CentreRight

What lessons to draw from Lisbon?

The government has now formally ratified the EU Constitution Lisbon Treaty. It did so despite having promised us a referendum, and despite the Irish "no" vote.

Shame on our government. With luck this episode will serve to further undermine the legitimacy of the EU project.

Yet what does this all say about the way foreign policy is made?

It seems undeniable that the driving force behind our Europe policy is the Foreign Office.

What difference has it made to Europe policy which Prime Minister has occupied Number 10 – Brown, Blair, Major et al? What does it matter which MP happens to be called Europe Minister? There is a continuity in Europe policy that can only be explained by Foreign Office mandarins calling the shots.

Rather like the QCA in education, or NICE in health, it is the permanent quangocracy of the FCO that really run things. Preening politicians only pretend they do (For a recent example of this see Ed Balls over the latest SATS fiasco).

How can changing Foreign Office ministers on its own change much, when the only choices Sir Humphrey Appleby permits them to make are on the wine list?

Conservatives wanting to change our relationship with Europe need to start thinking in terms of transformation at the Foreign Office - not just changing Ministers. Without making the institution of the FCO more directly accountable, more Eurosceptic policy outcomes are not possible.  That means something more than the bogus system of supposed accountability via Ministers to Parliament. 

As long as foreign policy is in the hands of unaccountable Foreign Office officials, it is rarely likely to serve the national interest.

That must be one lesson to draw from Lisbon.

There is something wrong with our judges

Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice, believes that aspects of Sharia law should be adopted in Britain. Having recently read Milestones, a manifesto for political islamism by the radical Sayed Qutb, I could not disagree more strongly. Not merely wrong-headed, Lord Philips - like Rowan Williams before him - can only have encouraged those inspired by Qutb's teachings.

Setting aside the debate about sharia, what does this all say about our judges?

Many people will feel uneasy with the news that the most senior judge in the country advocates legal separatism. Yet surely this is not the first time that the behaviour of our judiciary should give us cause for concern?

Until a generation or so ago, judges in Britain tended merely to interpret the law. Acts of Parliament and the Common Law were the main sources of the law. Today, activist judges no longer merely interpret the law – they adjudicate on the basis of numerous charters and conventions that give them enormous scope for activism.

Judicial activism has not come about because of any conscious decision taken by Parliament, but at the behest of an expansive and ambitious judiciary. Judges adjudicated on the basis of the European Convention of Human Rights before it was formally incorporated into UK law - giving lie to the idea that judges are only doing what Parliament asked of them. The notion of judicial review, which did not exist until recently, is entirely the invention of our learned friends.

Should we be concerned by judicial activism?  Given the failure of the legislature to hold the executive in check, is there not a case for welcoming it?

When Big Business meets Big Government...

Lazy BBC-types sometimes talk about whether a particular politician or political party is "pro-business".  What this means is not always clear.

Being "pro-business" is not necessarily the same as favouring free market enterprise.  Indeed, some big businesses are distinctly hostile to open competition.

I wonder if the biggest obstacles to free market competition today come not from bolshie trade unionists, or socialists firebrands, but from the corporate boardroom.

Corporatism - the alliance of big business with big government - is "pro-business" in the sense that it suits certain businessmen.  However, it is very often the antithesis of free market.

Here are some examples of what happens when big business and big government team up:

1. Household utility bills go up to fund some of the de facto subsidies that have paid for the massive increase in wind turbines.
2. EU regulation is introduced in a way that creates barriers to entry in certain markets – thereby suiting the interests of some established players.
3. Defence contracts see squillions of public money transferred onto the balance sheets of certain suppliers – yet somehow our armed forces don't get the kit they need.

The Conservatives must be staunchly pro-business – yet in the best sense of the term. We must favour enterprise and open markets. We must not favour grubby, lobby-for-favours, corporatism.

Polite Parliament?

Likeable Labour MP, Tom Harris, blogs in defence of the House of Commons.  He contrasts "courteous", "polite" Parliament, with the "hate" filled blogosphere.  Ummm...

Without wanting to offend Mr Harris, I'm not sure he's got it entirely right.

