Getting below the skin of democratic reform

Henry Hopwood-Phillips 10.15am

The world is a-turning. The classes shift from lower, middle and upper to under, indebted and hereditary. Real power slips through MPs’ hands into those of constitutional lawyers, NGOs and financiers. Voters are confused and apathetic, confronted with a menu of social democrats donning different ribbons, that lack either the ideas, the conviction or the courage to extract the UK from debt-ridden paralysis.  

It is in this precarious environment that democracy has to be protected. If this sounds melodramatic, consider it is complacency that has reduced us to this position. I am often accused of pessimism but I would argue, with Spengler, that i am not a pessimist - pessimism means seeing no more duties.

Parliament has become little more than an acting pit, its real purpose - the coordination of interests - occurs behind the scenes. As Charles Moore recently noted in Standpoint, politics has been reduced to an:

“all-consuming pseudo-science of trying to guess what people want and then find ways of pretending to give it to them.”

Man in this barren environment uproots himself for money despite risk of grave anomie, and allows as compensation his public and private  responsibilities to plummet. Into this vacuum has seeped a state that continues to increase exponentially in size.

The global flipside has been fluid labour - i.e. immigration - encouraged by political elites who sell a Benetton advert and hide behind an aegis largely composed of rhetoric invoking diversity and inclusivity while pursuing cheap labour and the postponement of overly-optimistic pension plans.

The elites told us they loved everyone when they in fact saw everybody as equally worthless unless contributing to their own net-worth. Anybody who did not appreciate their own country becoming alien to them in matter of decades was turned into a social leper overnight by being turned into the modern equivalent of a witch - a “racist” - a word that has become such an invidious tool.

Social entropy has defiled the national fabric. Technology and urbanity has distanced us from ourselves, each other and our environments, to the point where large numbers of sybaritic younger generations who have never known any better feel vaguely apathetic about annihilation

A point that recalls Toynbee’s admission: “Civilisations are not murdered, they commit suicide”.

I harbour much hope though. UKIP’s success at council level demonstrates the seams are distressed. It is in times of crisis that the biggest and best opportunities come about. A national debate on the lifeblood and symbol of our people, our sovereignty - our parliamentary democracy - needs to take place.

Douglas Carswell MP has already started us out along a certain path with his iDemocracy. I would take his principle and extend it towards its natural conclusion. I think political parties are no longer required, they are an anachronism in an age where identities are so fluid that parties feel obliged to be concrete but alienate people with their packages or become hypocritical fudges incapable of enacting any manifestos. These parties have created what Francis Fukuyama calls a “vetocracy” - systems where myriad actors have just enough power to veto, dilute and delay decisions but no single actor has enough power to push through an agenda.

Instead we should take parties, which have morphed into a single cartel with different franchises, out of the equation. Most people have an eclectic smorgasbord of views that are very compromised by the current menu. Why not compile a government file that can be shared via an online cloud in which under the subtitles of ENERGY, DEFENCE, HOUSING etc, people add solutions, answers, resolutions, policy ideas which, after the civil service has redacted, the electorate vote on either all together at a certain time or spread out over a period?

Logistics are a bit irrelevant once the principle is admitted. After policies have been elected, people who believe their lives, their beliefs, their actions, their thoughts most fully represent certain issues or approaches that are popular can put themselves forward to execute proposals.

Referendums should be used, in a similar manner to the Swiss, for issues of great importance, and politicians should be paid in proportion to past and current salaries and posts. Politicians would also be forbidden to take up post-political jobs in which it was decided figures were trading on past public service. In all matters but defence and policing small, directly accountable councils, parishes and townships would replace the monolithic behemoths that are today’s councils.

Direct democracy, devolution and decentralisation are the three Ds that will power Britain into the 22nd century as a leader instead of a relic.

If all this sounds rather ridiculous, scary and fanciful, I can assure you that the nation has undergone far greater changes in its history and will do again. When it’s done so, it’s usually been for the better.

