lord of the blog

« August 2005 | Main | October 2005 »

Monday, September 26, 2005

Labour Party Conference

I shall be at Conference for the next few days and may not have time to add many posts.

I will have a lot of catching up to do on my return!

Monday, September 19, 2005

Africa

The average annual growth of mobile subscribers in Africa stands at 59%. That compares to the world average of 29% and is more then any other continent.

It is starting from a very low base but it shows that despite all the bad news from parts of Africa, the continent actually has a more complex and hopeful story to tell about modernisation.

Dictatorships

This is a general response on the issue of dictatorship and is a final attempt to explain to 'someone' why I disagree with him. I think however our disagreement is fundamental and as 'someone' thinks all politicians are liars or worse I'm not quite sure why he is bothering with me!

Dictatorships are not only a very real threat to the citizens of the country concerned but they are all too often a threat to neighbours. With the advent of WMD they pose even greater threats.

We cannot get rid of all dictatorships overnight but one of the most welcome changes in US policy of recent times was stated by Codoleezza Rice speaking in Egypt some months ago when she said the fundamental mistake of the US in post war years was to back the regime most likely to produce stability in the Middle East rather then democracy and the rule of law. I agree and it would have helped if European powers including Britain could have repeated that.

Each case does have to be judged on practical grounds as well as moral ones. It is not the case that no one is putting pressure on the Uzbekistan government. It is the case that we can't enforce regime change now. There is a problem about the alternative regime and of the attitude of Russia.

It is a point I've made before on many occasions (including in my Fabian Iraq document - see side bar) but despite my concerns about the present Chinese government I would be delighted if they would intervene and remove the North Korean government which probably gets the award for the worst in the world.

It is also why I supported the Vietnamese in removing Pol Pot in Cambodia, Tanzania removing Idi Amin from Uganda and India removing Pakistan from what is now Bangladesh. All done without UN approval incidentally.

All the options for dealing with dictatorships are unattractive. You can try and persuade them to change, you can try and force change, you can ignore them and hope they go away (which is what the UN did with Saddam while he butchered Shias and Kurds - who said there wasn't a civil war before? Ask the Kurds and the Shias).

On the day Afghans are voting we ought to be clear about our commitment to those who want democracy and the rule of law. They won't get it overnight but they certainly won't get it if people in free countries just enjoy their own liberties and ignore the plight of others. That incidentally is where my international socialism come from and why I don't believe that national identity is more important then human rights even if I have to accept that there is no current alternative to the nation state.

We do have an opportunity in the next few decades to advance the cause of democracy and the rule of law and if, as seems possible, this movement continues then the world faces a much better future then it did in the 20th century. For the avoidance of any doubt I repeat what I have said on many occasions that democracy, freedom and the rule of law are not uniquely Western concepts and they certainly don't have to follow the US/UK model.

In many respects the problems we face are the problems associated with modernisation. It is why the fundamentalists whether, political or religious, are likely to lose in the long run. People do want the advantages of a modern economy and of political, religious and social freedom.

There are plenty of criticism about each policy option. I said in the Fabian Iraq document that we made a really fundamental mistake by immediately disbanding the army and police in Iraq. I am sure we will go on making mistakes and blogs like this one are designed to allow space for that debate but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I was born into a world where, with the best of intentions, we had tried to persuade the dictators to change. 80 million lives were lost trying to put that right which is why I am very clear whose side I am on in these conflicts.

Sunday, September 18, 2005

UN Reform

Along with many others I was disappointed not to get more reforms of the UN. The Peace Building Commission is an important step forward and there are other items in the package which can be built on in the future.

This is a long process not a quick fix.

The failure to add India, Brazil and an African country to the Security Council, although not a surprise is still a disappointment.

The failure to agree a definition of terrorism is also a disappointment although I think we will get that eventually. Throughout the 20th century the targeting of civilians was much more acceptable then it is now so a move towards outlawing deliberate attacks on civilians would be a step in the right direction.

Many commentators were far too optimistic about getting all the worlds nations to sign up to an agreed reform and I do think that when Jeremy Paxman presented it on Newsnight as either a failure or a fudge he falls into this journalistic trap that I keep complaining about. If every complex problem involving negotiations between dozens of nations is reduced to success, failure, or fudge then it is not surprising if people give up on the political process.

Life and politics in particular, is rarely reducible to one word descriptions.

Scotland

I have just returned from a weeks holiday in Scotland. It's a great way to recharge your batteries.

I found a wonderful hotel called the Falls of Lora, near Connel in Argyle. It had an ageless quality about it - the radio,fixed to the wall, had just two programmes to tune to. One was the Light programme and the other was the Home programme. People over 50 will know how evocative this is!

I am also thinking of awarding marks to city planners who seem to forget that travellers need directions to cross cities. A few more road names would also be helpful when you are struggling with an atlas and a steering wheel and a queue of hooting drivers behind!

So despite my love affair with Glasgow where I lived for four years and Strathclyde University (which was the only University in the world prepared to take me on!) I'm afraid the city gets a 'C' rating for signposts between the A74 from the South to the A82 in the North.

Can we set up a points system and then, subject to sufficient support, we can send the comments to the relevant local authority director? Any takers?

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Mayor of London

Benjamin managed to get our Ken into the journalist slot. Pretty smart! It gives me the opportunity to say how I saw it.

