Bel is thinking

Miranda Grell was yesterday found guilty under the Representation of Peoples Act 1983 of making false statements about a candidate. Part of the allegations were that, during the 2006 local council elections, Ms Grell, a Labour candidate, went around telling people that the LibDem candidate was a paedophile.

She had denied the charges, and for some reason, I believed her. I don’t know all the ins and outs of the case, so let’s see if she appeals.

On the other hand, I suppose this case shows us (as if we needed telling) that this business of smearing opponents occurs in all political parties. To hear some Labour activists tell it, the Conservatives and LibDems are ravenous wolves, while they (the poor Labour men and women) are the meekest of lambs.

I hear Ms Grell has been suspended by the Labour Party. If this is true, then I am mystified. The Labour Party in government has conducted itself with the three-pronged spear of smear, spin and slander (remember, for example, Rose Addis, David Kelly and Demetrious Panton). For the party now to turn around and cast into outer darkness the daughter whom they raised in their own likeness, I find truly mystifying.

In any case, surely the punishment from the court is more than enough? She has been fined and banned from public office for three years, not to mention the loss of her good name. I can understand the need for a political party to want to distance itself from someone who has been found guilty of such an offence, but are we to believe, if Ms Grell did smear her opponent, that she did so without being reported to local party activists? Or did she do so, knowing that such tactics, while not encouraged by her local party, would not also be expressly discouraged? Either way, for good or bad, she worked for her party. Even if she has done wrong, it would still be good to see her party reach out, take her back under its wing, and help her back onto her feet. She is a young woman who has made mistakes, some of which she admitted to during the court hearing. While I am not expecting the Labour Party to praise her for her conduct, it would be good to see someone reach out to the prodigal daughter and help her rebuild her life and her political career.

Why am I being sympathetic to Miranda Grell? To be honest, I don’t know. I asked myself if I would be so sympathetic to Andrew Pelling, the Conservative MP, if he were later to be found guilty of assaulting his wife. Probably not.

Maybe I am sympathetic to Miranda Grell because I feel that she is a victim of the poisoned political atmosphere in which she came of age. An atmosphere in which lies are of equal validity with the truth, and where the only thing that matters is achieving one’s political objective. For if you believe that your political philosophy is right, why let a little thing like morality get in the way? If you believe that a Labour victory is the best thing for the country (and you believe that earnestly), you may well conclude that whatever you do to achieve it is morally just, as you are after all working ‘for a good cause’. I have no idea if these thoughts went through Ms Grell’s mind. All I know is that this state of affairs has persisted for some time, one in which common decency and morality are disregarded in pursuit of what politicians (particularly on the left) regard as the ‘greater good’. If Miranda Grell has fallen into that trap, it is something I can understand, even if not condone. Perhaps that is at the root of my sympathy for her.

I am not a fan of David Cameron, as every reader of this blog would know, but even so, I feel a measure of sympathy for the man who has been revealed by the latest ICM poll to be the least popular party leader.

For you see, David Cameron set much store by his image. He was the one who would, in that horrible expression, ‘decontaminate the Tory brand’. David Cameron was to be the saviour of the Conservative Party, the one who would make us seem like a decent party for whom normal people could vote without shame.

I suppose it worked for a time, as witnessed by the high poll ratings earlier in the year. But the honeymoon was only ever going to last so long, after which one would have expected the Party to have come up with enough goodies to retain the public’s interest. I think that that was where the whole thing fell apart. Indications that the David Cameron ‘brand’ had begun to lose its appeal were evident way back in the summer when the Conservative Party performed woefully in the Ealing South by-elections, despite labelling themselves on the ballot paper as ‘Cameron’s Conservatives’. That probably alerted David Cameron to the fact that time was perhaps ripe to change strategy.

It is good that the Party has moved on from parading David Cameron as its saviour - he is not. His main achievement was to convince the pubic to start listening to the Conservative Party once again. But that is only a good thing if the Party is saying things that the public want to hear. But is it? At a time when taxpayers are groaning under increasing levels of taxation, David Cameron’s party is debating whether to tax us even more. At a time when taxpayers’ funds are being heavily wasted by an incompetent Government, George Osborne is promising to stick to the Government’s spending levels. Is it therefore any wonder that, having briefly unstopped their ears to hear what the Conservative Party was saying, the public have concluded that not much of it is of any interest to them?