Follow Henry on Twitter @byzantinepower

Human Rights Act: Some questions for Mr Grayling and Mrs May

Craig Prescott 10.51am

Over the weekend, Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor, indicated that a Conservative majority government could repeal the Human Rights Act. Meanwhile, Theresa May, the Home Secretary, has suggested withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) itself.

These are two very different things, and there is some muddled thinking involved here; but if both were to be pursued the policy could be called ‘Withdrawal and Repeal’.

As Mr Grayling has admitted himself, there needs to be a lot of work put in to the detail (to put it mildly). But as work towards possible 2015 manifesto pledges starts, here are some questions and issues that need to be considered.

1. Why? It can’t be for political advantage. At the last election, 3.1 per cent of people voted for a political party who advocated ‘Withdraw and Repeal’, namely UKIP. By contrast, a combined 52 per cent of the electorate voted for Labour and the Liberal Democrats, who did not. Whatever Mr Grayling and Mrs May may think, the electorate has shown time and time again disinterest in tinkering with constitutional matters. This does not look like a massive vote winner to me, in face of more pressing matters such as living standards and the broader economy.
2. Replacement? A British Bill of Rights has been suggested, but to what end? The content of such a Bill of Rights is likely to be similar, if not identical, to the content with one or two additions (such as a right to a jury trial) to make such a document ‘British’. Take a look at the Articles incorporated into English Law by the HRA, the Right to Life, Prohibition of Torture, Prohibition of Slavery and Forced Labour and the Right to a Fair Trial and so on. Would you like to live in a country that does not provide in law for these  protections? As one of the finest judges of recent times, Lord Bingham stated in his book the Rule of Law, countries that do not make such protection in law tend not to the best of places to live. Belarus or North Korea? Another issue is how are the courts going to interpret any such legislation. Experience before the HRA suggests that on the whole, the courts will take notice of the ECHR, as they do of other international treaties and case-law for interpretative guidance.
3. Leave it to Parliament? If ‘Withdrawal and Repeal’ is pursued, then the position will be more akin to the days before the HRA, but without a route of appeal to Strasbourg. This is a dangerous option, as it risks pitting the courts and Parliament in direct opposition. It is easy to think that human rights began with the HRA, but that neglects the strong - if imperfect - vein in the common law that protected people’s rights before the HRA. One could go back to the 17th century, but during the 1990s the courts began to recognise at common law certain rights as being of ‘fundamental’ status, such as access to justice. This fundamental status means that the courts require strong signals from Parliament before the courts hold that they can be interfered with. This is an open-ended category of right, creating a clear risk of an ongoing conflict between the courts and Parliament, potentially giving more scope to the courts, the exact opposite of what the Lord Chancellor, Mr Grayling, wants. Such an approach would be destined not to end well.

There are other issues to consider. The devolved institutions are required under the devolution framework to comply with the ECHR at all times. Any amendment of this requirement is likely to require their approval, which the Commission on the Bill of Rights indicates will not necessarily be forthcoming as approval of the ECHR is generally seems to be higher outside of England than within it. (This raises concerns that the Conservative Party becoming ever more an English, and not British Party). Further, the EU is engaged in an ongoing process to become a signatory to the ECHR, meaning that even if ‘Withdraw and Repeal’ is pursued, the ECHR will still be a highly relevant to UK law as long as Britain remains a member.

All of the above is not to say that the human rights architecture of the UK and Europe is perfect. Far from it. There are issues over the length of time it takes to hear cases, and the number of appeals possible in human rights litigation are both issues about which courts themselves have voiced concerns. A close look at the process shows that the vast majority of the time, it is these problems which lie at the root of problems with human rights. After all Abu Hamza still got deported to America. Is it really necessary to embark on such a hazardous journey, jeopardising a central tenet of the unwritten constitution that Parliament and the courts respond to each other in a dialogue and understanding, to solve a problem which for the vast majority of the electorate is simply not there?

Ultimately, the problem that Mr Grayling as Lord Chancellor (who has a duty to uphold the rule of law) needs to grapple with is that some human rights are innate in the liberal democracy to which he wishes to belong and to strengthen. Any human rights apparatus constructed does not create rights but merely recognises them.

