk9-wWZXPfKAM4cFVLgO360rHsMtc2GuLtAtnv1AvQRZ3NZYaagAvfeiUIRDS9CkzE_lTWv923aVVB4CJRxp6dNKRO3E5mSiyE-T-T_S0hXOYbzkut83-p9-GUAZQkcC3Dh0PF1js7O3S7_M_8ml3V6-VUvzozeynFwgIU5kmL" width="320" /></a></div><b>Name:</b> Sir Graham Brady<br /><b><br />Age:</b> 55<br /><b><br />What would he bring? </b>Experience of chairing the powerful 1922 Committee. Brady has been one of the most powerful men in the country for the last twelve and a half years (barring a few months in 2019 when he resigned to consider a leadership bid). Should he wish to run this time around he would have the advantage of being perceived as having the necessary leadership skills and the required gravitas.<br /><b><br />Should we be worried? </b>No. Sir Graham Brady is not stupid. He would not exchange the power he has currently to inherit the mess created by May, Johnson and Truss. <br /><br /><br /></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj76G1t1Sd0vpD7xn2VcakmH-WFI4ythHwCI2rCSmL3b1XlnzULqRiOOKcJ284b3p80BaxPaFOqS7Q0QfBOIqQ_85SKrdvTya1-W7S8TgWvGllw0yKkv0WUB3HcVae84dznvlQBm_tnASnpo-fREy9CZYz_4t2McJXR8pg9-FHSRDljSWIb6aXKHodr/s976/Javid.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="549" data-original-width="976" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj76G1t1Sd0vpD7xn2VcakmH-WFI4ythHwCI2rCSmL3b1XlnzULqRiOOKcJ284b3p80BaxPaFOqS7Q0QfBOIqQ_85SKrdvTya1-W7S8TgWvGllw0yKkv0WUB3HcVae84dznvlQBm_tnASnpo-fREy9CZYz_4t2McJXR8pg9-FHSRDljSWIb6aXKHodr/s320/Javid.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></div><div><b>Name:</b> Sajid Javid</div><div><p><b>Age:</b> 52<br /><b><br />What would he bring?</b> Experience of short-lived stints as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Health Secretary and Home Secretary. He also has experience of making sensational resignation statements. One-time remainer who later championed the "hardest" possible Brexit, "The Saj" has never been far from controversy.<br /><br /><b>Should we be worried? </b>Two previous failed leadership bids suggest not.<br /><b><br /><br /><br /></b></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7B1C3PqUgfDwFTwMAAA416CIrwGpM4bzWxZEpgItqCUQ74tZO2sR9BxKzWv-aEiz2cow0enGihfRDYghYKSNccZ_3uU-DlMHHmuhnyzrQv98CyMdzStsPA9P2GLa5yU0ai35GErqPu55SVDNtua1iqnJyxphuKryiXem_TSY1mKEBAsWpLkzse-cs/s615/cat.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="409" data-original-width="615" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7B1C3PqUgfDwFTwMAAA416CIrwGpM4bzWxZEpgItqCUQ74tZO2sR9BxKzWv-aEiz2cow0enGihfRDYghYKSNccZ_3uU-DlMHHmuhnyzrQv98CyMdzStsPA9P2GLa5yU0ai35GErqPu55SVDNtua1iqnJyxphuKryiXem_TSY1mKEBAsWpLkzse-cs/s320/cat.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><b>Name:</b> Larry the Downing Street cat<p></p><p><b>Age:</b> circa 15<br /><br /><b>What would he bring?</b> Larry knows his way around Downing Street and has already seen off four Prime Ministers. He is well acquainted with cabinet ministers, civil servants and the media. On the down side, he has been criticised for "lacking the killer instinct" and his interactions with other animals - but he is generally appreciated by the British public. It is not known what his political views are but he did serve as Chief Mouser during the coalition years so may be open to collaboration across the political spectrum.<br /><br /><b>Should we be worried?</b> Erm, no.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /></div>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02027368242570244912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3952108899218764633.post-88830861614616673842022-10-20T14:59:00.006+01:002022-10-20T15:49:17.151+01:00Farewell Liz Truss, a catostrophic failure<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlbxeS48znzihuQC6_Pd0FrIXGzmGKK58n59iqdAch1-4HXjpq-Z9779gn4ALiZ7jHqgsjnGDwE-4P6EIpWo4d1WmmXujDVBV0IA5RVOpPmIDpJvQ0fHUU79JgLZ07CTMKNXcyJS7n-gCYBIr-_8eHGaqqN4C-d1vWiLOkxUqmDAryWXvkBlg5NBBX/s962/truss.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="641" data-original-width="962" height="267" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlbxeS48znzihuQC6_Pd0FrIXGzmGKK58n59iqdAch1-4HXjpq-Z9779gn4ALiZ7jHqgsjnGDwE-4P6EIpWo4d1WmmXujDVBV0IA5RVOpPmIDpJvQ0fHUU79JgLZ07CTMKNXcyJS7n-gCYBIr-_8eHGaqqN4C-d1vWiLOkxUqmDAryWXvkBlg5NBBX/w401-h267/truss.jpg" width="401" /></a></div><br /><br />For most people who have occupied the highest political office in the UK, their time as Prime Minister represents the high point of their careers.<br /><br />Not so Liz Truss.<br /><br />Her resignation today comes after just 44 days in 10 Downing Street, and was the inevitable result of an unmitigated and unprecedented failure of leadership..<br /><br />To ask where it went wrong for Liz Truss would be to fail to do justice to the enormity of that failure. There was nothing that went right for Liz Truss, and there was a singular reason for that: Liz Truss.<br /><br />The fantastical promises made in the indulgent leadership contest made it quite clear that Truss was not going to be a "safe pair of hands". She could have been an unspectacular but "safe" option had she not, for whatever reasons, decided to present herself as the new Thatcher ushering in an era of tax cuts. She could have won over the support of the many MPs who either distrusted or disliked her, had she not opted to put together a "conviction cabinet" whose convictions made the previous incumbents at the Treasury and Home Office look positively centrist by comparison.<p></p><p>On becoming Prime Minister Liz Truss did nothing to cultivate unity within her party, which has been paralysed by divisions for years. Her friends and allies were given the top positions in government,which could have worked under someone with a reputation for strength who can effectively manage their subordinates. In Truss's case, she failed to appreciate that - being the choice of the party membership but definitely not the MPs - she needed to act in ways that brought her parliamentary party together, rather than reinforce further divisions with an "us and them" mentality. For example, she could have appointed a Home Secretary who was non-controversial nor prone to making intemperate rants on the floor of the House of Commons, but she instead promoted Suella Braverman. Playing safe was never Truss's intention. She adopted a high risk strategy and it backfired spectacularly. <br /><br />The Prime Minister was handed an early test following the death of Her Majesty, but failed to use that to her advantage, appearing wooden and failing to adequately express the feelings of the nation. That failure was not critical, but it denied her the opportunity to cultivate some goodwill and demonstrate her ability to lead the country. <br /><br />Of course, we do not elect Prime Ministers in the UK. Liz Truss was elected to lead the Conservative Party, and throughout her premiership she acted in ways that seemed aimed to please those who elected her rather than in the interests of the country. That was a mistake of enormous proportions.</p><p>From the outset - actually, even before she entered Downing Street - Truss made her views on the leaders of the devolved parliaments clear, suggesting a certain view of devolution (not to mention Wales and Scotland themselves). However, it is one thing to insult Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford when acting tough for Conservative members in election hustings or conference speeches, quite another to inexplicably fail to contact either First Minister during her entire time in office.<br /><br />The mini-budget was a failure not primarily because it was ideologically driven but because it was, essentially, back of an envelope stuff. Liz Truss and her then chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng, also demonstrated a lack of understanding of how markets work - a criminal failure for any political leader, but particularly critical for a new Prime Minister. If Truss had taken a longer-term approach to realise her economic plan, it could have been more successful - but she was intent on making clear her Thatcherite credientials from the outset. Kwarteng was a victim of the PM overreaching herself, but far from the only one - there are many people who will be financially struggling for some time because of the Prime Minister's vanity and ignorance.<br /><br />Presenting yourself as a strong leader who doesn't "u-turn" is only a good tactic if you can back the rhetoric up with something solid. There was, however, nothing solid to Liz Truss's leadership. I have lost count of how many u-turns (and u-turns on u-turns) that Liz Truss made during her brief time in Downing Street but she has become so synonymous with altering course that my oldest daughter now refers to changing her mind as "doing a Truss" or "Lizzing it". <br /><br />The news media is alrady speculating about who Liz Truss's successor will be. This obscured the fact is that the Conservative Party is fundamentally unleadable. Liz Truss's greatest failure was the failure to appreciate how enormous the task was. <br /><br />Her conference speech, in which she created a convenient bogeyman - "the anti-growth coalition" was as nauseating as it was laughable from a Prime Minister whose ill-conveived mini-budget had devastated the UK economy. Choosing to identify political opponents as a collective, regressive force had McCarthyite undertones and, quite frankly, did little to help the Prime Minister be taken seriously by anyone other than the most paranoid of right-wing Conservatives.</p><p>Truss had a reputation for ineptitude prior to entering number 10, a reputation that has only been further enhanced in recent weeks. The only thing I am surprised about is how quickly everything has unravelled, and the degree of ineptitude.