The Conservative Party is a great party, capable of doing much good if elected to serve. Its underlying principles of individual responsibility, low taxation and personal freedom, appeal across the board to many. However, for those members of the public who would have liked to hear more of the traditional Conservative message, there has been disappointment. The Party’s current leaders seem to have swallowed whole the erroneous doctrine that the traditional Conservative message is nasty, mean-spirited, and divisive. It is not. It is to David Cameron’s credit that he has made it possible for the Party to have a fair hearing, but now, he should be bolder. Not only must he restate the core principles that undergird the Conservative Party, he must consciously adopt policies that reflect these principles.

I’ve been reading a lot of commentary about how Lady Thatcher’s visit today to 10 Downing Street is just a PR stunt by Gordon Brown.

That may be so, but there is also another issue.

Gordon Brown is no fool. There is no way he would have allowed himself to be seen anywhere near Lady Thatcher, a woman who has been demonised by so many in his party, if he did not believe that there was real political capital to be gained in doing so. Brown is an astute politician, with an eye for the votes; he recognises that Lady Thatcher still appeals to many, and not just those who are often described as ‘traditional Tories’.

Lady Thatcher also is no fool. No-one could accuse her of political naiveté. By going to visit Gordon Brown on the day that the Conservative Party launched that ridiculous green report, she may well have been sending David Cameron and his boys the following message: ‘keep wasting time on stupid ideas and you will never come anywhere near 10 Downing Street’.

Seeing Lady Thatcher in front of that famous black door will achieve something else: it will remind real conservatives how much time has passed since they last held office. Perhaps it will inspire them to want to win again. It has often been said that Tory MPs act as though they are not that interested in the party winning a General Election ever again.

More than anything else, the sight of Gordon Brown standing proudly beside Baroness Thatcher should send this message to David Cameron: ‘you know that Thatcherite legacy you’re so keen on trashing? Maybe time to think again.’

The Conservative Party’s disastrous performance in yesterday’s by elections has been discussed all over the place, so I won’t say much about it.

Just a few things.

The Conservative Party was never going to win in either Ealing Southall or Sedgefield, but surely a respectable second place should have been possible to achieve.

So why didn’t that happen?

I have just read the laughable excuses put forward by the Party. It would have been much better for them to have come out and said ‘we are very sorry we didn’t do well. We remain committed to serving you and will work hard to convince you of this, so that you give us a chance next time around’.

That would have been a refreshingly honest and effective way to draw the line under this and start again.

But no, instead we have all sorts of waffle from the party. According to Grant Shapps, the election co-ordinator, all is not lost because, during the course of the by election, five local councillors defected to the Conservative party. No disrespect to the five councillors involved, but big deal.

Ever since he became leader, David Cameron has spent his time ditching long-standing Conservative principles. Many decent and principled Conservatives have watched with unease, but held their peace. The reasoning from Cameron’s supporters was that all this was necessary to regain the trust of the public. As a result, many with misgivings kept their opinions to themselves and let Cameron get on with the task. For one thing, as long as the Conservatives were ahead in the opinion polls, it looked as though David Cameron and his supporters knew what they were doing.

However, it soon became clear that they did not. The ridiculous attack on grammar schools was one step too far for many, including myself. What was the point of being ahead in the opinion polls if the Party represented nothing approaching conservative principles, and actually did not even seem to know where it was going? I resigned from the Party at that point, with no intention of returning until sanity was restored. I would much rather the Conservative Party stayed in opposition and remained true to its beliefs, than attained office at the cost of apostasy.

This may be a controversial point, but I do not think that the reason Labour is currently ahead in the opinion polls is solely down to the so-called ‘Brown bounce’. And if I am right, that should scare the hell out of David Cameron and his cohorts. Yes, they should worry. Perhaps it is not just the ‘Brown bounce’; perhaps people are looking deeper and saying to themselves that ‘the Conservative party under David Cameron does not seem to stand for anything at all’. Just a thought.

While the Conservative Party was ahead in the opinion polls, it was (relatively) easy for loyal grassroots supporters to turn a blind eye to David Cameron’s apparent lack of party principle. However, now that the Party has not only fallen behind in the polls, but was beaten into third place in yesterday’s by elections by the feeble LibDems, perhaps it is time for the members to ask themselves whether it is worth sticking with David Cameron.

I have been reading the report (pdf) of the Commission on Integration and Cohesion, which was published yesterday. Among other things, it considers the effect of immigration on integration and cohesion.