The Labour Party has interviewed candidates before putting them forward as the Party's candidate in public elections for many years now.

It was a common practice of mine to ask candidates if they were prepared to fight the election on the Party's manifesto. Ken wouldn't agree to do so because he felt it should be within his power to change it.

We allowed him to go forward not because all candidates should be allowed to run on their own manifestos but because we felt the divisions in the Party would be very damaging.

When Ken came back into the Party he drew an analogy with a separation between lovers. It was quite a good analogy. He was fed up with living alone in a bed sitter and we wanted someone to walk down the isle with us in subsequent elections!

Many relationships in the Labour Party are as stormy as many marriages - but we often emerge stronger!

Monday, September 12, 2005

Journalism

Immediately I say that both journalists and politicians need to change Dan, you reply with a lecture about what politicians need to do. No mention of what journalism (and the owners) need to do.

Look at the Guardian article in the Life section last Friday (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story ) 8th September by Ben Goldacre on why writing the articles on Bad Science increased his suspicion of the media.

Ben Goldacre says about the media reporting of science:

"And if they want balance, you'll get two scientists disagreeing, although with no explanation of why (an approach at its most dangerous with the myth that scientists were "divided" over the safety of MMR). One scientist will "reveal" something, and then another will "challenge" it. A bit like Jedi knights."

Recognise the similarity with political reporting?

There must be better ways of doing it.

Saturday, September 10, 2005

Racism

I agree with Andrewmb that you need idealism to help change the social or political climate. The balance between idealism and pragmatic policy making is a constant tension in politics.

In the 1950's I was on the doorstep in Dagenham using all my idealistic energy to convince the workers at Fords that we ought to welcome immigrants. I was fighting a losing battle which was driven home with brutal reality when the dockers came out in support of Enoch Powell.

I have no difficulty asserting my belief in the immense political, economic and social value of ethnic diversity. But I don't make the mistake of assuming I can convince everyone however idealistic I am.

Monday, September 05, 2005

Journalism

There is an interesting interview with Nick Robinson,the BBC's political editor in the Guardian media section today.(http://www.guardian.co.uk)

He refers to John Lloyd's book entitled 'What The Media Are doing To Our Politics' and is partly supportive of John's analysis. That's a relief because too many journalists tend to dismiss it.

Nick Robinson echoes something I have been arguing for some time. That is, both politicians and media need to change the way they work and relate to each other. We cannot and should not be comfortable bed fellows but the climate of perpetual distrust damages politics and journalism.

Nick is, however afraid that if journalists give too much then politicians will take advantage. That's an understandable fear. The trouble is we politicians feel exactly the same. Which is why I have been trying to encourage a debate perhaps hosted by people outside the media and politics.

Saturday, September 03, 2005

Racism

Some of the comments on this blog reminded me how far we have moved on race in this country but also how complex it has become.

In the last general election immigration in my area was a really big issue although race relations in west London are generally very good.

As a white man I had problems responding to black people saying we were letting in too many immigrants. It mostly came from people who had been born here. The typical example was for someone to say "You can get those Somalians a house but you can't get one for my son. Why do you keep letting them in?".

When I was canvassing in the Birmingham by-election last year a Bangladeshi woman and myself were getting lots of aggravation on this from Muslims and Hindus. They were complaining that we were letting in people from the sub continent who should not be allowed in (and they weren't talking about the terrorist problem).

In frustration I said to one "Look. I am white and I am telling you that our policies can't go much further without becoming racist". The man grinned at me and replied "We have our racists too"! My Bangladeshi friend had the same type of experience.

This is just one of the reasons why the Government and politicians generally find this issue difficult. People don't easily accept new comers and although some newspapers have a lot to answer for on this I really do not think it is the main answer.

Responses

Sorry, I have been absent for a while.

Thanks to Eric for the spell check on 'lose' as opposed to 'loose'. (Climate Change post). I have trouble with this word thanks to an old Scottish friend many years ago who told me to remember the difference by using the phrase, "There's a moose loose aboot the hoose"! I have never forgiven him for this as it has lodged in the deeper recesses of my memory and won't come out!

I don't think I can add much to the exchanges on religion other then to make a few points about stereotyping. Criticising views on religion and religion itself must be well within the parameters of essential free speech.

Lumping all the members together of any belief system as though they are all equally responsible is where things can go wrong. So to Ingrid I would say don't make the mistake of referring to all "Muslims" when talking about complex views and attitudes. The way to check whether these things are offensive or not before going into print is to use the same language for yourself or a group of which you are a member.

I could argue that Christianity has had an adverse effect on our freedoms. I would be much more careful about arguing that Christians have had an adverse effect on our freedoms. To argue that I would have to show that every Christian was responsible for all the things I think Christianity got wrong.

In general I think the arguments on the blog would benefit with a reduction in insults - they rarely take arguments forward.

On the question of religion and education it is worth looking at the regular historical reprint in the Guardian Review today ( http://www.guardian.co.uk ). It comes under the 'Regulars' slot in the Guardian review and is headed "Verging on the ridiculous". It shows we were having similar arguments about religion and education in 1865 - that's progress for you!

The debate about Islam is immensely important and it is happening within Islam as well as between Muslims and non Muslims. It is about religion and its role in the life of individuals and the state and we should all feel free to take part.

Dan. I will meet your Iranian friends but please write to me at the House of Lords and preferably in the Autumn.