</p><p>A fine example of this was witnessed yesterday, when Downing Street turned a clever, but also highly transparent, Labour ploy into a vote of confidence in the Prime Minister. The chaos that ensued was entirely due to the Conservative Party's remarkable ability to fall into the most obvious of traps. <br /><br />In recent days the Prime Minister has looked overwhelmed by events, in office but not in power, struggling to hold everything together. It was impossible not to feel some degree of empathy for her position. However, it is equally impossible to deny that Liz Truss's failures were largely of her own making. </p><p>Liz Truss offered nothing original. The short-lived Trussonomics (very effectively debunked during the leadership campaign by her opponent, Rishi Sunak) contained nothing particularly new, and was mainly a rehash of Thatcherite policies that had worked to varying degrees in a different time under different conditions. Even her defiant "<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/19/im-a-fighter-not-a-quitter-truss-channels-peter-mandelson-at-pmqs" target="_blank">I am a fighter and not a quitter</a>" channelled Peter Mandelson (why she would wish to do this I have absolutely no idea). </p><p>It would be easy to laugh at this incredible catalogue of failure were it not so painfully serious. At least Liz Truss, now having resigned after 44 of the most difficult days of her life, will be free from the pressures that were weighing so heavily upon someone so obviously unsuited to a leadership role. In her resignation speech, the Prime Minister said that she could not "deliver the mandate on which she was elected by the Conservative Party" - that is going to be a huge problem for whoever is either brave or foolish enough to attempt to lead the country (and the party) next. <br /><br />Liz Truss's time as Prime Minister is the latest episode in a long line of failure in 10 Downing Street. However, no failure was as spectacular, nor as inevitable.<br /><br />Liz Truss has made history, but not in any way she will be keen to remember. She sets an unenviable record, relieving George Canning of the distinction of holding the office of Prime Minister for the shortest time in history. Could it all have ended differently? Possibly, but the only way in which Liz Truss could have made a success of her premiership is if she had ceased to be Liz Truss.</p><p><br /><br /></p>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02027368242570244912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3952108899218764633.post-34191155164365945872022-09-26T20:33:00.002+01:002022-09-28T02:12:05.346+01:00Labour conference supports PR - what next?<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcSaScD2ouDzrZa10EQMDs0SX2Z-xoEWFOyKdSs7lOmckuZPpsNS7M54Gyd7NiP150DuEey-weAa9kB0_2NF-PWgE1YoU3NYgoCENMHk1zxLi1L3GuGqIaNjRt3eZV4TJ_02zUd4Eln3amYhK7ZKcSH6HncfSquQhRk4i6FmsT-a9gzLYCOS-rWS3i/s800/vote.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="800" height="231" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcSaScD2ouDzrZa10EQMDs0SX2Z-xoEWFOyKdSs7lOmckuZPpsNS7M54Gyd7NiP150DuEey-weAa9kB0_2NF-PWgE1YoU3NYgoCENMHk1zxLi1L3GuGqIaNjRt3eZV4TJ_02zUd4Eln3amYhK7ZKcSH6HncfSquQhRk4i6FmsT-a9gzLYCOS-rWS3i/w462-h231/vote.jpg" width="462" /></a></div><br />In a move that represents a huge step forward for UK democracy, Labour Party Conference has voted for a manifesto commitment to proportional representation for general elections.<p></p><p>This is a very welcome development and not quite the surprise some commentators seem to be suggesting. There has been a shift of thinking within the Labour Party on PR in recent years, with many members recognising that the First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system no longer serves their party well - if ever it really did. Significantly, the motion was supported by a majority of members and affiliated unions - lest we forget, certain trade union leaders have in the past been extremely vocal in their opposition.</p><p>It's terrific that Labour's members have chosen to be on the right side of history in voting for a fairer electoral system. And while it's fantastic news for those of us who have long been supportive of electoral reform and frustrated with Labour's historical lack of commitment to change, the devil as always is in the detail. </p><p>What is likely to happen next?</p><p>Let's take a look at what the motion actually said and what actions it commits the party to. <a href="https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/labour-conference-motion-2022?link_id=7&can_id=b5874d66df5509731dbbae0130568784&source=email-labour-conference-2022&email_referrer=email_1678780&email_subject=labour-conference-backs-pr">The full text of the motion can be read here</a>. Essentially, it determines that FPTP is broken and danmaging to our democracy and can only be fixed by adopting PR. Conference resolved to achieve this by the following:<br /></p><p>* Labour must make a commitment to introduce Proportional Representation for general elections in the next manifesto.</p><p>* During its first term in office the next Labour government must change the voting system for general elections to a form of PR.</p><p>* Labour should convene an open and inclusive process to decide the specific proportional voting system it will introduce.</p><p>Let's not get too excited. The first of those actions is very welcome, although I see no reason to limit the use of PR to general elections. However, it is clear that conference had no clear path in mind. There is a commitment to changing the voting system from PFTP, but no consideration has been given to what may replace it. In terms of the decision-making process to determine the electoral system to be adopted, the reference to an "open and inclusive process" raises significant questions. Will this be an internal party process or a wider - even national - consultation? Will it involve other parties? Could it facilitate a constitutional convention to consider the options and make recomemndations? How will Labour work with other opposition parties and groups such as the Electoral Reform Society and Unlock Democracy to achieve these ends? <br /><br />Crucially, this decision does not yet represent Labour Party policy. Neither does it mean that the commitment to PR will be included in the party's next manifesto. Labour conference does not have the same policy-making powers as the Liberal Democrats' conference. The leader continues to exert a significant degree of influence and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/24/keir-starmer-defies-call-for-changes-to-first-past-the-post-voting-system" target="_blank">Keir Starmer has indicated only last week that PR "is not a priority"</a>. Several Labour MPs have expressed similar views. There will be no change in the near future without the leadership backing it.</p><p>All the same, this is a monumental moment for UK democracy. The major parties are all broadly agreed that FPTP needs to be consigned to the history books. Only the Conservatives support the status quo, which is yet another reason to vote against it. </p><p>What happens next is crucial. The conference vote must be followed up with lobbying of senior Labour figures. Pro-change activists from across the political must unite - not only to convince the likes of Starmer of the need for electoral reform but to persuade the public that change is in their interest. In 2011, AV was rejected in no small part because of Nick Clegg's deep unpopularity; the Conservatives' current predicament similarly can be used to urge support for a particular outcome. With imaginative and clever campaigning, we can make support for PR become mainstream political thought. <br /><br />It is encouraging that already the influential <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/starmer-oppose-proportional-representation" target="_blank">New Statesman</a> has criticised Starmer's opposition to PR. My hope is that more such criticisms from similar media outlets, pro-democracy groups, party members and growing public appetite for change will lead to a change in direction from Labour's leadership. We can't allow them to dismiss this as something of minimal public interest. As Neal Lawson wrote in the New Statesman, "democratic renewal is not a luxury but a first-order issue. Nothing big or meaningful can happen without it."</p><p>If Keir Starmer and the Labour Party do take this forward and it becomes both party policy and a manifesto commitment, then the work starts immediately. We do not wait until after the next general election to make the case for change. Whatever "processes" the Labour Party will establish to determine which system is adopted, work must begin as soon as possible and thinking must be developed in advance of the election so that voters have a reasonably clear idea of what they are actually voting for. We can't wait until a Labour victory to have the important conversations that will shape our electoral system for the next generation (or longer). <br /></p><p>So, thank you Labour conference. Now, let's make this happen. Mr Starmer, it's over to you...</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02027368242570244912noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3952108899218764633.post-61611163202381465602022-02-22T12:30:00.003+00:002022-02-22T13:05:57.565+00:00Johnson's Covid policy a huge mistake<p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhv5HuRB9F7oCYAejAEb_YJiDcZp3px97VX2eJhjvBKiGlWl517tw9giffXnkPXyLYN0ZrRFsCUrxbS2Lw9Ubta1EotmJMeKdxs3OvcWSpVWh2DYtkbaJn2wsAXkSkklNT4iLKW5PvMLpYyE-vuIxvM_grvdTN4yD_8iozW49Uv1N_BccJApGenoi_s=s640" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="640" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhv5HuRB9F7oCYAejAEb_YJiDcZp3px97VX2eJhjvBKiGlWl517tw9giffXnkPXyLYN0ZrRFsCUrxbS2Lw9Ubta1EotmJMeKdxs3OvcWSpVWh2DYtkbaJn2wsAXkSkklNT4iLKW5PvMLpYyE-vuIxvM_grvdTN4yD_8iozW49Uv1N_BccJApGenoi_s=w425-h266" width="425" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Prime Minister Boris Johnson (Photo: Times of Israel)</i></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br /><br />Boris Johnson's populist approach to Covid-19 may be winning him friends in the tabloid media but isn't going down to well with either medical experts or Scotland's First Minister.