The report is rather good at laying out the perceptions of integration and cohesion from point of view of the different players in this issue; the settled indigene, the immigrant, the voluntary sector and the State. Considering the dramatis personae in this way led me to thinking about what constitutes a just society.

I took this train of thought because I began to wonder, reading through the report, whether it was at all possible to have a society which all the above players would agree to be ‘just’.

Of course, I know that unanimity is not really possible in these things. What I mean is, is there really, as far as immigration and cohesion are concerned, a framework of rules that can be described, objectively, as ‘just’, regardless of the ‘player’ involved. So can we have a society that is ‘just’ in the eyes of the immigrant, the indigenous Briton, and even the voluntary sector? I exclude the State from consideration in this question, simply on the basis that I assume it, for these purposes, to be ‘outside’ society, in such a way as not to be affected by whether or not the society is a just one.

This train of thought led me to Rawls’s door. John Rawls was a political philosopher who did much thinking on the idea of justice. In particular, he thought a lot about what principles of justice should obtain in a society. Rawls wrote that this could be considered under a setting he called ‘the original position’. Basically, the rules of justice were determined by parties behind a ’veil of ignorance’. Put very simply, the question Rawls postulated was this: ‘what sort of society would you regard as a just one, if you did not know what role you had, or what you would be, in that society?’

So for the purposes of this post, let us try this very simple thought experiment: let us imagine the following people sitting blindfold  around a table: an Eastern European immigrant, an  Englishwoman with roots in  this country going back to the 12th century, a pensioner of limited means, a single parent, and a rich man.

None of these people know what their identities in the society would be, because they are behind the ‘veil of ignorance’. So, for example, someone at the table would have no idea whether he would be the immigrant, the rich man, the pensioner, or the single mother. The task then is this: considering that that they do not know which they would be, what laws would they then create to ensure a just society?

If, for example, someone at the table proposed a law whereby all immigrants were given free housing ahead of single parents and pensioners, and that this was to be paid for by very high taxes, it could backfire on him if he ended up being the rich man, the single parent, or the pensioner. He could only benefit from this law if he were the immigrant. However, the fact that he does not know which he would be in the new society, would force him to think carefully before he proposed such a law.

What the exercise seems to suggest is that there is a point in the middle where all the participants can agree; a consensus ad idem. It suggests that there must be a place where they would all agree that the rich man would not be taxed too much; that the pensioner, immigrant and single parent would be treated fairly according to some agreed criteria; and that whatever accommodation is made for them, it would not be such as to anger the Englishwoman whose family have given their all to this country, and who has never asked anything of the State, but the space to enjoy her country as she remembered it as a child.

So will the Commission’s report find that meeting place? I don’t know yet. I don’t even know that such a meeting place exists. I am still reading the report, and will let you know my views later.

I decided to look up William Hague’s ‘foreign land’ speech which he gave at the Conservative Spring Forum in Harrogate in 2001. Remember it provoked much outrage at the time, with some even alleging racism. Here is the relevant extract:

Just imagine four more years of Labour. Try to picture what our country would look like. Let me take you on a journey to a foreign land - to Britain after a second term of Tony Blair. The Royal Mint melting down pound coins as the euro notes start to circulate. Our currency gone forever.

The Chancellor returning from Brussels carrying instructions to raise taxes still further. Control over our own economy given away. The jail doors opening as thousands more serious criminals walk out early to offend again. Police morale at a new low. The price gauge on the petrol pump spinning ever faster as fuel taxes rise still further. Letters arriving on doorsteps cancelling yet another round of hospital operations under a Government that is all spin and no delivery.

That’s Labour’s Britain four years from now.

Six years later, and apart from the currency point, every other prophecy has come true. Remind me, why all the outrage about the speech back then?

Boris Johnson has described Portsmouth as “too full of drugs, obesity, underachievement and Labour MPs.’’

There is anger in the town.

But why? He is right, after all. The only thing Portsmouth has to complain about is that this description applies to many towns in the UK anyway, so why single them out?

Now about this report in the Daily Mail yesterday:

Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Government backed study has revealed.

It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades - where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem - because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.

I spent yesterday evening thinking about it, and concluded that we should not  be surprised. After all, as the Patrick Mercer episode taught us, where Truth conflicts with political correctness, Truth must bow the knee.

According to the Telegraph:

Lecturers at some of the new universities are calling for a public debate on standards because they say functionally illiterate students are being passed so they do not drop out of courses.

Yes, yes. But why the need for a ‘public debate’? Have we now reached the point in this country where standards have to be debated? Should it not be an open-and-shut case if standards are not good enough?