The blog may be brash, and very occasionally boorish.  Yet, sites like this show that it works.  If only we could say the same for Parliament.

No matter how polite the Honourable Members might be, Parliament is monumentally useless at holding those with real executive power to account.  The self-regarding Westminster elite might not get it, but the disaffected electorate seem to.  As a legislature, the Commons today is supine and spineless.

The green benches need to find some of the passion, authenticity and verve that exist on-line.  Instead of defending the faux rituals of their “gentlemen’s club”, MPs need to use the internet to make themselves more directly accountable.  Even if that means having people say unpleasant things about you very occasionally...

Why I want Obama to win

Who would you rather won the US Presidential elections?  As a Conservative, I naturally felt I ought to want McCain to win.  And yet, I can't really find much reason why.

Conservatives like me who favour small government, the free market and decentralised power have often found ourselves willing on the likes of a Bush snr or a John Major.  We do so hoping that they'll be radical and break with the Big Government-knows-best consensus of the political establishment.  In the end, they only seem to gain office by accomodating themselves to the same old State centralism.

No. Until the US Republicans re-discover States Rights, the spirit of 1776 and much else besides, this UK Conservative is going to be cheering on Obama.

Does Obama believe in small government?  As with McCain, I really don't know.  But I do know that last week he became the first Presidential candidate since Nixon to refuse public money to fund his campaign.   

Instead of relying on State handouts, Obama's campaign will be funded by millions of people each giving small on-line donations.  In the primaries alone, the $133 million spent came via 1.5 million web donors. That's less than $100 each. 

Sounds pretty Edmund Burke.com to me.   

But, perhaps you disagree?  Maybe its heresy to not support a Big Government, high tax and spend, Establishment Republican, just because he's... um... a Republican?

Ireland votes "no" - thank you!

The "no" vote has prevailed - and the consequences for the European Project are big. 

First, the architects of European integration must now admit that their European Constitution Lisbon Treaty is dead.  Not Lazarus dead, but dodo dead.   

Second, this result illustrates that the EU project has no democratic legitimacy.  None. 

Ireland has benefited from Euro squillions.  Her political / media establishment, like our own BBC, was almost universally behind the well-financed "Yes" campaign.  Yet still the Irish have said "no".      

As more details of this great victory for the people against Brussels unfold, do read Daniel Hannan's rolling blog about it.  Dan helped galvanised the Irish "no" campaign when it seemed a lost cause, made people realise that the Irish were voting on behalf of us all - and was once again way ahead of the Westminster herd. 

What laws would you repeal?

Over regulation is suffocating Britain. Business and society suffer from ludicrous "jobs-worth" rules and bureaucracy.

All politicians talk about "cutting red tape", yet it seldom happens. This makes it all the more vital that the next Conservative government actually makes it happen.

So, if you were in charge, which laws and rules, specifically, would you scrap? Which laws need to go?

I want your help to compile a list of laws that needs to be scrapped. Suggestions in the comment section, please.

The Today Programme asked a similar question a while back. Rather than cut and paste the ideas that their supposed "experts" came up with, or merely nominating whichever law most enrages you personally, it would be really helpful if you could list a law that you know specifically over regulates (various Health and Safety laws, perhaps? Trades Description laws?).

16:45 update:  Thanks for all of the suggestions so far.  It would be wonderful to have some new suggestions (ie laws you would like to see repealed that someone else has not already mentioned)

Why defence policy betrays our armed forces

Today’s Telegraph reports that our forces in Afghanistan do not have enough helicopters. How come there is a shortage of helicopters when we are spending £1 billion replacing the ageing Lynx?

Simple. Because that money gets spent in the interests of a few defence contractors, rather than our armed forces.

Something called the Defence Industrial Strategy (more reto 1970s than a space hopper) means that we have to build a new sort of helicopter, at twice the price - and which will not be ready until 2015.

2015 must seem a long time away if you happen to be in Helmand. Yet even when the tax-guzzling Future Lynx helicopter finally gets to you, don’t expect it to be operationally superior to the "off-the-shelf" alternatives available today from Sikorsky or Eurocopter.

