Gordon Brown stood up today, and without shame, talked about a more ‘open’ kind of politics, reaching out ‘beyond Westminster’ to real people, etc. One wonders why he has only just now grasped that, as a politician, this is what he should have been doing all along.
In addition, in a bid to involve the public more closely in policy matters, he talked about ‘citizen’s juries’ on crime, immigration, and the NHS. Such naked window-dressing. Does anyone really believe that politicians need a citizen’s jury to tell them what they should be doing on law and order and public services? This is nothing more than a time-wasting, money-guzzling project with no purpose other than to create the impression that ’something is being done’.
Oh, and if Brown really cares what the public think, why not give us a referendum on the European Treaty?
September 3rd, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Quite. this is what he should have been doing anyway!
September 3rd, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Bel, just as a matter of interest, and as someone who thinks the biggest transfer of sovereignty in this country for three hundred years came about when the Conservative Government signed the Maastricht Treaty, (with no referendum)what particular parts of the current Treaty do you think warrant a referendum?
September 3rd, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Hello Bob,
thanks for stopping by. I believe this is your first ever comment here. You’re welcome.
As to the Treaty, I believe that it is the same in substance as the old Constitution, on which we were promised a vote. This is not my view only, but also that of a number of EU experts, from both sides of the political divide. If that is the case, why not allow us a vote on the Treaty? I think it is dishonest of the Government to pretend that there is a fundamental difference between this and the discarded constitution.
September 3rd, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Bob, just realised I hadn’t answered your specific question, ie which parts of the Treaty I do not like. I think it’s better to do this as a full blog post with proper arguments for my position. I’m working on it now. Thanks for the idea.
September 3rd, 2007 at 8:49 pm
I will wait with interest on this post, Bel. I have a feeling we will be in agreement.
September 3rd, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Brown listening? what you mean to himself?
Today Gordon Brown was interviewed by the Daily Telegraph. In the interview Brown makes some laughable assertions, and frankly if this is his political compass, we suggest he gets it recalibrated.
Finally Brown (in the absence of Jacqui Smith) has spoken out on the issue of gun crime and the dastardly murder of 11-year-old Rhys Jones. But Brown’s solution is very poor and betrays the fact that he is simply not cut out to be PM.
Brown’s solution is to halt “the supply and circulation of guns”, so he promises laws. This Government has legislated many times before, and it has not done much good. It is not legislation that it is needed - it is action on the ground.
No, Brown, it’s more police on the beat that is required. Also, the problem is not drink as he suggests - it’s drugs.
This proves the only person Brown listens to is himself.
September 3rd, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Broon’s brings a new level of utter cynicism to politics in the UK.
Not something to inspire me personally I must say. No one will belive a word of it, but like Blair he thinks that mouthing this kind of thing is enough opiate for the people.
September 4th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Hi Bel
Brown was never going to be “your cup of tea” but, fortunately imho, he has halted and turned the Tories apparent stroll to power; that must be immensely frustrating.
I agree that “citizens’ juries” is a cynical idea to show a connection to real people (as opposed to “unreal”)but, unfortunately, cynicism is a major part of any politician’s armoury - whether right, left or centre. However, were Brown not to consult with real people he would be accused of being distant from the views of the public arrogance. After Blair, the choice is a no-brainer
.
Re a referendum, I look forward to your post. Perhaps I am being over-cynical but I do not trust politicians to be open about EU treaties or constitutions. They want a result and if a referendum would risk the result then there will be no referendum.
Re Bob Piper: that the Tories had no referendum over Maastricht is irrelevant unless one wants to make party political points. The issues involved are too important to bind them into party politics - some hope!
September 4th, 2007 at 10:37 am
However, were Brown not to consult with real people he would be accused of being distant from the views of the public arrogance. After Blair, the choice is a no-brainer.
Calum, I agree, but as far as immigration and public services go, what is the point of ‘consulting’ with real people? Are the issues not clear enough for all to see? Does he really need a ‘citizen’s jury’ to tell him that immigration seems to have got out of control, or that superbugs are infesting the hospitals? Or that school standards are falling? The signs of decline are everywhere apparent. If he cannot see them without the aid of a ‘citizen’s jury’, then he has no business in politics.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Are the issues not clear enough for all to see? Does he really need a ‘citizen’s jury’ to tell him that immigration seems to have got out of control etc.
You ascribe a universality to your reading of situations. Your views (or mine for that matter) may not reflect the views of a cross-section of the population. Therefore, I believe the issues are not as clear-cut as you suggest.
Are citizens’ juries worthwhile? I’m sure any politician who wishes will get a feel for the nation’s views without there being a highly visible process.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:29 am
You ascribe a universality to your reading of situations. Your views (or mine for that matter) may not reflect the views of a cross-section of the population. Therefore, I believe the issues are not as clear-cut as you suggest.