Craig Prescott is a member of the School of Law at the University of Manchester. Follow him on Twitter @craigprescott

Immigration, integration and Labour’s credibility crisis

Andrew Thorpe-Apps 1.48pm

In a recent speech in Tooting, Ed Miliband outlined plans to ensure that frontline staff in the state sector are able to speak ‘proficient’ English. It is part of achieving what he labelled a ‘connected nation’ rather than a ‘segregated one’.

“If we are going to build one nation, we need to start with everyone in Britain knowing how to speak English. We should expect that of people that come here. We will work together as a nation far more effectively when we can always talk together.”

As the West declines it reverts to its roots

Henry Hopwood-Phillips 11.04am

“I think the twenty-first century will be decided by how we handle the identity crisis.” - Bill Clinton, November 2012

Few people when pressed are able to pin the genesis of Western Civilisation to a date; fewer still can name its father figures; and what it is “Western” in relation to seems to constitute an enigma on the scale of the Holy Grail.

So it must come as no surprise that even fewer people outside quirky historical circles have encountered the critiques of Spengler, Guenon, Evola and A. J. Toynbee that refer to its decline.

Decline is not terribly complicated. The idea of Rome, Jerusalem and the Rhine still loom large in the European imagination. Civilisation is at its heart an article of faith; so when Jerusalem was doubted, out of the equation a substitute had to be found. Faith was installed in Reason.

Nietzsche famously destroyed the hubris of this imposter in the late nineteenth century. Philosophy since can be quite accurately dismissed as a footnote to Nietzsche. Lurching French constitutions have reflected the philosophical listlessness. Ideologies, distorting life through various reductionist lenses and pummelling it into all-embracing systems, features as a despairing response to the Prussian; attempts to create new faiths on thin air.

The attempt at vertical distention in the Age of Ideology was aborted in favour of a rather less impressive horizontal extension. Globalisation, the civilisational equivalent of a belly-flop, coincides with post-modernity in much the same way that the Age of Imperialism coincided with the West’s last crisis of faith: the Reformation.

In the absence of metanarratives into which identities can be anchored, the West now experiences existentialism. This is a big word the French use for feeling depressed in nasty cafes.

These trends have huge political ramifications. States that could once assume loyalty on racial, historical and cultural grounds can no longer afford to do so. The old building blocks of nation, geography and family look to go the same way as fealty in the feudal system or membership to a parish. New networks, environments, images, identities, peoples; some superficial some not, are being connected, generated and subscribed to at a increasingly rapid rate.

The practical political responses have been twofold. The movement towards unity focuses less on constructing civilisational life than on decreasing discomfort, controlling the fallout, and managing material decline. It concentrates on subduing conflict and increasing wealth. Its means are technocratic and it is heavily reliant on the creation of an international bureaucratic class. Its systems are currently underdeveloped but already display tentative totalitarian tendencies. Identity is its weak card. Diversity is publicly applauded but in private internationalists would prefer that irrational identity were relegated to the same private sphere religion was consigned to in the Enlightenment period.

The atomistic movement, in contrast, places heavy emphasis on identity and homogeneity. Decentralisation, democracy, accountability and liberty all flow from the axiom of “us”. It is a return to the building blocks of Europe. The ghosts of feudalism return: Catalans, Basques, Scots, Sicilians, Venetians, Cornish, Walloons and Flemish all want their identity back. These centrifugal trends are exacerbated by poorly controlled immigration - a phenomenon symptomatic of a collapse in unifying faith. Immigrants, having displayed a tendency to vote en bloc for leftist parties in order to topple status quos perceived to be historically prejudicial, now seek to raise their own flags in the Western graveyard.

The end result is that at a time when national identities are becoming terminally fractured, international infrastructure remains rudimentary. At a time when homogeneity is emerging as important, identities are becoming more fluid. Perhaps the solution to the identity crisis Bill Clinton bewails is the berthing of a primary identity in micro-communities in which basic needs such as homogeneity, resources and security are established.