Defenders of our monumentally useless defence procurement policy like to imply that somehow Sikorsky helicopters et al might not be up to the task of ferrying British troops around. Really? They seem to do a pretty good job ferrying those Americans about - but what do they know, eh?

It might enrage them to point this out, but the defence-industrial dinosaurs have much in common with Gordon Brown. That is, they want lots and lots of extra public spending, but without the reforms needed to ensure that the money is better spent. It is time to scrap the Defence Industrial Strategy, and have a policy that equips our armed forces with the best kit in the world.

New Conservatism

The New Yorker has an interesting piece about the American Republicans entitled "The Fall of Conservatism". 

I don't necessarily agree with it.  Nor would I draw too many parallels with conservatism over here (we've been out of office this past decade, for a start ...)

However, it does underline that in order to succeed, conservatism ultimately needs intellectual verve and purpose.  Years of Big Government conservatism end in defeat and retreat - or a McClinton consensus, at best.    

All the more reason to read Douglas Murray.      

Is Brown on dodgy ground?

A few weeks back, I asked Gordon Brown a question at PMQs. Given that Mr Brown claimed “he had no knowledge of the dodgy loans used to fund the 2005 election campaign”, and since “Lord Levy has revealed that the Prime Minister knew everything. “Is Lord Levy lying?”, I asked.

All I got was an awkward shuffle, then a dagger-stare, followed by a gruff “I knew nothing of these loans”.

Ummm…

Knowing how Brown sometimes uses evasive semantics, I've been reflecting on the precise meaning of those six words.

In one sense, Mr Brown's reply has to be technically correct.  By definition, there had to have been a time at which Mr Brown did indeed know nothing of the loans.  The issue is at what point did he become aware of the said loans? When did the “I know nothing” become an “I knew nothing”?

Pay less for politicians?

A wonderfully refreshing report out today by Policy Exchange challenges various lazy assumptions about party funding.

"Paying for the Party" reveals that the notion of a funding "arms race" between the major parties is a myth. Often used to legitimise State-funded politics, the notion that without taxpayer funds, the costs of politics will spiral ever upwards, is simply wrong.

More interesting is the idea that the costs of doing politics might actually be coming down.  Given how the internet lowers distribution costs elsewhere, perhaps we ought not be surprised if we start to see the cost of politics starting to fall, too.

Jack Straw's wadical weform

Despite the hype about "a new constitutional settlement", Jack Straw's plans to change the way executive power is exercised in Britain turned out this afternoon to be a superficial squib.

The draft Constitutional Renewal Bill would give Parliament a formal say over the deployment of troops.  In certain circumstances.  Sometimes.  Gosh.  MPs might decide what sort of protests might be held in Parliament Square.  Wow.  (Good to know those MPs willl at least hold sway over one part of Britain.)      

Westminster politics isn't working.  Angry voters recognise that the political Establishment is out of touch - and that the key decisions that affect their lives are taken by remote officials, not those they elect. 

Has Mr Straw offered to make the Quango State more accountable?  A right of initiative?  Recall?  Open primaries?....   Anything at all which might make the politicians more directly accountable to the people?  Nope. 

Instead he talks about holding elections on Saturdays, rather than Thursdays.

Set schools free

One thing you can depend on politicians to do is to make lots of promises about education.  Somehow, though, their proposals always seem to mean giving them -  Westminster politicians and officials - more control; ring-fenced school budgets, tinkering with the curriculum, more central diktat .... 

Perhaps education could be improved by giving politicians and officials less control?  That seems to be the gist of this thought-provoking article by Anthony Seldon. 

If politicians ran supermarkets, there would be a waiting list for bananas and catchment areas for breakfast cereals.  So why do we let them so mismanage our young people's future?      

What if voters really mattered?

The government managed to railroad the Lisbon Treaty through the House of Commons last night. Why? Because legions of low-grade MPs preferred to toady to their Whips, rather than vote the way their constituents wanted.