OK, let’s take the examples I have just raised:
Immigration: there is now something approaching consensus on this issue, from both the Government and the Opposition, that all is not well. Remember Ruth Kelly last year finally acknowledging that it is not racist to talk about immigration, and that something needs to be done? I doubt there is a Cabinet minister in the UK who feels that the immigration situation is ideal. So yes, I am happy to, in your words, ‘ascribe a universality’ here. That is not to deny the benefits of properly-managed immigration (I hate that I feel the need to put in this proviso, but such are the demands of modern debate), however the point remains that no one in Government can honestly stand up and say (given Home Office statistics on this issue) that immigration and deportations have been managed properly. If Brown is an honest man, he will acknowledge that.
As to the views of the population, in my hazy recollection, almost every recent opinion poll on which the immigration question has been asked, has indicated concern from the respondents. Even leaving that aside, the recent successes of the BNP etc should at least indicate that there is a problem somewhere.
Superbugs in hospitals: even the hapless Patricia Hewitt, the former Health Secretary who claimed that the NHS had had ‘its best year ever’, even she would hesitate to deny that there is a problem with infections in hospitals. So yes, universality again.
As to the views of the population, no doubt some would not have suffered infections, poor treatment, etc in a hospital, but that is not to negate the experiences of those who have. The very fact that these issues exist means that something must be done about them, without having to call a citizens’ jury first. If the NHS hospitals are dirty etc, then sort it out. Why have a jury?
School standards: this is one area where I concede, Calum, that there is perhaps no ‘universality’. To hear Labour tell it, the high pass marks of recent years are testament to the fact that standards in schools have improved. Some of us would argue the other way, actually. So no universality here, possibly. But this is not something a citizen’s jury will tell him. For this, he needs to listen to the voices of employers who have to employ people who, having left school, still cannot read or write properly. He also has to listen to university lecturers who have been lamenting about the quality of students coming through to them, some of whom have had to organise remedial classes in English grammar, etc just to bring the students up to scratch. These voices may be heard in citizens’ juries, or they may not be. I would have thought that these voices have shouted long and loud over the past few years. Where has he been, and why hasn’t he been listening?
September 4th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Bel
I think we are “talking” but missing each other. I haven’t explained my views clearly enough. Let me try again. After this I’ll have to pas on further comment until late tonight - kid’s 8th birthday party today.
Firstly, “citizens’ juries”: I don’t see much point in them other than as a cosmetic exercise and so I don’t see them as relevant to the discussion we’re having.
Re, for example, immigration. Yes, immigration is an issue for government action but I don’t think that there is a “universal” view of exactly what are the specific problems, what are the causes and what actions will improve the situation. Perhaps for many immigration is simple but I don’t see it as a simple issue with simple solutions but as a complex issue which will not be easy to resolve. Do we need citizens’juries to help here - NO!
September 4th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
It is good to hear that the Listener Scheme started and operating within prisons has now exited the prison gates and captured the imagination of Gordon Brown. I do recall one particular Listener who used to like to hear the sound of his own voice too much to hear what others had to say…
September 4th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
re the referendum, i suspect he thinks he might loose.
September 4th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
dolbyn, I agree with you there.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Bel, a pleasure to visit and I will await your detailed response. Callumcarr, actually it is not about making a party political point. The Maastricht Treaty was the most fundamental transfer of sovereignty to Europe and I believe both the Conservative Government at the time, and the Labour opposition, behaved disgracefully by agreeing that transfer without a referendum. Those Conservative (most of whom I suspect have now jumped ship to UKIP) Maastricht rebels calling for a referendum had the whip withdrawn, were spat at by the Tory Whips, and it ill becomes those who remained silent then to shout so loud when a far weaker document is not put to the British people now.
Maastricht and the protocol linked to the treaty led to the creation of the euro, it introduced the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Justice and Home Affairs Policy. All significant transfers of sovereign power away from an elected House of Commons.
What I am asking Bel is why is she joining in the chorus for a referendum on these minor changes (relatively) when the chorus was barely a pipsqueak over Maastricht? I’ll be clear about my position callumcarr, I believe major issues of the transfer of sovereignty should be the subject of referendum, whichever Party tries to force them through, and in that I have been consistent. To a large degree, so has the current Government, with referendums on devolution for instance. What I am asking Bel to do is to justify why she thinks the current proposal is so important. Just because the Government promised one is simply not a good enough answer. They promised a bloody bill on Corporate Manslaughter 10 years ago and I’m still waiting.
September 5th, 2007 at 12:30 am
Bob
“What I am asking Bel is why is she joining in the chorus for a referendum on these minor changes (relatively) when the chorus was barely a pipsqueak over Maastricht?”
One must expect political parties to be opportunistic and so the call for a referendum from the Tories is understandable but the linking to Maastricht is irrelevant to the debate today. Times change: people’s perceptions of government change, trust in government changes.
What is important is to review the changes proposed now on their own merits and then to decide on a referendun (or not. I look forward to her post on the treaty.