Yet there will be an extension of “self” into other plastic identities in the international arena. The polar extremes of localism and internationalism will be joined in the hyperconnectivity of the next age and Europe will be returned to its constituent parts.

Follow Henry on Twitter @byzantinepower

Tories and Lib Dems should reaffirm their commitment to coalition, not drift increasingly apart

Nik Darlington 1.48pm

Well that was a pretty petty, squabbly piece of PMQs earlier. So instead of talking about it here, this is a heads-up for a speech being given next week by the chairman of the Health Select Committee, Stephen Dorrell.

Mr Dorrell, a former Cabinet minister and a patron of the TRG, will be making a concerted and forthright case for the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition.

First we were told that the coalition would fall apart within weeks; then we were told that the Lib Dems would not support strong policies to reduce the deficit; now the sirens are saying the Lib Dems will topple the coalition prior to polling day.

There has certainly been a growing apart. Cabinet ministers of the two parties have certainly taken on a renewed air of partisanship. Today, Nick Clegg makes a speech in the City of London claiming that his party has been reining in the Tories’ anti-business policies on immigration, energy and Europe (there’s undoubtedly truth in the first point, quite a bit in the second, and possibly so on the third). It is only the latest in a series of efforts at ‘differentiation’.

Like the fog sitting over central London of late, there is also something of a fog over the memories of many Tories (including MPs). The Conservative party did not win the 2010 General Election. Gordon Brown’s Labour party most definitely lost it. The Liberal Democrats most definitely did not win it. Yet nor did anyone else.

The Coalition, to give it a grand capital ‘C’, was the best solution to the muddled outcome given the dire straits the country was - and to some extent still is - in.

It still is the best solution. Not only that, it is the only solution. Remarkably too, it has been a historically stable solution. The most significant rebellions of this Parliament so far have been within the Conservative party itself, not the governing parties as a whole.

Tory Modernisation Needs A New Chapter

Samuel Kasumu 12.04pm

Following the recent reshuffle, many people could be forgiven for believing that the Conservative party has taken a step backwards in regards to becoming a more reflective of Great Britain.

Not only was the only ethnic minority Cabinet member, Baroness Warsi, moved on, but there was a feeling among many commentators that the party has also failed to make progress in extending opportunities to more women. Opponents of ageism also had a cause for concern as the elder statesmen were forced to retire… before they actually wanted to retire. It all paints a bleak picture for Tory modernisers.

So where do we go from here? To put it simply, we have to start winning through delivering strong and fair policy during these very tough times. We must be more affective in conveying ideas and must accept that we have neglected certain communities for far too long.

Conservatives today must start to speak up for the things that are so important to the groups that struggle to contemplate ever voting blue. We all already know that women, ethnic minorities, those with a faith, and many within inner city areas, are among the least likely to vote Conservative. Many people have analysed the reasons behind this, such as Lord Ashcroft, who published Degrees of Separation earlier this year.

But the time has come to stop debating among ourselves and start engaging with these communities before it is too late. There is nothing worse than a politician turning up a few weeks before an election having been out of site since the one five years before.

For single parents, we need to demonstrate that it is not our priority to make their lives more difficult via the long list of welfare reforms. The Universal Credit has to be better sold to those that are scared of being unable to work while bringing up a family on their own. More needs to be channelled into dealing with marriage breakdown and absent fathers must be forced to take responsibility for their children.

We must also better communicate the need for education reforms to parents across the country. We spend more than £80 billion on education but are globally ranked between 20th and 30th for English, Maths, and Science.

For ethnic minority communities, we need to end the so called war on immigration and admit that whether we like it or not our world is becoming increasingly global. Yes, borders must be tightened; but that is already happening so let’s advance the conversation and stop using cheap rhetoric to appeal to the so-called “core vote”.

This is the same “core” that was unable to deliver a majority in 2010, so perhaps it is time to start appealing to the rest of the country. The Labour party introduced the points-based system, which means non-EU migrants can only come to Britain if they are appropriately and highly skilled.