Watching the hoard of parasitical politicians flocking through the government lobby, it struck me; with the exception of a few Lib Dems in marginal seats, most of these MPs are able to treat the electorate with contempt only because they are voted in from "one party fiefdom" constituencies - the so-called "safe seats".

Imagine if the voters had a right of recall, open primaries to re-adopt all sitting MPs, a right of initiative and no taxpayer-funded political parties? Westminster politicians might start to actually take seriously the people they are supposed to serve. It’s not only policy towards the EU that would change …

Restoring trust in politics

ToryDiary details David Cameron's speech about the need to restore trust in politics - and politicians.  The Conservative party seems to have grasped that Westminster politics is not working.

Why?  There is simply not enough competition in politics.  With "safe seats", powerful Whips, arcane debating protocol and £10,000 a year "communications allowances", the rules favour established politicians - and establishment politics.  If competition improves the performance of businesses, surely a bit more competition in politics might force MPs to raise their game?   

David Cameron suggested today a mechanism to allow voters to help set Parliament's agenda and a right of referenda (see here for the details on how this might work, as set out by www.direct-democracy.co.uk).

Other ways of ensuring we were able to hold MPs to account would include a right of recall, proper open primaries to select MPs in safe seats, democratic accountability for quangos, and less taxpayer money for big corporate party machines (As Daniel Hannan has suggested, if Obama can raise millions on-line, why should our parties rely ever more on State hand-outs?).

Is this an anti-politics agenda?  You bet. The dozy gentlemen's club called Parliament might not like this - but in the age of the internet, it's time for change.  Yes, we can.

Westminster politics needs radical change

Today's call by 27 of the 2005 intake of Conservative MPs to allow voters the power to recall and sack wayward MPs is very encouraging.  It suggests that the Conservative party in Westminster is beginning to "get it".

Westminster politics, and many Westminster politicians, are hopelessly out of touch.  A supine Commons, stuffed with Whips' sycophants, is monumentally useless at holding the executive to account.  "Men-in-tights" debating rules favour seniority over originality.  How can it be right for our country to be governed by a cosy gentlemen's club?  Is it not precisely because the Commons is so dozy that it has allowed real power to drift away from it?   

Let's not stop at a right of recall to eject useless MPs.  In order to allow the people to hold their politicians directly to account, we need proper open primaries, so that there is political competition, even in "safe seats".  Why not have a right of initiative, so that the voters can have a direct say in what politicians vote on?  Instead of giving yet more taxpayers' money to big, corporate party machines, why not force politicians to use the web to commuicate more and raise their funds?      

Here is a coherent and credible agenda - and a new, anti-establishment Conservative party would do well to adopt it.

The Long Parliament

It has just gone 10pm and I've been sitting in here, the House of Commons chamber, for over six hours wanting to speak against the EU Constitutional Treaty.

Who says our Parliamentary system is hoplessly out-dated and needs reform?

Re. Britain's underequipped armed forces are asked to reduce expenditure on equipment

Tim Montgomerie is entirely right to be concerned about the appalling failure to eqip our armed forces adequately.  But we need to avoid making the mistake of assuming that spending more money is all that's needed. 

Pouring extra £ Billions into health and education alone over the past decade has not done enough to raise output.  So, too, in defence.  We need to re-think how we spend the money.

We are not very good at turning taxpounds into the equipment that our armed forces actually need.  If you doubt me, read Lewis Page's brilliant book on the subject.

Our defence budget is too often spent in the interests of the defence contractors, not primarily in the interests of our armed forces.

Commons debate

The House of Commons is debating the EU Constitution this afternoon. Under its terms, the UK will have to support the EU's foreign policy - even if it conflicts with our interests. Moreover, an EU "External Action Service", will eclipse our own UK diplomatic representation overseas.

Ed Davey, the Lib Dems deeply unimpressive spokesman, has just given one of the most dreadful, glib speeches supporting it all.

How come so much of our political class can be so awful?

Where is multiculturalism taking us?

Mark Steyn has some interesting thoughts on where the West's elites obsession with multiculturalism may lead us here.  Perhaps he is just being alarmist.  Perhaps.   