<p></p><p><a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/chris-whitty-patrick-vallance-norovirus-government-prime-minister-b2020058.html" target="_blank">Prof Chris Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallance have already spoken out</a>, in admitedly measured contributions, to explain why Boris Johnson's "living with Covid" strategy is short-sighted and ignores "standard public health advice". It was close as they will go to openly calling the proposals stupid, but they made it very clear that the scieitific evidence is suggesting an approach very different to the one Johnson is bent on pursuing. The UK government is more interested in the country living with Johnson than it is in the how it lives safely with Covid.</p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">But opposition has also come from within political circles, with Nicola Sturgeon understandably frustrated that Johnson's decision to axe free Covid tests impacts on the options available to health authorities in Scotland. <a href="https://www.scotsman.com/news/people/unacceptable-if-covid-funding-for-scotland-is-constrained-says-first-minister-3578314" target="_blank">The Scotsman</a> reports that Ms Sturgeon said: "<span style="background-color: white;">We are back again being starkly reminded of this illogical position that the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish governments have to deal with, which is we’re responsible for public health decisions in our own countries, but it’s the Treasury who makes the funding decisions and they seem to be only triggered by the decisions Boris Johnson makes for England.</span></span></p><div class="sc-dtDOqo sc-dkYRCH fCzJnE ghtDsg markup" style="background-color: white;"><p style="line-height: 28px; margin: 20px 0px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">“That’s unsustainable and unacceptable, but that’s the situation we’re in.”</span></p><p style="line-height: 28px; margin: 20px 0px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">It's difficult to disagree with that assessment.</span></p></div><p>This is a bad decision on two levels. Firstly, it's a bad decision because it's politically rather than scientifically driven. Secondly, it's a bad decision because it undermines the devolved autonomy of the Scottish parliament, the Welsh Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly. <br /><br />Public health decisions should never be enforced by Westminster. Johnson is overreaching himself here, and the political consequences may be more significant than he imagines. The UK Treasury should never be able to effectively curtail the autonomy of the devolved parliaments.</p><p>Thsi is not just a question of Covid testing, however important that is. This ill-informed decision will not only negatively impact on England's public health, but actively undermines devolution. It sends a clear message to Holyrood, Cardiff and Stormont about Westmisnter's attitudes towards them. In imposing the will of the Prime Minister, the "four nations" approach is shown to be little more than a tool for English dominance/supremacy.</p><p>This is not how devolution was designed to work, nor how it should work. Johnson is making a huge mistake. Whether he understands the ramifications of his actions is difficult to say, but it is quite obvious what his government thinks of devolution. <br /><br />This is, of course, just the latest chapter in the Conservatives' disregard for devolution. Their intentions are clear and must be resisted. Johnson and his ilk care nothing for devolution, for the Claim of Right, for Scotland or even the Union - which is itself being weakened when devolution is eroded.<br /><br />Enough is enough. </p>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02027368242570244912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3952108899218764633.post-42912926288193651462022-02-20T20:55:00.001+00:002022-02-20T20:55:16.416+00:00Cheers and Jeers 12: Olympic gold and Labour pains<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgGW3Fu__0m2tJLihbfrmKqzI_fmS9NNYtqxeLgx9zpGOkqbhVBEecrsRDmRJBJVzv5lcPJtmFgkwB11E1UK5gHJNl-rB3l9ToNyJ9C7k3Jo3OsALPFW9Ssx27O_S8Y9LMTe7DCLArTqUl6-qGHpRvAXXXoOAb2xItpG7Hwj95kY3_GiKmVIgH2aGdf=s2973" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1665" data-original-width="2973" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgGW3Fu__0m2tJLihbfrmKqzI_fmS9NNYtqxeLgx9zpGOkqbhVBEecrsRDmRJBJVzv5lcPJtmFgkwB11E1UK5gHJNl-rB3l9ToNyJ9C7k3Jo3OsALPFW9Ssx27O_S8Y9LMTe7DCLArTqUl6-qGHpRvAXXXoOAb2xItpG7Hwj95kY3_GiKmVIgH2aGdf=w395-h221" width="395" /></a></div><br />It's Sunday again... so it's time for a quick rouind-up of the events of the previous week.<p></p><p><b>Cheers</b> to Team GB’s curling teams for reaching their respective finals, and especially to the women's team <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/winter-olympics/60451924" target="_blank">for their incredible victory to clinch the gold medal</a>. Few people will have predicted a GB v Japan final at the outset, but Eve Muirhead's team got betetr as the tournament progressed and thoroughly deserved their fine win.</p><p><b>Jeers</b> to the Labour Party, which is reportedly looking at <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-drugs-steve-reed-name-b2014746.html" target="_blank">"naming and shaming" people convicted of buying drugs</a>. Out-Torying the Tories on the "war against drugs" underlines the fact that Labour is far from a fully-progressive party and, worryingly, Keir Starmer's authoritarian instincts remain very much to the fore. Also, it's another hopeless idea that simply won't work.</p><p><b>Jeers</b> also for Angela Rayner who has suggested that police should "<a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/anglea-rayner-terrorists-shoot-crime-b2018115.html" target="_blank">shoot terrorists first and ask questions second</a>". In defence of her answer, she explained that "on things like law and order I am quite hardline.” I’m not sure she even believes any of that at all and I suspect she's saying something simply because she thinks it's what the public want to hear. However you begin to try to explain her words, it's very dissappointing coming from Labour's deputy leader. </p><p><b>Jeers</b> to another one-time socialist, now tyrned something else (I'm really not sure what) - George Galloway. <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/bbc-presenter-says-we-shouldnt-26270378" target="_blank">He now seems to think that even weather warnings are the product of “culture wars”</a>... </p><p><b>Tears </b>for former Welsh Assembly Member <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-60376863" target="_blank">Aled Roberts</a> and former MP for Eastleigh <a href="https://www.markpack.org.uk/168841/former-by-election-winner-david-chidgey-passes-away/" target="_blank">David Chidgey</a>, who both sadly passed away this week. Tears also for DUP MP <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/20/tributes-paid-to-dup-politician-christopher-stalford-who-has-died-at-39" target="_blank">Christopher Stalford</a> who died suddenly at the age of 39 - I don't have to share his politics in order to feel saddened at his passing at such a young age. </p><p><br /></p>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02027368242570244912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3952108899218764633.post-70316002642256361872022-02-12T20:22:00.003+00:002022-02-12T20:22:56.039+00:00Cheers and Jeers 11: Cats and crocs<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgamsc4E4XFuzw0z3ngN2W05UEzgTdda441qIMmT2etRkcwofiI8actiQhU7NGYB_oNMSTsTb8XzUam2TFffZI1nfYlutdpXIMTSlA7oq4ASNyKis5k8qtVDBUGRPZLnAtJG1t3kG_1sgzc9FEg_9CZdi5VmpEh7yVc5O-carwTYcjBdjPO88MrQjIt=s2973" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1665" data-original-width="2973" height="244" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgamsc4E4XFuzw0z3ngN2W05UEzgTdda441qIMmT2etRkcwofiI8actiQhU7NGYB_oNMSTsTb8XzUam2TFffZI1nfYlutdpXIMTSlA7oq4ASNyKis5k8qtVDBUGRPZLnAtJG1t3kG_1sgzc9FEg_9CZdi5VmpEh7yVc5O-carwTYcjBdjPO88MrQjIt=w436-h244" width="436" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p>It's been another interesting and eventful week.</p><p><b>Cheers</b> to Bhavin Dedhia, Anne Blake-Coggins and Nicole Hawkins after their respective council by-election wins this week. Two gains and a hold are testament to some fantastic local compaigning.</p><p><b>Cheers</b> for Stevo Pendraovski, the President of North Macedonia, <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/north-macedonia-s-president-walks-bullied-11-year-old-girl-to-school/ar-AATJslx?ocid=msedgntp" target="_blank">who walked 11-year-old Embla Ademi to school</a> after she had been bullied for living with Down's Syndrome. The President held her hand and talked with her parents about the challenges she faced. It was a terrific gesture that helped to strip away the stigma and raise awareness.</p><p><b>Cheers</b> to Tottenham Hotspur, who have asked fans to <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/tottenham-hotspur-ask-fans-to-move-on-from-using-y-word-after-review-12538157?fbclid=IwAR2DQIIHZHC-Aszd_0Y-ub2gaOzJwhv1WEgwjFBMyk9JRPijkhCqUAMd3Ow" target="_blank">"move on" from using "the Y-word"</a> this week. I'm particularly impressed by how they've gone about dealing with the issue of anti-Semitism, working with supporters' groups, providing information and involving fans in their decision. Most fans seem very supportive. </p><p><b>Double cheers</b> to former John Major, who criticised the current Prime Minister as responsible for a corrision of public trust in politics and condemned the Nationality and Borders Bill as "inhumane and un-British". <br /><br />On Johnson, Major said: '[He] broke lockdown laws, appears to believe rules do not apply to him and is creating an atmosphere of mistrust in politics that threatens the long-term democratic future of the UK... Too often, Ministers have been evasive, and the truth has been optional.'