lord of the blog

« November 2003 | Main | January 2004 »

Tuesday, December 30, 2003

Iraq response

I know the strength of feeling on Iraq but resorting to ‘liar, liar pants on fire’ tabloid style is no way to win an argument. Tony Blair does put a high priority on the danger of rogue states with weapons of mass destruction and terrorist organisations co-operating to create mayhem. He may be wrong to believe that and it is a good argument that says he might increase the danger. It is not a good argument to say that because no weapons were found he must be a liar! That is a daft argument and would mean that anyone who believed something that turned out to be incorrect would be a liar. Check your credentials here RonF before casting stones!

Secondly, whatever Tony Blair believes doesn’t mean we don’t have our own reasons for supporting the action. Check all the speeches in Hansard for 18.3.03 and you will find that I am not alone in playing down the WMD argument and emphasising the nature of the regime and the need to stabilise the Middle East. The jury is still out on this.

Ron, you are also wrong to say there is no effective pressure for change on other Arab countries, which have dodgy regimes. There is plenty and it’s having an effect whether in the development of democracy, the rule of law or women’s rights. The problem is it’s a race against time. We all know that rapid change can produce revolutionary situations, which then collapse into tyranny.

That leads you to the other dilemma of foreign policy. Any state needs a disciplined army and police force but getting that without training and equipping it still defies the best efforts of many countries and organisations that seek to help.

If we had a genuine system of international law Saddam Hussein would have been arrested and put in prison years ago. We don’t and that’s why the world has so much difficulty dealing with these situations. But don’t give up on this. If you visit Westminster Hall you will find a plaque marking the trial of Sir Thomas More who had his head cut off – which is a bit rough for someone who had just written a book called Utopia! Others were on trial for up to seven years. So 400 years or more ago we were working out the dividing lines between politics and law. We are doing much the same in international politics. It isn’t consistent and it won’t be for many decades yet but the movement is in the right direction.

The Israel/Palestine dispute does have to be resolved and Tony Blair is having a significant impact on US policy making but unlike Iraq you are dealing with several states which are in breach of UN resolutions. We need a Northern Ireland style approach to begin to solve this problem and that is what the Road Map is about. For Israel to build a wall across Palestinian territory is wrong and the US now agrees it is wrong and has cut their aid budget by the cost of the wall – a small gesture but not without significance

Finally we could have had an easy life by saying we wanted Saddam out but would let the US as the current great power do the dirty work so that we could enjoy the luxury of criticising them while feeling good that Saddam had gone. There is a choice Ron and although we can’t be sure of the outcome I think it will work not least because it has set in train a sequence of events which will make it far more difficult for other Arab regimes to resist reform. If that succeeds then the nightmare that has tormented the Arabs since the time of the Turkish Empire may begin to fade.

Mary Seacole.

It’s a pity Christmas has gone. I should have bought Harryj a copy of ‘The Wonderful Adventures of Mary Seacole in Many Lands’. It is a really good read and would convince you Harry that we have done a serious injustice to Mary by not honouring her memory. If you make a New Year promise to read it I’ll even buy you a copy!

Remember it was the British regiments and the Royal Navy that organised charity concerts and fund raising for her. They didn’t do that for many people.

I think you are in danger of getting the race issue out of focus. Although I think Mary needs a memorial simply on the basis of her achievements it is important that she was a black woman from Jamaica. Both the Empire and the industrial revolution depended on people of many races during the period of British industrial and world supremacy. With a population of around 30 to 40 million in the 19th century Britain could hardly have been the world power it was without a lot of help from the people in the Empire and their role has not been recorded in the way it should be.

We share our history with the rest of the world more then any other country I know.

Who/What is a blogger?

I have been asked to speak on political blogs and I know that I will be asked what type of people read or write blogs.

There is a view that it is an activity for anoraks! I certainly don’t agree and I started my blog to try and communicate directly with people without the distorting window of the media.

Alas I don’t have a picture of your average blogger! Things like age, gender, work status, geographical location would be interesting.

Does anyone have any ideas about this? If I put a few questions on this blog, which didn’t require a person to identify themselves, would I get an accurate picture? All suggestions gratefully received – it might even make my speech more interesting!

Tuesday, December 23, 2003

Libya,Iraq and the problem of dictators

When Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands I was very ambivalent about what action we should take. I was a new backbench MP at the time and I didn’t much like the military option but I knew there was a problem with dictators – especially if they got successful.

I had no influence on that decision so I watched and listened. After the British success the Argentinian dictator fell and then one after another all the other South American dictators fell. You can’t prove a link but it’s hard to deny.

That experience was one of the factors that informed my decision to vote for military action in Iraq. Tony Blair took a decision that damaged the Labour Party and his own reputation but it was actually the right decision. I believe he put too much emphasis on the argument over weapons of mass destruction.