We all know that the real elephant in the room is currently uncontrollable migration from EU member states, and frankly until that is dealt with current immigration policy can be seen to be pure and simply insufficient and borderline racist. More needs to be made of the ‘transitory measures’ available to the Government.

The list could go on and on in regards to how we can develop and better communicate policies to various communities in order to demonstrate we are the correct party to choose.

In my new book, Winning the Race, launched this Thursday, I tell my story of how I joined the Conservative party as a twenty-year old, working class black male. I have never regretted the decision and can see the potential for the Tories to become the party of choice for so many people like me that are entrepreneurial and value the role of communities, family, and individual responsibility.

As Britain continues to evolve and faces an increasingly competitive global economic environment, there will be an increasingly important need for a strong government with a clear strategy for the future. One Nation Conservatism is far from an expired way of thinking. The TRG and everything it stands for must remain at the forefront of where we need to be to win a majority. For its philosophy of combining compassion with efficiency represents a way of governance that is both fair and firm, with universal appeal.

Follow Samuel on Twitter @samuelkasumu

The Tories Must Not Dither Over Immigration

David Cowan 2.51pm

Immigration is one of those topics politicians would rather avoid. But last Saturday in the Daily Mail, Nicholas Soames, a TRG patron, co-wrote an article with the Labour MP Frank Field about the dangers of current levels of immigration.

Their concerns centre on the pressures of large scale immigration on social services - and housing in particular. The population is set to increase from 62.3 million to a staggering 70 million over the next fifteen years.

The immigration debate is often reduced to a mundane battle of statistics. Though just focusing on the economic aspect of immigration does not do nearly enough justice to the scale of the problem.

The non-economic arguments are primarily social and cultural, which is why it has been such an emotive issue for so many years. It is also why politicians are reluctant to address it out of a fear of alienating the BME (black and minority ethnic) electorate. Yet the problem of socially fragmented and culturally segregated communities arising from such rapid levels of immigration has to be addressed.

Unfortunately there are many examples that demonstrate how this social fragmentation and cultural segregation is happening. In Tower Hamlets, women who refuse to wear a veil frequently receive death threats, while homosexuals are openly attacked in the streets. Sharia courts are operating across the country despite the fact that our laws do not allow special privileges to be granted to any one group over another. Even so-called ‘honour killings’ are on the increase, according to the Guardian. We should also not forget that the perpetrators of the 7/7 atrocities were born and bred in Britain and that the problem of home-grown Islamist extremism is still very much with us.

All that notwithstanding, many immigrants are decent, hardworking people just trying to make a living for themselves and their families in a new country. Britain should be a welcoming and tolerant country in which people can come to work and live in peace.

But there is a point at which mass immigration does become socially unsustainable. As David Cameron said in a speech last year:

“Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream.  We’ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong.  We’ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values.”

The Tories must offer that vision. To take pride in Britain as a country is not just a subjective whim, as valueless as the postmodernist doctrine of state multiculturalism - or rather cultural relativism as it should really be called. To take pride in one’s country is an objective expression of a sense of belonging and a love for a place we call home.

Yet patriotism has been hijacked by nationalist extremists and dismissed as an embarrassment by the leftist intelligentsia. Tories must separate patriotism from the vile doctrine of nationalism in order to make a robust case for more socially sustainable levels of immigration. No one has done that more successfully than the self-declared ‘Tory Anarchist’ George Orwell, whose definition of patriotism in ‘Notes on Nationalism’ probably cannot be beaten:

“By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life. A patriot believes this country to be the best place in the world for himself but has no wish to force his ideas on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally.”

That is how Tories must defend British patriotism. After all, it is for this very reason why Benjamin Disraeli is one of the greatest figures in the Conservative party’s history. As Lord Salisbury said of Disraeli, “Zeal for the greatness of England was the passion of his life”. This instinct goes to the very heart of Toryism, which is in character a social and political doctrine rooted in the patriotic experience, not in the abstraction of economic theory.