. Ouch! On the dreadful Nationality and Borders legislation, Major urged Conservative MPs to "search [their] souls": "Can it really be a crime to be frightened, homeless, desperate, destitute? Fleeing from persecution or war or famine or hardship?" he asked.</p><p><b>Cheers</b> to Somerset Cricket Club for <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-60305684?at_custom3=Regional+BBC+West&at_custom4=4994C380-88EE-11EC-91E0-32330EDC252D&at_custom2=facebook_page&at_campaign=64&at_custom1=link&at_medium=custom7&fbclid=IwAR16yQX9M1HRjjOSs9yyqPLpRAfXnvnOjcqzG1wCZPZcRfCvB2AtF9f8nsg" target="_blank">building a "home" for one of their most famous fans</a>, Brian the cat. </p><p><b>Cheers</b> also to the footballers from Sheffield Wednesday and Wigan Athletic, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-60320743" target="_blank">who caught and took care of Topsey</a>, a cat who had been missing for seven months and invaded the pitch during a midweek match. Topsey is now united with her owner and has received urgent medical treatment. </p><p><b>Cheers</b> to Tili, a bird catcher from Indonesia, who successfully <a href="https://news.sky.com/video/indonesia-tyre-is-finally-removed-from-crocodiles-neck-after-six-years-12536133" target="_blank">removed a tyre from a crocodile's neck</a>. The crocodile had become ensnared in the motorbike tyre six years ago but, thanks to Tili's empathy and bravery, has been finally freed from it.</p><p><b>Jeers</b> for West Ham United's Kurt Zouma, who seemed to think that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/feb/09/kurt-zouma-cat-backlash-calls-for-prosecution-west-ham" target="_blank">kicking a cat and slapping it in the face</a> not only constittued acceptable behaviour but provided legitimate content for a supposedly amusing TikTok video. </p><p><b>Jeers</b> to the mob who surrounded Keir Starmer outside Parliament, calling him a "paedophile" and a traitor" in the aftermath of Boris Johnson's dishonest Jimmy Savile related smear.</p><p><b>Jeers </b>also for the Prime Minister who has refused to apologise for the misleading and incendiary remarks. </p><p><b>Jeers</b> for Conservative MP Natalie Elphicke, who<a href="https://www.indy100.com/politics/brexit-natalie-elphicke-dover-eu" target="_blank"> blamed Dover queues on “Brussels bureaucracy” and EU “red tape”</a>. It really is amazing that, rather than take ownership of the realities of Brexit, these people regurgitate the same tired clichés they've used for years. <br /><br /><b>Tears</b> for author and former University Challenge presenter <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-60301687" target="_blank">Bamber Gascoigne</a>, who has died aged 87. </p><p><br /></p>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02027368242570244912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3952108899218764633.post-42157589839319644562022-01-30T17:23:00.004+00:002022-01-31T13:29:31.884+00:00Cheers and Jeers #10<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgnjs592jbl4gC-Uk1CFFr8gYQ2b2DpCbv80EhUSve3MzYMG4jaxGK-NlfyVisY_r2aoKUqcfSk4C799f6hhXdM343h6BqS9QRZ03Fkh_kYvAnLA7yd_x3geeQSx79I07n7OYgw8dIudSK7KEFfX0J6Q9RuEDQ2BPtD15jlJfKLfjRCTkUnrfyt7E7R=s2973" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1665" data-original-width="2973" height="228" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgnjs592jbl4gC-Uk1CFFr8gYQ2b2DpCbv80EhUSve3MzYMG4jaxGK-NlfyVisY_r2aoKUqcfSk4C799f6hhXdM343h6BqS9QRZ03Fkh_kYvAnLA7yd_x3geeQSx79I07n7OYgw8dIudSK7KEFfX0J6Q9RuEDQ2BPtD15jlJfKLfjRCTkUnrfyt7E7R=w407-h228" width="407" /></a></div><br />For a while in 2019 I ran an irreverent look over the week's news called "Cheers and Jeers". it got sidelined, mainly dur to having other priorities, but I feel it's time to resurrect it! Every Sunday I will take a look back at the week's events and ascribe cheers - and jeers - as appropriate.<p></p><p>As for this week...</p><p><b>Cheers</b> to the National Trust, which has announced it will be creating "green corridors" to link city centres to the countryside. It is planning 20 of these "corridors", <a href="https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/national-trust-bath-research-avon-northern-ireland-b979272.html" target="_blank">with the first confirmed project a three-mile stretch running from Bath.</a> </p><p><b>Cheers</b> to Rafael Nadal, who has set a new record in winning his 21st Grand Slam title after <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/sport/live/2022/jan/30/australian-open-mens-singles-final-rafael-nadal-v-daniil-medvedev-live" target="_blank">an incredible fightback against Daniil Medvedev</a> in the Australian Open final. </p><p><b>Jeers</b> for the Metropolitan Police's abysmal communications and its handling of the "partygate" investigation. The situation is an absolute farce.<br /><br /><b>Jeers </b>to the Polish authorities whose<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/jan/26/poland-death-of-woman-refused-abortion" target="_blank"> refusal to allow a woman essential abortion care resulted in her death</a>. A 37-year-old, known as Agnieszka T, was pregnant with twins; when one foetus died, doctors refused to remove it until the death of the second. After both had died in her womb, Agnieszka herself died from likely septic shock. I can understand pro-life views but to take it to this ludicrous extreme, and create a situation that destroys life, is absurd and inhuman. This is not pro-life policy, it's legalised murder and the inhuman consequence of adopting a rigid and legalistic "pro-life" perspective.</p><p><b>Jeers</b> to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (a UK government-appointed body) following its disappointing <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-60141382" target="_blank">decision to tell the Scottish government to pause its gender-recognition reforms</a>. I remember a time when the EHRC could be relied upon to stand up for the rights of minority groups...</p><p><b>Jeers</b> for Prince Andrew and his legal team, who really don't seem to understand how badly their demands and apparent bullying make them appear in the public eye. However this saga ends, I would hope Prince Andrew would learn some valuable lessons but from what we've seen so far that seems highly unlikely.</p><p><b>Jeers</b> for Joanna Lumley who made <a href="http://scottish-liberal.blogspot.com/2022/01/we-need-to-talk-more-positively-about.html" target="_blank">an unhelpful contribution diminishing the reality of mental ill health</a> for many people. It seemed to pass her by that mental health is not the absence of formal psychiatric diagnoses but a question of emotional, psychological, and social well-being. </p><p><b>Tears </b>for <a href="https://www.libdemvoice.org/erlend-69731.html#utm_source=tweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter" target="_blank">Erlend Watson</a> and <a href="https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/mr-southport-baron-ronnie-fearn-22872394" target="_blank">Ronnie Fearn</a>, two great Liberals who passed away this week. Erlend was an incredible support to me personally last year and his loss will be deeply felt by his family, friends and the party he cared so much about. Ronnie, MP for Southport from 1987 to 2001, was 90. </p><div><br /></div><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02027368242570244912noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3952108899218764633.post-81716409192846554182022-01-28T20:23:00.010+00:002022-01-28T20:38:57.618+00:00We need to talk more positively about mental health<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhmEjp5NxFUXAXzJ3gDAzwyp86ZDo65DhudWkLvceKhCc2gKc2OeWyIceBa78B1Qbv5WofU4AmwPOmLWfElqnRDDkqcQXLOnJjljujinj5eT7aC5ZKuEB7SwQ21b1qFY9WcJqlM94WaUn3fCqtMYDXcuPcM_tWOHRY3REauHSMyXJJseZTv63oQorIZ=s616" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="412" data-original-width="616" height="272" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhmEjp5NxFUXAXzJ3gDAzwyp86ZDo65DhudWkLvceKhCc2gKc2OeWyIceBa78B1Qbv5WofU4AmwPOmLWfElqnRDDkqcQXLOnJjljujinj5eT7aC5ZKuEB7SwQ21b1qFY9WcJqlM94WaUn3fCqtMYDXcuPcM_tWOHRY3REauHSMyXJJseZTv63oQorIZ=w407-h272" width="407" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><i>Joanna Lumley (Photo: Paul Grover/Shutterstock/The Scotsman)</i></div><br /><br /><p></p><p>Joanna Lumley is in the news today for <a href="https://www.scotsman.com/news/people/joanna-lumley-mental-illness-is-overplayed-with-emotion-part-of-being-human-3546307" target="_blank">speaking about mental health</a>.