The internet and the rise of anti-politics

We all know how the internet removes barriers to entry in business and commerce.  Fewer appreciate how it is likely to do the same to politics, too.  Rob Colvile clearly does with his excellent new paper on "Politics, Policy and the Internet". 

The internet "aggregates" - brings together - likeminded people, and spreads ideas.  But more revolutionary, it democratises communication.  Its no longer some remote BBC producer who decides if I get air time, or if a story merits coverage.  For example, about one in ten households in my constituency have signed up for a regular communication linking them direct to sites like this or locally-made YouTube posted bulletins.  Perhaps, we are near the stage when you'll no longer need a big, expensive (taxpayer funded?) corporate party machine (in London) to communicate with voters. 

The mood of anti-politics, coupled with a desire for politics that is authentic, local and particular,  means that established political parties, and Establishment politicians, need to watch out ....         

Re: No consensus on the McClinton consensus

Tim and Alan's razor-shap ripostes are appreciated. I agree up to a point, Lord Copper.

An alternative to what Tim says might be to say that:

• For patriotic conservatives, McCain says that "Americans should welcome the rise of a strong, confident European Union".  Hummm .... It seems McCain's excellent take on the UN means he is making the right noises about one supranational quango.  But he is way out about the one that is destroying my constituents future prosperity and democratic self-government. (Didn't McCain even suggest that British Conservatives remain part of the pro-Euro EPP?)

• For social conservatives, Tim says that McCain offers to appoint the right sort of judges. Yeeesss ....  Surely the problem is not merely what kind of judges preside over social issues, but the fact that judges are deciding social issues?  Judicial activism is on the rise in all Western nations, and it means that no matter how many elections the centre right wins, and no matter how many good less bad judges we appoint, long term we lose.

• For economic conservatives, McCain opposed tax cuts. (I know he said it's because America couldn't afford them, but isn't that what Conservatives who refuse to cut taxes always say?)

Ryan Sager's (who is he backing incidentally?) excellent book "The Elephant in the Room" posed the question that if the Republican Party is no longer the party of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, small government, or fiscal restraint, then what is it? Suspicious of the Bush / Rove version of Big Government Conservatism, I fear that a McCain victory would put off the long overdue day of reckoning when the Republicans will have to re-think first principles. If Hillary wins, that process can begin in ernest. If not, it’s a holding position at best.

Re: Re: A McClinton consensus?

Alan Mendoza very kindly offers a "coherent defence of McCain for those conservatives still in denial” (I guess he means me). But it’s not about being “in denial” – and certainly not a question of “loathing” a man who clearly has some remarkable personal qualities. 

Alan’s chief point seems to be that if conservatives don’t all rally behind McCain, the other side might win. Indeed. But so what?

Clinton or McCain, either way I suspect the US will still end up with slight variations on the same; on immigration, taxation, the expansion of the State to tackle climate change, the corrosion of States Rights, support for more EU integration, more supranationalism, cultural relativism et al. On almost all the macro issues of the day, McCain wants to merely manage the way things are going a little better – not radically change them.

A McClinton Consensus?

So it looks as if its narrowing down to a McCain V Clinton contest for the White House.  Some choice.  As the great Mark Steyn suggests here, there is a case for voting for the Neither-of-the-above candidate.  Could someone please try to persuade me otherwise?            

Rotten Parliament

Anger with politicians seethes beyond Westminster. And it is not all just because of one or two MPs' dodgy dealings.

Contempt for politicians stems from despair. You voted for someone promising to end mixed hospital wards, or control immigration or cut red-tape - yet nothing happens. While politicians squabble, unelected officialdom carries on regardless. Politicians are despised by people waking up to the fact that the House of Commons is really a house of charades; Ministers pretend to make the big decisions and we MPs pretend to hold them to account. Voters give up.

It is time for radical change. Forget talk of hares and tortoises; it is bigger than that. We need to pick up where the Levellers stalled.

Far from being backward looking, we must ask why it is, in this new "post-bureaucratic age", that we have to leave it exclusively to politicians to hold government to account? Why not give people a right of initiative and referendum to do so directly themselves?