The reasons I voted for the military action included the impossibility of getting any real progress in the Middle East while Saddam was in power especially on the Palestinian question. There was also the ‘Falklands factor’. The continuation of many of the corrupt and despotic regimes was less likely if Saddam fell. Then there was the extreme nature of the regime that showed no sign of changing from within. I knew from many of my Iraqi refugees just how bad this particular dictatorship was. Finally there was the failure to comply with all the UN resolutions and the cease-fire signed at the end of the first Gulf war.

We do have to make individual judgements about individual countries. Libya is different and although it is a dictatorship there has always been signs of change and Gadafy’s leadership was not of the extreme psychopathic nature of Saddam’s. Much the same applies to Syria and Iran where change is possible. Korea is more difficult to judge but frankly I would not have objected if China, despite its own bad human rights record, had intervened when a million North Koreans were starved to death just a few short years ago.

It’s always worth asking if you would welcome external intervention if you were one of the tortured in these regimes. For me the answer is ‘yes’. I don’t like the politics of George Bush and I certainly wouldn’t have voted for him but I know whose side I’m on when it comes to choosing between him and Saddam.

So the UN does need to reform in a way that provides more sophisticated measures to deal with dictators and we do have to question the 19th and 20th century assumption that the nation state is more important then the welfare of its citizens. That should be the real agenda particularly for those on the left in politics. It isn’t an easy option. It is the same challenging agenda that faced us at the end of World War Two. Setting up the UN was a big step in the right direction but making sure it is effective and not just a talking shop that passes resolutions without the least intention of acting on them is the next big challenge.

Perhaps that should be the big debate for 2004 and as one of the Iraqi Governing Council said to me in the House of Commons last week “We know that if we can create a democratic country others might follow”. Watch this space!

Sunday, December 21, 2003

Mary Seacole

More on Mary Seacole and the campaign for a memorial statue.

On the 9th December I chaired the first meeting of the Mary Seacole Memorial Appeal. We are applying for charitable status and work on a campaign strategy has already begun.

I will post further details in the near future but I have been asked on a number of occasions why the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square can’t be used for a statue to Mary. The short answer is it could be but at present it is committed for the next two years to a modern art display.

My own view is that the modern art short-listed is not appropriate to the square. I believe there was a black sea captain in the battle of Trafalgar and there seems to have been a relationship between him and Mary Seacole so it would be a great message to send to modern Britain about part of our history that is too easily brushed under the carpet. In modern times we have not acknowledged the role played by the ethnic minorities in the industrial revolution or the empire. It’s time to put that right.

If you agree or if you want to put your views on the record go to FourthPlinth where you can also see the suggested works of art for the plinth. Personally I am not impressed. A car covered in bird droppings doesn’t strike me as very exciting but if that is chosen then I’m sure we could come up with one from several parts of London! My car might do but I think the droppings are from starlings! (How are we supposed to tell the difference!)?

You should also visit one of the Mary Seacole sites. Try MarySeacole.com, this also has information about the appeal.

Tuesday, December 16, 2003

Tuition fees debate

Thanks for all the comments. As I have found from my constituents there are many and varied views on this but the Government has not yet won the argument.

I don't agree with those who say we should have vouchers for all education. There is not enough mobility for people to really benefit from such a policy and it could accentuate the problem of deprived areas. I also think we have a duty to ensure good education is available everywhere.

We must not sell ourselves short on this argument. British education is well regarded elsewhere in the world. My youngsters go to London state schools so I know the difficulties that can arise but there are many real plus points as well.

I also think we do need more places for students not least because so many want to take advantage of a university education. Educational standards and expectations are going to continue to rise here and overseas. We would be ill advised to get left behind. That doesn't mean vocational education gets forgotten. The fact that we underperformed on that in the past doesn't mean we can't catch up and that is beginning to happen. Although I am not an expert on education I am told that the 1870 Education Act was the time we lost the focus on engineering and other similar skills thus losing our top position in the industrial revolution. I can't confirm that but it is interesting and may well be right.

Subsidising students from poorer families may seem contradictory if all graduates have to repay. Perhaps it is but we do want to make absolutely sure that low income families don't get put off. Australia and New Zealand seem to have coped with this quite well.

The argument about tax is an interesting one. Yes it probably is an extra layer of administration but this goes to the core of the problem. Should individuals pay for the advantage of a university education? My answer is they should make a contribution partly because it improves earning power and partly because it is an enjoyable and rewarding experience which is not going to be available to everyone.

The way the scheme is devised it will offer more subsidy to lower income families and cost middle and upper income groups more which is probably why the Government is getting so much well directed flak!

The point I make about students getting more subsidy at university then at primary school is not as irrelevant as Andy and others argue. Of course a university education costs more but early years education is far more effective at improving a persons life opportunities. So if public funds are limited surely we should direct it to this area of education rather then university?

This debate will continue and we haven't even touched on flat rate versus variable fees so I will keep my eye on any more comments.

Thanks again.