David Miliband writing in the Telegraph today, setting out his political beliefs.

His theory can be summarised thus:

• In the years after 1945, the people of Great Britain said ‘I need’, and the Labour Government stepped forward to meet that need (NHS, education etc).
• In the 1980s, people said ‘I want’, and the Thatcher Government, in trying to meet those aspirations, ended up leaving behind the weaker citizens.
• Since 1997, the people have been saying ‘I can’, so it is now up to the Government to empower citizens, by devolving power to the people etc.

In summary, we have passed through three phases in the last 60 years, I need, I want, and I can.

A bit seductive at first glance, but under proper scrutiny, the whole thing falls apart.

David Miliband’s first error is to assume that society is speaking with one voice, and it is saying only one thing at a time,  ’I need’, ‘I want’ or ‘I can’. I put it to him that it is not. During what he termed the ‘I need’ generation (ie post-1945), does he really believe that there were not as many ‘I want’ or ‘I can’ voices even then?

There have always been people with needs (I need), aspirations (I want), and ambition and ability (I can); the only difference is that at different times in the political life of this nation, one group of people was being listened to more than the others. I submit that it is not, as Miliband would put it, a question of citizens changing their status (from ‘I want’ to ‘I can’, for example). Rather, it is a question of politicians changing their focus. It is the politicians who have switched their focus from one group of people to another, depending on their own interests.

Perhaps in 1945, the Labour Government was more attuned to the desires of its natural constituency (ie the ‘I needs’). Similarly, by furthering conservative ideals of personal responsibility, individual enterprise, and limited State control, the Conservative Government of the 1980s was suited to the ‘I want’ group. It is therefore not a question of different time phases, rather it is a question of political focus. These three groups have been with us from time immemorial, and to pretend otherwise is simply naive. The ‘I needs’ and ‘I wants’ were there in 1945, and they are still here today. Similarly, there has been a clamour by the ‘I cans’ ever since 1945. Why is David Miliband only hearing them today?

There are reasons why one particular group’s voice may be louder than the others at any given time. These reasons could be socio-economic, cultural, etc. Politicians simply respond to the loudest voice they hear.

This puts me in mind of Perelman’s concept of justice. Perelman was a philosopher of law who contributed much to the theory of justice. He believed that there were six criteria for determining justice, and that once a society has decided on which criterion to use, it must ‘treat like with like’ within that criterion. His six criteria were as follows:

1. to each according to his works
2. to each according to his needs
3. to each according to his merits
4. to each according to his rank
5. to each according to his legal entitlement
6. to each the same thing

To analyse Miliband’s theory using Perelman (loosely), I would submit that the 1940s concept of justice was as in (2) above. The Labour Government focussed on distributing social goods etc according to the needs of the people. That was their definition of justice for that time. In the same way (and note, I am doing no more than extending Miliband’s theory), the Conservative Government of the 1980s would have chosen (1) or (3) above as their starting-point. Far, therefore, from being a phase, ie a shift among the citizens in their status or priority, it is instead a shift in political focus. As far as the ‘I can’ generation of the 1990s is concerned, what has now happened is that politicians have sensed the urgency coming from the hardworking, aspirational part of society, and have conveniently changed their language (if not their acts) to garner the support of that constituency.

At this point, I should note another weakness in his theory. By Miliband’s reasoning, we have come out of the ’I want’ phase and are now in the ’I can’ phase. I submit that ‘I can’ cannot possibly be a phase, in the sense that he says. Far from being a phase on its own, it is no more than a means by which one satisfies either a ‘want’ or a ‘need’. For example, ’I want’ alludes to desire to acquire, but says nothing about how to meet this desire. It could be by private enterprise (’I can’), or even just as valid, it could be by social security payments. I think it is therefore misleading to claim, even if his theory stood up by other means, that there is a valid ‘I can’ phase.

But even if I were to accept wholesale every word in his article, I have difficulty seeing what this Government (with which Miliband dines at high table) has done to address the desires of the so-called ‘I can’ generation. Is it the torrent of legislation pouring out daily from the pen of our ministers, or the acres upon acres of red tape? Is it the high tax burden that has stifled private enterprise, and led to the fall in disposable income? Is it the attempts to control what we say and think, and to regulate our every move? Or perhaps it’s the growing information-gathering powers that this Government accords to itself at every stage.

Whichever way I look at it, the message from this Government is clear and unambiguous: ‘you can’t’.