</p><p>She says: "When someone dies and you grieve, that’s human. That’s what being a human is. You’re not mentally ill.... I think the mental health thing is being overplayed at the moment because anybody who is even remotely sad says they have got mental problems... And I think it also is awful to people who really are mentally ill or are properly clinically depressed, for everybody to say they’ve got to have some sort of special treatment. Everyone’s claiming the mental illness bandwagon and I think that’s wrong. Although much derided, the stiff upper lip and not blubbing and trying to get on with it…"</p><p>Well, the most dangerous myths are always those with a grain of truth in them. She is right - there is a medical distinction between people who have reactive depression and those with longer-term clinical depression, or between people who have acute stress disorders and those with chronic disorders such as schizophrenia. How we treat people in a clinical environment depends on a range of factors including presentation, symptomology, response to previous treatment and even social factors. </p><p>However, she is wrong to make the judgements she does and she misses the key point: mental health is NOT about mental illness. Poor mental health isn't a question of which ICD-10 code applies - it's the absence of good mental health. And if someone is grieving or "sad", then their mental health isn't likely to be too great. They don't have to have a categorisable mental illness to be experiencing poor mental health. </p><p>An overly medicalised approach to mental health may seem scientific, but it is anything but. And it is certainly not helpful to seek to make distinctions between people who "really are mentally ill" and those who are... well, not worthy of our empathy and who just need to employ the "stiff upper lip". It's the psychiatric equivalent of the often-made distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor. </p><p>There's nothing surer to create poor mental health than the insistence that everyone should "just get on with it" rather than seek support. Looking for someone to talk to when you're feeling low is not "jumping on a bandwagon".<br /><br />Mental health is also a highly personal thing, which is why treatment is also very much tailored to the individual. What works for one person may not work for another; what affects one person's mental health in one way may have a different effect for someone else. Unfortunately Ms Lumley's remarks, in addition to being dismissive and insensitive, make gross generalisations. <br /><br />Generalisations are usually dangerous and this one is no exception. </p><p>This week I have sadly lost two friends, one of whom was a next-door neighbour. I have also lost a work colleague who was only 27 years old. My neighbour, Maggie, leaves behind a 40-year old son who has lived with her for the last 7 years to support his mum with her physical health difficulties. I don't think he would mind me saying that his mental health is not in a great place right now, which is why I (and other friends and neighbours) are offering him some support and hopefully making sure he doesn't feel lonely and isolated. He's struggling to eat or motivate himself. He doesn't have a formal mental health disgnosis, but I would challenge anyone to say his mental health is good at the moment. He needs a little more than "the stiff upper lip" and being told to stop "blubbing". If I remarked that he should "get a grip", as Ms Lumley seems to suggest, I doubt it would help him and would probably appear heartless at best. It certainly wouldn't help someone at breaking point to feel better about themselves. In actual fact, I can't think of anything more damaging to say in the circumstances. </p><p>I have no particular axe to grind with Joanna Lumley, but her attitude highlights the need for better understanding of mental health issues and how we should respond, both individually and as a society, to people whose mental health is not in a good place. We need to get away from the idea that mental health is a question of clinical diagnosis and recognise it is about emotional, psychological, and social well-being. <br /><br />I actually welcome Joanna Lumley expressing her view, because talking about mental health is almost always a good thing and it allows for a wider discussion about what good mental health is and the role we can all play in improving our own mental well-being and that of others. We need to speak more positively about mental health and recognise that it's an issue for all of us - not only those with formalised diagnoses. <br /><br /><br /><br /> </p>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02027368242570244912noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3952108899218764633.post-27308900282469933342022-01-08T20:33:00.103+00:002024-03-18T01:25:02.760+00:00Who is David Campanale?<p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjeLAatYw_Kud3A6BfWdzTmS5TmI_pNfBonQAGuy33OE1y1ObifYlisOvOMCRP395NjacHMuw6D-vCjkRvRj5FtYWfGS4mqPASLqvWdImq9nta-WXbWaX0sP9zZue6dT9cB2umMmblcb1-9b119Qto6P0ALAxhC3Wau0tIGs6vrcQL-QF0NTGxnw2mi=s790" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="593" data-original-width="790" height="353" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjeLAatYw_Kud3A6BfWdzTmS5TmI_pNfBonQAGuy33OE1y1ObifYlisOvOMCRP395NjacHMuw6D-vCjkRvRj5FtYWfGS4mqPASLqvWdImq9nta-WXbWaX0sP9zZue6dT9cB2umMmblcb1-9b119Qto6P0ALAxhC3Wau0tIGs6vrcQL-QF0NTGxnw2mi=w470-h353" width="470" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">David Campanale (Photo: Mark Pack)</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br />I ask this question because I honestly don't know.<p></p><p>The first I heard of him was about 20 minutes ago, when a Lib Dem friend sent a message asking why the party has selected a homophobe as a PPC. My friend shared a link to twitter, where I discovered that a Labour activist has uncovered some history on Mr Campanale, who has today been confirmed as the new Liberal Democrat PPC for the target seat of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutton_and_Cheam_(UK_Parliament_constituency)" target="_blank">Sutton and Cheam</a>.<br /><br />I say "uncovered", but it is basically little more than the findings of a quick Google search. Some of what the Labour activist in question has alleged is quite speculative and I would dismiss it as being pretty desperate. However, there are specific and verifiable facts that raise questions to which I believe answers are needed. </p><p>The <a href="https://www.suttonlibdems.org.uk/lib_dem_target_seat_selects_award_winning_journalist" target="_blank">official press release</a> from the Sutton and Cheam Liberal Democrats and <a href="https://www.markpack.org.uk/168589/david-campanale-selected-by-lib-dems-sutton-and-cheam/" target="_blank">Mark Pack's blog</a> are keen to emphasise Mr Campanale's extensive journalistic experience with BBC World Service and his charitable work. They even mention that he won a council seat in Kingston at the age of 22, although it is not clear exactly when this was or which party he was standing for at the time. The strangest thing about these contributions is that they say very little about Mr Campanale's political activities other than the mention of a council victory which, judging by the fact he has 30 years of journalistic experience, may well have taken place three decades ago.</p><p>In the internet age, if Liberal Democrats don't look into their candidates' histories then supporters of other parties - or, indeed, anyone with the presence of mind to ask some questions and the knowledge of how to conduct a Google search - will. And that's exactly what has happened. Within minutes of the announcement a Labour activist had already taken to twitter to point out that Mr Campanale had previously served as chairman and as federal president of the Christian People's Alliance, and was happy to produce evidence of the kind of policies the CPA supported during his oversight of the party. </p><p>What can be found in a few minutes is that David Campanale stood for the CPA in the 2006 and 2010 local elections, <a href="https://moderngov.sutton.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?ID=23&RPID=0" target="_blank">for elections to the Greater London Authority in 2008</a> and <a href="https://m.facebook.com/groups/97364787752/permalink/10150573796507753/" target="_blank">was instrumental in recruiting candidates for the 2010 General Election</a>. During that time the CPA actively campaigned against the legal right for abortion, against same-sex marriage and against the building of a new mosque in West Ham. The CPA, unsurprisingly, favoured a return to "Christian morality". In 2010 it accused Barack Obama of "anti-life imperialism" on account of his pro-choice stance, while its manifesto of the same year talked of fighting "the LGBT lobby" and expressed opposition to "limiting the freedom of doctors not to execute abortions". The same manifesto stated the CPA would "seek to repeal the 1967 Abortion Act" and that the party would attempt to bring "an end... to the use of the morning after pill." These were the views of his party rather than his own, but Mr Campanale was listed within the acknowledgements of David Alton's 1998 anti-abortion work, <i><a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/45696765/Whose-Choice-Anyway" target="_blank">Whose choice is it anyway?</a> </i>and it would seem strange if someone so senior within the CPA disagreed with much in its manifesto. </p><p>Mr Campanale's membership of the CPA can hardly be dismissed as a brief dalliance - after all, he was on the leadership team when the party was making these statements and compiling the manifesto. Basically, the CPA was taking up these kinds of extreme positions on his watch.