Thursday, December 04, 2003

Tuition Fees

Tuition fees are the big issue of the day and it is likely to be a major debate for several months. It is an important debate so please join in.
I'm broadly sympathetic to the Government's proposals but some of the detail needs adjustment. We should start with a recognition that universities need more money. They have been starved of resources for too long and salaries have only increased by 20% since 1980 compared to 60% for other employees. We also want more people to go to university so the money has to come from somewhere.
I already hear someone saying "Taxation!". Before you do, consider this point. The taxpayer spends £5300pa on each university student and only £1800pa on a three year old and £3200pa on a primary school child. All the advice we get tells us that money spent on early years does more to prevent poverty and under performance then money spent on further education. So if we are to increase taxation then frankly it ought to go on early years.
Like all politicians my judgement is partly based on my own life experience. Because I didn't go to university until my mid twenties and had no parental contribution my initial response was to be defensive of the grants system. But I also know that only 8% of people went to university in the 1960's which is when I went. Now, like most other countries, we are aiming to get 50% to university.
I left secondary modern school at 15 and near the bottom of the class with "Could make better use of his limited abilities" written on my report. Alas, I did not enjoy the reputation of the intellectual Tarzan of North East London! Kinder people called me a "Late developer".
In any event I thought education had to be a good thing and that I ought to go to university if only to tell all those bright people who went there what was wrong with the world! When I finally got there I discovered the awful truth - the other people were just like me!
Before I went to university I had gone through some 50 jobs. In all those jobs I was offered a 'wage' in hourly or weekly amounts. After I left University with a degree all my jobs came with a 'salary' measured in monthly or annual amounts and it was a LOT more then the wages. So university is not only enjoyable but also an income generating training.
I think that is quite a strong argument in favour of students paying part of their educational costs. What we have to avoid is any 'upfront' fees and the Government proposes to abolish those completly. We also need a package of measures for students from low income families.
Repayment should only come when you graduate and then dependent on your level of earnings. At present it is proposed that repayment only starts when the graduate earns £15,000pa or more. I think that figure should be increased and I understand the Government may increase it to £18,000. Even then the repayment will be linked to earnings. The average starting salary for graduates is £18,000pa which suggests an initial repayment rate of about £270pa. I think that is acceptable.
Let the debate begin!

PS Thanks for the advice on layout and spell checks. I will work on it.

Monday, December 01, 2003

Constitutional reform, Palestine, Mary Seacole

Thanks for the comments and the advice on spelling. Oh please dear typepad, install a spell checker for Christmas!
Reforming constitutions is a tricky business. I'm all for a written constitution if you are emerging from dictatorship but if there is a long tradition of freedom and tolerance then they are not absolutely necessary. Harryj gave the example of the USA but on a cautionary note do remember their constitution was drawn up on the basis of all men being created equal. It wasn't just women who got left out of the equality bit but also slaves and the North American Indian. There were some 90 million of the latter at the beginning of the 19th. century and only about 5 million at the end of it. The other 85 million did not go on holiday. A written constitution did not help them. The old Soviet Union had a wonderful written constitution. Just to read it was enough to make you think you were in paradise. Sadly it was meaningless.
In Britain we could set up a committee and talk for years about what should or should not be in a written constitution. My guess is we would still be no further forward then we are now. If you doubt that just consider how much difficulty we had getting rid of the hereditary Peers.
There are many different systems for selecting and electing second chambers around the world. Appointment can help protect freedom as long as the appointment system is robust and transparent. Ours isn't at the moment which is why it must and will change. We could then have the regions elected into the second chamber which would also make it much harder for future governments to undermine or abolish locally elected authorities.
I notice Phil is enthusiastic about training representatives. It's true we could do more on that but there are so many ways of doing this job and most people who get elected usually have very strong views about how to represent people. There are opportunities for a brave consultant here!
Thanks for the support on Mary Seacole. She is buried in St. Mary's cemetery on the edge of my constituency but for many years I have been aware of the enormouse contribution made by so many ethnic minorities to Britain that I feel we ought to give them better recognition. William and Ellen Craft for example have a blue plaque on a wall in Hammersmith. They were two slaves who escaped from slavery in the US and on arriving here were taught to read and write and then travelled the country lecturing on the evils of slavery. They eventually wrote a remarkable tract called "Running a thousand miles for freedom". This used to be on the internet but I haven't been able to find it recently.
Anthony suggested I contacted the Times. I did and they didn't respond but I am going to pursue that option.
Finally on George Bush and Palestine. Yes, we do need to put on more pressure to get movement but it isn't one sided. Recently the US did withdraw funding from Israel for the equivalent of the cost of the wall they are erecting. The other side of this coin is that we need an effective and less corrupt Palestinian authority. That is why Syria and eventually Iraq are so important in this. They could and should play a key role in this process. Frankly there is unlikely to be a quick resolution of this dispute. Both sides have an intense and deep seated fear of the other and believe that they intend to wipe them out or totally dominate them. So compromise is not easy. That's why the road map is so important. This process has to build up trust as well as delivering robust agreements. It was largely because of my experience of Northern Ireland politics that I set up the Arab-Jewish Forum. Hopefully I will write that up soon.
Thanks for all the comments and keep posting but please remember that I may not always be able to respond in depth - or at all!