Britain has historically proven herself very capable of absorbing different groups. But as Nicholas Soames and Frank Field have rightly said, we are now facing the biggest wave of immigration for hundreds of years. It is in the face of this challenge that Tories should make a stand and defend what it means to be British and support social cohesion. An effective process of social cohesion can only take place when immigration has reached socially sustainable levels and the misguided project of state multiculturalism has been dismantled.

If today’s Tory reformers fail to succeed in this task then we will only see the continued social fragmentation and cultural segregation of British communities.

Follow David on Twitter @david_cowan

No Cabinet minister deserves to stay in post more than Theresa May

Giles Marshall 10.24am

John Reid, now Lord Reid, used to be Tony Blair’s ‘man for all seasons’. Regularly shuffled around key ministerial posts, the ebullient Scot was Mr Blair’s blunt, aggressive point man.

Yet even Reid was aghast on arrival to the Home Office, memorably describing it as “not fit for purpose”.

Great office of state it might be, but this ministry has long been seen as the graveyard of greater and lesser political careers. Of those lesser, it buried one of Gordon Brown’s more bizarre appointees and the first woman to hold the office, Jacqui Smith.

However another woman, Theresa May, could now be gradually revising a role that is supposed to lead to failure and frustration.

One of David Cameron’s strengths as Prime Minister has been his willingness to maintain a stable Cabinet team. For all the angst this can cause lower down the political greasy pole, the undoubted benefit is seen in a maturing grip on their departments by a number of reform-minded ministers. Amid the mire of local elections, polls and poor Budgets, it is easy to forget just how radical this Government actually is.

Education and health are prominent briefs where reform - of the effective, root and branch sort - genuinely is taking hold, thanks largely to their Secretaries of State, Michael Gove and Andrew Lansley.

But it is Theresa May who has been the quiet toughie, and is beginning to show her true quality, tenaciously pressing for reforms on many levels at the catastrophic Home Office.

Granted, it does not always feel like that. The Abu Hamza extradition case looked badly handled; it was followed by one of the frostiest receptions ever afforded a Home Secretary at the Police Federation conference.

Nonetheless, consider this. First, Mrs May acted upon the collective wisdom of the Home Office’s lawyers when pursuing Hamza’s extradition. And whatever ire she felt for it, she calmly took responsibility for the decision, refusing to pass blame, and doggedly continued to pursue the result that most Britons wanted to see. It was a textbook case of ministerial responsibility that has become so sadly rare in recent years.

Second, in facing down the Police Federation, Mrs May was taking on one of the most powerful vested interests in Britain, believing correctly that policing has to change. The Police Federation is a union in all but name and acts in the way that all public services unions act. They seek to preserve inefficient working methods for the good of the lowest calibre of members, rather than seeking to create a bridge between professional delivery and public expectation. The country’s police forces remain highly regarded, but not uniformly so. I joked to one non-political friend that Theresa May had better hope she didn’t suffer a burglary or suchlike, as she might not be able to rely on police support. “Just like the rest of us then,” my friend replied, not entirely cynically.

Theresa May continues to challenge Home Office shibboleths in her demands for changes to judgements on deportation made against foreign criminals living in Britain. The weight of the human legal establishment is set to come down on her, but does anyone seriously doubt either the necessity for such changes, or their popularity?

Theresa May proved that she is a politician with iron in her soul when she challenged the Conservative party, as its chairman, not to relish its role as the ‘nasty party’. She spends her time mastering her brief rather than pursuing it for personal PR - and sometimes this can rebound on her. However, she is a formidable and capable operator, unafraid of challenging vested interests in pursuit of reform.

For all his dislike of unnecessary changes to his Cabinet, Mr Cameron shall soon find himself having to organise a reshuffle. Let us hope it is limited. Whoever is shuffled, the Prime Minister should keep his maturing reformers in place. And no one seems to be earning the right to carry on more than the dogged, flak-carrying Home Secretary.

Follow Giles on Twitter @gilesmarshall