CentreRight

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?

More bias at the BBC

The BBC reports that there has been a "rare" suicide bombing in Israel today. Characteristically, the BBC report (at the time of writing) omits to mention that the reason why such terror attacks are (thankfully) so "rare" now is because of the construction of the much derided security barrier.

As we are all forced to pay for this glib analysis through the license fee, how long before we see the kind of internet activism used to take on HSBC used to overturn the license fee?

Re. Listen to Dan Hannan and judge for yourself

Having listened to what Dan Hannan actually said, it is extraordinary that the EPP have throw him out for opposing the European Constitution. Worse, they had the nerve to pretend that it was because he said something disreputable.  Thanks to "blog power", we can listen for ourselves and do not need to take EPP "spin" at face value.

The EPP's decision to expel one of our MEPs for opposing the European Constitution merely underlines the medium term incompatibility of being both Conservative and in the EPP.  David Cameron was entirely right to make it party policy to quit the EPP.   

Why it's right to quit the EPP

In an extraordinary fit of pique, party bosses in the Brussels parliament have thrown Dan Hannan out of the European People's Party - for doing what the people of Europe want in opposing the European Constitution / Lisbon Treaty.

EPP party chiefs seem to have shot themselves in the foot.  In order to stop Dan Hannan's repeated calls for a referendum, they had to break their own rules.  If the EPP chucks Hannan out while challenging the the European Constitution / Lisbon Treaty, then what are the Conservatives doing as part of the EPP group in Brussels in the first place?  This bizarre episode proves why David Cameron was so right to give a guarantee to take his MEPs out of the EPP.

Are we heading for a "Pim Fortuyn moment"?

It's a fair bet politicians are held in lower regard this week than they were the week before. And lower than the week before when Peter Hain resigned. Contempt for MPs comes not just with revelations about a few individuals' dodgy dealings. Anger grows because the political class make glib gestures, rather than govern.

Voters sense Britain is becoming a state of failure; billions of pounds go into a health service riddled with delays and MRSA. More money on schools has seen standards actually decline. The criminal justice system is often useless.  Government has lost control of our borders - as well as its own agencies and quangos.

The electorate now recognise that an alphabet soup of quangos - NICE, QCA, FSA, CSA et al - preside over us, whomever they vote for.

Re: The post-bureaucratic age

Jill Kirby is right to be so enthusiastic about yesterday's seminar.  At last a coherent agenda for government is taking shape.  Many of the ideas touched on yesterday have already been examined in quite some detail by many of the party's younger activists and MPs.  It is encouraging to see them going mainstream.

Paid supporters of the Euro treaty

Last week, Foreign Office mouthpiece David Miliband told us that lots and lots of NGOs supported the European Constitution Lisbon Treaty.  According to Dan Hannan, it now turns out that every single one of the organisations Miliband mentioned is actually in receipt of Brussels money. 

MoD - inept because it is unaccountable

Our troops in Afghanistan do not have enough helicopters.  Indeed, one almost wonders if they lack sufficient helicopters for airborne operations (hence, perhaps, recent American reinforcements?)  Yet, at the same time, the government is actually spending £Billions on helicopters.  So, what is going on?

Imagine if there was only one chain of restaurants in the town where you live.  It is a fair bet that you - and everyone else - would face long delays, find less choice, and pay over the odds.  That, put simply, is how we run defence procurement;  in politician-speak, it is called the "Defence Industrial Strategy".

Instead of shopping around for what is best, the MoD tends to buy off a few privileged suppliers.  And guess what?  The orders usually arrive late, are overpriced, and delivered the way it suits the contractor.

Re: It's law and order stupid!

Three cheers to the Sun - and to Rob Halfon for highlighing their campaign!  Britain's criminal justice system is monumentally useless.  Too often the forces of law and order no longer seem to chase the wrong-doers through the streets or the courts.  Add to that an insulting system of "offender management" and human rights culture, and it is no surprise that the law-abiding are starting to lose faith.

What have successive politicians done about it?  With few exceptions, they just talk.

We will only get the criminal justice system to work for us when it answers directly to us.  We need directly elected police chiefs and prosecutors and properly accountable judges.   

Eco-sceptic?

A copy of Unstoppable Global Warming by top scientists, Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, landed on my desk last week.  It is so thought-provoking I spent much of the weekend hooked.

Having joined Friends of the Earth years before I ever joined the Conservatives, I have always been adamant about the need to conserve the environment.  Yet, after reading this book, I wonder if global warming is really man-made.  According to Singer and Avery, the climate is in constant flux - and the change has little to do with us.

Perhaps it is not the global warming that is man-made, but the political theory of it - with its implied justification for extra rules and regulation.  As a conservationist, I find it depressing that so much of the modern environmental movement is simply re-hashed Rousseau....

Why the EU will always be against us

Daniel Hannan's first-class piece in today's Telegraph shows how we can never win in the EU.  Without a referendum on the European Constitution, the Lisbon Treaty might take legal effect, but those granted authority under the Treaty will lack legitimacy.  It is time to stop pretending that the arrogant EU political establishment has anything to offer us.         

Live blogging from PMQs

Cameron asks Brown how much the Northern Rock will cost the UK taxpayer. Brown says the government wants there to be a buyer. No mention of the £55 Billion Brown's ineptness will cost us all.

The faces of the Labour MPs look dejected - and Brown's petulance starts to show. New year, it may be, but no change in PMQs then...

Peter Hain merely "incompetent"

According to today's Telegraph, Gordon Brown says Peter Hain can stay in office because he is merely "incompetent".  Phew!  Government Ministers are only inept.  Nothing worse. Are we supposed to think that that makes it all okay then?