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg3Kf3lo6XmKQWNNvrqmWowCO5x94t7tS4gq_NIXjbw3aIR7Px7-gabueeix4jbcyQT1TE8cHf9lzFxSE7EbaFofXBDoyFUxptV2enyIZBxu2CNCKKfqv4wZvg543Q_w8SYJCePEjRXtIW0GwYhTOIi0tOHEkq1Ves_aW_XkLYfi0AuhoH3I3qOvj7w=s747" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="643" data-original-width="747" height="280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg3Kf3lo6XmKQWNNvrqmWowCO5x94t7tS4gq_NIXjbw3aIR7Px7-gabueeix4jbcyQT1TE8cHf9lzFxSE7EbaFofXBDoyFUxptV2enyIZBxu2CNCKKfqv4wZvg543Q_w8SYJCePEjRXtIW0GwYhTOIi0tOHEkq1Ves_aW_XkLYfi0AuhoH3I3qOvj7w=w320-h280" width="320" /></a></div>Mr Campanale was, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Peoples_Alliance" target="_blank">according to Wikipedia</a>, a founder member of the CPA. He had previously been active within the Movement for Christian Democracy (founded by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Alton" target="_blank">David Alton</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Enright" target="_blank">Derek Enright</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Hargreaves" target="_blank">Ken Hargreaves</a>) and, in 1999, the CPA emerged from the MCD as a fully-fledged political party with Dr Alan Storkey as chairman and Mr Campanale serving as vice chair. He was certainly an active CPA member in 2003, when he published <a href="https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/6251384.muddled-lib-dem-thinking/" target="_blank">a letter in a local newspaper condemning the Lib Dems' policy on church schools</a>, and remained a leading figure until at least 2011, when he was Paul Pickhaver's agent in the Surbiton Hill by-election. The CPA's <a href="http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/Api/Accounts/Documents/43" target="_blank">return to the Electoral Commission in 2012</a> confirms Mr Campanale as federal president and a facebook post (right) shows he was present at the CPA's annual conference in that year. He is pictured with Dr Christina Summers, who was <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09/11/green-party-expels-brighton-christina-summers-gay-marriage_n_1873791.html" target="_blank">expelled from the Green Party after opposing same-sex marriage</a>.<span style="font-family: inherit;"> I<span>n his facebook post, Mr Campanale is keen to claim that she was expelled "for her Christian beliefs", rather than (as the Green Party maintained) for violating an agreement for councillors to <span> uphold "equality for all people, regardless of race, colour, gender, sexual orientation, religion, social origin or any other prejudice".</span></span></span><p></p><p>The CPA's accounts for 2014, submitted to the Electoral Commission, confirm that Mr Campanale was a member of the party's federal council until November of that year. It is difficult to follow the course of Mr Campanale's political journey thereafter. From speaking to Lib Dems who know him it seems reasonable to believe he was readmitted around 2017, but I have been unable to clarify that. By 2019, when he was the Lib Dem PPC for Spelthorne, he had clearly made a decision not to mention his previous political affiliations. On <a href="https://spelthornelibdems.org.uk/en/page/meet-david-campanale-a-hard-working-moderate-choice-for-spelthorne" target="_blank">the Spelthorne local party's official website</a>, Mr Campanale made no mention of any political activity other than the historic election as a Kingston councillor (he helpfully clarifies he represented the Lib Dems for an 8-year period*) - confirming that that he has returned to the party after several years with the CPA. However, to read his statement without knowledge of his activities within the CPA, one would think he had been in the Lib Dems for his entire political career.</p><p>I have no problem with prodigal sons returning. I have no problem with people changing their affiliations and even their minds. People can - and often do - change. But when someone has represented a party like the CPA, whose views are the very antithesis of our own, that history cannot simply be whitewashed from CVs. I do not know how much the Liberal Democrats knew about Mr Campanale's previous political activities - but I will suggest that they <i><b>should</b></i> have been aware of them and that they <b><i>should</i></b> have sought clarifications about his current views on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage and Islam. They should also have advised him to be very honest about his historical political affiliations and explain uncomfortable facts rather than seek to hide them.</p><p>For a PPC in a non-target seat such as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelthorne_(UK_Parliament_constituency)" target="_blank">Spelthorne</a> this may not have mattered. Sutton and Cheam is a very different constituency, however, and was held by Lib Dem Paul Burstow until 2015: it is precisely the kind of seat we need to win back to rebuild the party as a parliamentary force. And for that reason the party needs a candidate who can be seen as having credibility and integrity. The danger here is that, unless Mr Campanale answers the very obvious questions soon (and convincingly) his associations with the CPA may very well come back to haunt him and damage the party's chances of unseating Paul Scully.</p><p>This could potentially become a "Tim Farron situation" if Mr Campanale is either unable, or refuses, to clarify where he stands in relation to the kinds of "moral issues" he once preached about with such relish.</p><p>I do not know how much the local Liberal Democrats in Sutton and Cheam, who have selected him as their PPC, knew about his former life. Neither do I know what he revealed during the selection process. But what is clear is that all official statements have been keen to not only play down his links to the CPA, but eradicate any mention of it. That's not a good look when, as I pointed out above, political opponents know how to use search engines. He would have been better advised to be honest about his former political activity and, with support from the party, to prepare responses for the inevitable media questioning to avoid a PR disaster further down the line.<br /><br />I do not know David Campanale. It's very difficult to know who the real David Campanale is, not least as his twitter account was only created in 2019, has hardly been used in the last two years and has only 377 followers. He has not responded to any concerns expressed on that platform about his time in the CPA and nowhere does he appear to have ever addressed this, or given reasons for his change of heart. He hasn't even said he <i><b>has</b></i> had a change of heart as far as abortion and same-sex marriage are concerned...</p><p></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgdY0lQD6oQ-rXis7HbhMVBFrLHgDoThENKoUOLObahtZFKhndPa5txBSInCbmTQmKkTz6MwSNc0rhhJLxURbBN8wY1zRmB1uZwp8dtbah-EO8cvvORXP2LTaymLHiIQ194qP15mHrt1SwbhusiYJH8gDsvXHTWQoc3VZqmA8Xl1RDm7ayiAbsXWxuw=s1187" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="630" data-original-width="1187" height="202" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgdY0lQD6oQ-rXis7HbhMVBFrLHgDoThENKoUOLObahtZFKhndPa5txBSInCbmTQmKkTz6MwSNc0rhhJLxURbBN8wY1zRmB1uZwp8dtbah-EO8cvvORXP2LTaymLHiIQ194qP15mHrt1SwbhusiYJH8gDsvXHTWQoc3VZqmA8Xl1RDm7ayiAbsXWxuw=w380-h202" width="380" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">David Campanale "defending Christian values" against<br />"secular liberalism" at <span style="color: black;">Tusványo</span>s, 2019. </td></tr></tbody></table>Of one thing we can be certain: <br />Mr Campanale attended <a href="https://www.christendom.edu/2020/02/25/professor-defends-christian-values-in-europe/" target="_blank">the Tusványos summer camp in 2019</a>, where he appears to have used a platform to "defend Christian values in Europe and the Western world" against "secular liberalism [that] threatens Europe because it cannot understand itself without reference to Christianity". This was while he was both a BBC journalist and a member of the Liberal Democrats. While Mr Campanale was not responsible for the observations made within the Christendom College article I link to above, the writer (Prof Bracy Bersnak, pictured on the far left) seems to suggest the panel members were broadly united in their anti-secular views and that they held sympathies for Hungary's Fidesz and Poland's PiS party. Prof Bersnak's general observation was corroborated by<a href="https://kdnp-hu.translate.goog/hirek/tusvanyos-fokuszban-kereszteny-ertekek-nemzetkozi-vedelme?_x_tr_sl=hu&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc&fbclid=IwAR2EwGkUBpEo1SYeig--t5w0g6G65o475ViAyszKpAxa_VYbRUQH5WMfaoU" target="_blank"> the KDNP website</a>, which stated "The interlocutors agreed that the greatest challenge to the Christian world is not the 'clash of civilizations' in the Huntington sense, but the violent ideological, political, and economic spread of global liberalism." As if that wasn't sufficiently disturbing, in the image (above, right) Mr Campanale is shown seated next to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajnalka_Juh%C3%A1sz" target="_blank">Hajnalka Juhász</a>, a Fidesz-KDNP MP. Is this the sort of company we expect would-be Lib Dem MPs to keep?<div><br /></div><div>Mr Campanale was instrumental in establishing <a href="https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A1lv%C3%A1nyosi_Ny%C3%A1ri_Szabadegyetem_%C3%A9s_Di%C3%A1kt%C3%A1bor" target="_blank">the Tusványos festival</a> in 1989 as a "summer university" to faciltate music, arts and political education - as well as to further cultural ties between Romania and Hungary. Fidesz, a more socially liberal party at the time, has also been involved from the early days. Since the early 1990s Tusványos has grown from 200 attendees to something around 80,000 and during that time, like the Fidesz party, <a href="https://hungarytoday.hu/the-tusvanyos-festival-where-politics-and-music-collide/" target="_blank">it has developed into something quite different to what it was 30 years ago</a>. The Orbán régime became more heavily involved from around 2010 onwards and used the event to advance Fidesz's politics, to the point that Viktor Orbán <a href="https://www-origo-hu.translate.goog/itthon/20170720-orban-viktor-szabadegyetem-tusvanyos-julius-22.html?_x_tr_sl=hu&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc" target="_blank">gives a speech at the event every year</a>. A report produced by <a href="https://szekelyhon.ro/aktualis/orban-egyszeruen-nem-igaz-hogy-a-keresztenydemokracianak-liberalisnak-kell-lennie" target="_blank">Hungarian news media outlet Székelyhon in 2019</a> gives a useful idea of the nature of the political speeches given at Tusványos. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A1lv%C3%A1nyos_Free_Summer_University_and_Student_Camp">Fidesz's domination alienated the Romanian media and Romanian participation in the event fell off rapidly</a>. While senior Romanian politicians were at one time happy to be present at Tusványos, generally speaking they realised that attending a Fidesz-inspired version of Glastonbury would no longer be politically astute. </div><div><br />Mr Campanale's historic associations with the event do not particularly worry me even if I don't fully understand why he has continued to be involved since the Fidesz takeover, which undermined the original (and laudable) aims to develop links with Romania. However. it is concerning that 2019 is not the first time he has expressed anti-secular views at Tusványos: in 2017 <a href="https://m.vajma.info/cikk/karpat/12029/Balog-Zoltan-Tusvanyoson-Nem-lehet-a-vallast--a-hitet-lelki-homokozonak-tekinteni.html" target="_blank">this Hungarian article in Vajma</a>, which I've been able to read in English thanks to Google Translate, reported: "During the podium discussion, British journalist David Campanale expressed his passion for giving hope to Europe as a whole, for Hungary clinging to faith, for God and the example of Poland." I'm not too sure many other Lib Dem PPCs will be praising the example of Poland at present.</div><div><br /></div><div>At Tusványos in 2016, Mr Campanale <a href="https://szekelyhon.ro/vilag/keresztenyseg-mint-europa-akozos-nyelvea" target="_blank">spoke about Christianity becoming the "common language" of Europe</a>. He is quoted as saying: "The challenge is to 'rediscover' Christianity and 're-evangelize' Europe...a hurricane is sweeping across Europe, and the real question is what kind of leaders can help us stay on their feet in this storm... The biggest unspoken mass manipulation in decades is taking place: our identity, our morality, the boundaries between right and wrong are blurred. We do have to question this regulated system. The Christian faith has always been the anchor of Europe." His contribution was followed, and to some degree echoed, by fellow panellist Peter Krajňák, the Slovakian education minister, who said he was "afraid of extreme-liberalism, which has put all democratic principles first but has completely displaced Christianity" <a href="https://888.hu/759/este-7-59-213-4061034/" target="_blank">In another report from 888.hu (a pro-Fidesz site that proudly calls itself "Soros' opposition")</a> Mr Campanale is quoted as saying: "The question was how we work together on the continent and how individuals relate to religion. The liberal state suppresses identities."</div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgpsHJpvbXHENnHFuffA6pf_MljICFy7qzy343ISpmzHxKF3A6McgL_U_KV3utkuysbLNjVay_E4HElp_RzVr-Bhy5DhQV0W4Ehl7RvsrgJvEJCE2ZnZ7cqqLdQ5BjgwD88leaYbXMRb-T_kuvLGRFYGt5c1mfdoV-s1RiKlsrcDrw914imaDePvnsX=s2048" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1367" data-original-width="2048" height="261" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgpsHJpvbXHENnHFuffA6pf_MljICFy7qzy343ISpmzHxKF3A6McgL_U_KV3utkuysbLNjVay_E4HElp_RzVr-Bhy5DhQV0W4Ehl7RvsrgJvEJCE2ZnZ7cqqLdQ5BjgwD88leaYbXMRb-T_kuvLGRFYGt5c1mfdoV-s1RiKlsrcDrw914imaDePvnsX=w390-h261" width="390" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">David Campanale (front row, left) pictured with<br />Viktor Orbán (front, fifth from left) and Tusványos personnel.</td></tr></tbody></table>I understand that Mr Campanale has a historic relationship with Tusványos, but that does not excuse or explain why he feels the need to attend the event to speak against secular liberalism. In additon, these historic associations with Fidesz seem to be unwise to maintain in the current political landscape. I would also imagine that, whatever history Mr Campanale has with Tusványos, it's probably not a good idea for a Lib Dem approved candidate to be pictured with Viktor Orbán (as Mr Campanale was in 2019, right). At the very least this leads me to question his political judgement. </div><div><br /></div><div>I suspect this photograph will not be appearing in many Focus newsletters in the near future. It may well, however, be used by opposition parties.</div><div><p></p><p>I do not know who David Campanale is, but it is quite clear who he once <b><i>was</i></b>. Unless he stands up, explains his past and distances himself from it, and makes assurances that his current views are very different from the policies he was happy to stand for election under between 2006 and 2010, the media and the public will be asking very pertinent questions about his commitment to liberal democracy. At the very least we need a comprehensive statement from him distancing himself from the values and attitudes he once espoused. An apology wouldn't go amiss either.</p><p>Please, Mr Campanale, if you want to be the next Liberal Democrat MP for Sutton and Cheam, be honest enough to talk about (and take responsibility for) your past, apologise to anyone you may have hurt and reassure members that you're on their side. We don't want any further unnecessary focus on unorthodox candidates' views on abortion or LGBT+ rights, let alone the suggestion of sympathies for authoritarian regimes.</p><p><br /><br /><br /><i>* A Liberal Democrat member has confirmed that Mr Campanale was first elected to Hook Ward in Kingston in 1986. </i></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhiYZLM-ohVMlGZ-Jl7ZTDhYWs2RGGPyViJNlDfCAKsm9jIb78MxDNLuydUrg7k2DRQk8eCFYFGj08MkUoHRpV6Qid0vEvdOMyNYu2Py7nF3voErwyFG82XBe5KXpGOuZdBrdco--bggxpVDb7Pv-LjEeHwJfMTZ-8tsoYEnDyVOpZjeOrUYPCEaak_=s725" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="227" data-original-width="725" height="182" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhiYZLM-ohVMlGZ-Jl7ZTDhYWs2RGGPyViJNlDfCAKsm9jIb78MxDNLuydUrg7k2DRQk8eCFYFGj08MkUoHRpV6Qid0vEvdOMyNYu2Py7nF3voErwyFG82XBe5KXpGOuZdBrdco--bggxpVDb7Pv-LjEeHwJfMTZ-8tsoYEnDyVOpZjeOrUYPCEaak_=w582-h182" width="582" /></a></div><i><p><i><br /></i></p>_____________________________________________________________________________</i><p></p><p><b>ADDENDUM, 10.1.22</b></p><p>There has been a lot of interest in this blogpost - over 3,500 hits within the first 24 hours. </p><p>There has also been a lot of discussion about it on social media, and inevitably there have been some calls for me to "substantiate my allegations". <br /><br />I make no allegations. I have written about what we currently know from what is already in the public domain, and I also stress that there is much we do not know at this time. I will not apologise for seeking answers or explaining why I believe Mr Campanale (and, potentially, also the party) must answer some serious questions.</p><p>But I think it will be helpful if I outline the facts we can be reasonably sure of:</p><p>* In 1982 David Campanale, then aged 18, joined the new Social Democratic Party. He may well have been a founder member</p><p>* He fought his first council election in 1986, standing for the SDP/Alliance in Hook Ward. He won, aged only 22, and was re-elected in 1990.</p><p>* The SDP merged with the Liberal Party in 1989, and the young David Campanale became a member of the Liberal Democrats.</p><p>* In 1989, Mr Campanale established Tusványos with help from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zsolt_N%C3%A9meth_(politician,_1963)">Zsolt Németh</a> (now a Fidesz MP), Tibor Toró and Zsolt Szilágyi.</p><p>* In either 1998 or 1999 Mr Campanale left the Lib Dems. Various sources suggest he founded the Christian People's Alliance (CPA), meaning he would have been involved with the CPA from its inception in 1999.</p><p>* Mr Campanale held various leadership roles within the CPA until 2012/13. He was a candidate at local and national level in various elections. He served as an agent for others. He was also the party's chairman and federal president. </p><p>* During the time Mr Campanale was a prominent figure within the CPA, his party <br /> a) supported "traditional marriage",<br /> b) opposed the reclassification of cannabis,<br /> c) favoured building more church schools, <br /> d) opposed same-sex marriage and campaigned against the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013,<br /> e) proposed repealing the Abortion Act 1967, essentially making abortions illegal, <br /> f) advocated ending availability of the morning after pill,<br /> g) proudly talked of fighting "the LGBT lobby",<br /> h) called Barack Obama an "anti-life imperialist" on account of his pro-choice views. </p><p>* Mr Campanale attended the CPA's annual conference in 2012. The CPA's accounts for 2014 list Mr Campanale as a member of the federal council until October 2014. After 15 years with the party, he disappears from the record after this point.</p><p>* In early 2017 he rejoined the Liberal Democrats. By the end of the year he had become the local organiser for the 2018 local elections in an area that included his old ward. </p><p>* In 2018 he was a key organiser for Kingston Lib Dems, and helped run a successful campaign. He was later appointed vice chair of the Kingston Liberal Democrats, according to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqhZXEIsdak" target="_blank">a selection video in which he introduces himself as such</a>.</p><p>* By 2019 Mr Campanale had become an approved candidate and contested Spelthorne constituency in the General Election - taking a respectable 15.1% of the vote. A few months before the election he attended the Tusványos event, where he spoke against "secular liberalism" on a panel that included a Fidesz-KDNP MP and was photographed with Viktor Orbán.</p><p>* In late 2021 Mr Campanale was shortlisted for the Sutton and Cheam constituency. On 8th January 2022 it was confirmed that he had secured the Lib Dem candidacy for the constituency.<br /><br />* Mr Campanale has <a href="https://muckrack.com/david-campanale" target="_blank">worked for BBC World Service</a> and was an assistant producer of Radio 4's <i>Today in Parliament</i>. He also served as a regional director of TearFund. I cannot be precise in relation to the dates of employments and charitable work. </p><p><br /></p><p>_________________________________________________________________________________<br /><br /><b>UPDATE, 12.1.22</b></p><p>Mr Campanale has written a piece for Lib Dem Voice in which he seeks to explain his political journey.<br /><br />It can be read here: <a href="https://www.libdemvoice.org/focus-on-tories-in-sutton-and-cheam-69599.html">https://www.libdemvoice.org/focus-on-tories-in-sutton-and-cheam-69599.html</a></p><p>There is one correction I'd like to make to his contribution. In his article, Mr Campanale states: "I quit the CPA almost a decade ago when it was infiltrated by extremists. I fully repudiate the offensive and divisive campaigns the people using the name now pursue."<br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgZ4kUlIu7L4AEsFiAXKcw3jj2dJ_rVzhOAUB8BQE7Cl_16zzEUgsknTxfEX3L9spPu2QWEl4hc-xwy4E4olMAOAxhgtqCXcFws2YWkMoHvTSbYnCIvp3cjOq4lvz78UJDLit99mZYqXRk1n9BJjWgIv4EfutNN2qvugRCuqidfRyz8zzwdb7q_CAYr=s1374" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1374" data-original-width="1109" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgZ4kUlIu7L4AEsFiAXKcw3jj2dJ_rVzhOAUB8BQE7Cl_16zzEUgsknTxfEX3L9spPu2QWEl4hc-xwy4E4olMAOAxhgtqCXcFws2YWkMoHvTSbYnCIvp3cjOq4lvz78UJDLit99mZYqXRk1n9BJjWgIv4EfutNN2qvugRCuqidfRyz8zzwdb7q_CAYr=s320" width="258" /></a></div>Now, aside from whether he repudiates the offensive and divisive campaigns the party ran during his time on the leadership team, there is a factual inaccuracy within this statement. The CPA's financial returns to the Electoral Commission for 2014 show that Mr Campanale was a member of the party's federal council until October 2014 (see image, right). </div><div><br /></div><div>If he left at this time then that is a little over 7 years ago - not a decade. I don't know whether this misinformation has been provided deliberately or otherwise (and I'll give Mr Campanale the benefit of the doubt here) but it matters for two reasons:<p>a) it shows that, far from leaving under the new "extreme" leadership, Mr Campanale served under it for 2 1/2 years, and <br /><br />b) Mr Campanale was active within the party when it was opposing the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. </p><p>__________________________________________________________________________________</p><p><b>UPDATE, 14.1.22</b></p><p>The writer Ethan Gutmann has posted something on facebook and for reasons of fairness it should probably be copied here: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ethan.gutmann/posts/10160093408173179" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/ethan.gutmann/posts/10160093408173179 </a><br /><br />Aside from the obvious disrespect Mr Gutmann shows to people "yammering on twitter" or "the barking dogs of Twitter who would never ever dare to stand up and speak like [he did]" (in fairness, Mr Gutmann has no idea what any of us have done or said on public platforms) it is interesting because he provides a first-hand account of Mr Campanale's speech at Tusványos in 2019. <br /><br />He says Mr Campanale "suddenly, without any warning, turned on the conference, declaring that these Christian values, so precious to him, to them, to all, were absolutely incompatible with the fear and loathing of the foreigner, the black, the brown, the refugee, the travelling stranger, even perhaps, the Jew Soros."</p><p>He doesn't provide any verbatim quotes but if that's true then I'll happily congratulate Mr Campanale on the content of that intervention. I can only say I wish I'd been there to hear it. </p><p>But...</p><p>Mr Gutmann surely understands that any information anyone (other than the panelists and the reported 50 people gathered to listen) have on the event is what is reported afterwards and is available online. Two of Mr Campanale's panel members (Prof Bracy Bersnak, <a href="https://www.christendom.edu/2020/02/25/professor-defends-christian-values-in-europe/" target="_blank">in his personal account</a>, and Hajnalka Juhász <a href="https://kdnp-hu.translate.goog/hirek/tusvanyos-fokuszban-kereszteny-ertekek-nemzetkozi-vedelme?_x_tr_sl=hu&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc&fbclid=IwAR2EwGkUBpEo1SYeig--t5w0g6G65o475ViAyszKpAxa_VYbRUQH5WMfaoU" target="_blank">on the KDNP website</a>), state that he was in agreement with them on the dangers of secular democracy. What are we supposed to think? I would say that if they have wilfully lied and given false impressions about Mr Campanale's contribution then, while that kind of dishonesty is unacceptable, it shows the nature of who Mr Campanale is (arguably naively) dealing with at Tusványos. Why debate and challenge people who then claim that you agreed with them all along? For me, if what Ethan Gutmann says is true, then it underlines that Prof Bersnak and Ms Juhász are so untrustworthy that they're not good people to share a panel with. Or to be SEEN sharing a panel with.<br /><br />A speech can hardly be - as Mr Gutmann suggests - someone's "finest moment" if that speech is misrepresented and framed as an agreement with the people being spoken out against. <br /><br />It's difficult to know what Mr Campanale actually said. Sometimes differing accounts of the same event can be easily harmonised, but not here: either Mr Gutmann is correct or Prof Bersnak and the KDNP report are. Someone is clearly lying, and I am not able to determine which of them it is. I'd like to believe Mr Gutmann's story but, while I would hardly be surprised at the KDNP being less than honest, I don't see why Prof Bersnak would need to lie. I don't share his perspectives but, as he is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Economics at an American institution, I don't see why he would need to be dishonest about Mr Campanale's contribution. He has no overtly political agenda. So what actually happened is as clear as mud and seems to be a question of which narrative we choose to believe. Personally, I don't want to accuse either a Professor of Political Science or a Senior Research Fellow in China Studies of lying, but it's clear their accounts don't tally: either Mr Campanale was in agreement with his fellow panellists or else he used the platform to boldly express an opposite view. </p><p>If Mr Gutmann is correct, perhaps he should turn his ire on those who deliberately report falsehoods rather than those who have to make sense of situations with only these reports as evidence. Perhaps he should also understand that most of us he dismisses as "yammering on twitter" are actually party members seeking to settle uncomfortable questions, so that we feel sufficiently reassured that we can go out and campaign for Mr Campanale. Seeking to understand people, rather than dismissing them, would be a much better approach here.<br /><br />Even if we uncritically accept Mr Gutmann's version of events (which is perfectly plausible), there remain questions about what Mr Campanale has said at Tusványos in previous years - in both 2016 and 2017 he is reported by Hungarian language websites as having been critical of "secular liberalism". Whatever he said in 2019, it's also reasonable to wish to get clarification from Mr Campanale on these previous contributions - and, indeed, his wider views on secular liberalism. I do not apologise for seeking answers, especially when the optics are so terrible.<br /><br />(Apologies for the multiple updates, but it only seems fair to Mr Campanale that I should post evidence I've gained later, especially if it may show him in a positive light.)</p><p>___________________________________________________________________________________</p><p><b>UPDATE, 6.11.22</b><br /><br />In relation to news that the Sutton and Cheam constituency party is considering deselecting Mr Campanale, I have received a couple of messages on twitter.<br /><br />In one of these I am blamed for creating the situation and was impolitely requested to remove this post. This I refuse to do. I make no accusations of Mr Campanale - I merely had questions I wished to be answered, most significantly in the case of his involvement with the CPA and his current attitudes towards the party's policy during his time as a senior CPA figure. I have no connection with the Sutton and Cheam local party and I am certainly not in a position to influence them one way or another.</p><p>Another message accuses me of being "anti-Christian" and involved in a "globalist" plan to "destroy Christianity". For those who have no understanding of my personal faith journey, may I suggest that accusing someone who has served for several years as a church elder of being "anti-Christian" is more than a little ridiculous.<br /><br />I am not going to comment on what is happening in Sutton and Cheam - to be honest, I don't really know. I very much doubt that it is Mr Campanale's personal faith that is the issue here but I cannot speak for them other than to say the decision is theirs to make. <br /><br />What I can say is that my problem with the CPA was never with their Christian faith but their political values. I don't care which church Mr Campanale attends or what his personal theology is - but I am interested in what his current political values are, which is why I wrote this post back in January. And no - I was never seeking to "cancel" him, or his beliefs, merely to gain some satisfactory answers to the kind of questions opposition parties will inevitably ask.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p></div>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02027368242570244912noreply@blogger.com7