Today is the anniversary of the confirmation of an agreement of 1977 between the Labour government and the Liberal party. Prime minister James Callaghan and Liberal leader David Steel had been talking for some time against a background of international loss of confidence in the UK economy. The pact succeeded in stabilising the economy, just as the Con-Lib Dem coalition was to do in 2010.
The Joint Statement by the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal party
We agreed today the basis on which the Liberal Party would work with the government in the
pursuit of economic recovery.
We will set up a joint consultative committee under the chairmanship of the Leader of the House,
which will meet regularly. The committee will examine government policy and other issues prior to
their coming before the House, and Liberal policy proposals.
The existence of this committee will not commit the government to accepting the views of the
Liberal party, or the Liberal party to supporting the government on any issue.
We agree to initiate regular meetings between the Chancellor and the Liberal party economic
spokesman, such meetings to begin at once. In addition the Prime Minister and the leader of the
Liberal party will meet as necessary.
We agree that legislation for Direct Elections to the European Assembly for 1978 will be presented
to Parliament in this session. The Liberal Party re-affirm their strong conviction that a proportional
system should be used as the method of election. The government is publishing next week a White
Paper on Direct Elections to the European Assembly which sets out the choices among different
electoral systems but which makes no recommendation. There will now be consultation between us
on the method to be adopted and the government’s final recommendation will take full account of
the Liberal party's commitment. The recommendation will be subject to a free vote of both Houses.
We agree that progress must be made on legislation for devolution and to this end consultations will
begin on the detailed memorandum submitted by the Liberal party today. In any future debate on
proportional representation for the devolved assemblies there will be a free vote.
Chapter Five
Page | 137
We agree that the government will provide the extra time necessary to secure the passage of the
Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill, and that the Local Authorities (Works) Bill will now be confined to
provisions to protect the existing activities of direct labour organizations in the light of local
government reorganization.
We agree that this arrangement between us should last until the end of the present parliamentary
session, when both parties would consider whether the experiment has been of sufficient benefit to
the country to be continued.
We also agree that this understanding should be made public.
(NA, PREM16/1399: Joint Statement by the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal party ‘The
Lib-Lab Agreement’, 23 March 1977)
Saturday, 23 March 2019
Friday, 22 March 2019
A helpful guide to Nazi régimes
It has become clear that many of the critics of the European Union and its supporters are sadly ignorant of modern history. Such insults as "Nazi" directed on social media or in the street at prominent Remainers are mis-directed. I have drawn up a guide pointing out how different modern Germany is from the Third Reich:
The cliff edge is getting closer
Parliament lost its nerve last Thursday. Accordingly, there is no commitment to a People's Vote (which would force the government to amend the withdrawal Act and ask for a longer extension than the two months the EU is willing to grant) and no legal check on Mrs May. There is still the faint hope that a demonstration of the huge numbers in favour of staying in the EU might just persuade the cabinet, if not the blinkered Mrs May, to think again.
Accordingly, I support the Stop Brexit March: https://www.libdems.org.uk/march
AND
I signed the Revoke Article 50 petition (others are available but that is the one which is gaining most support - 1.15 million at the time of writing).
If the worst happens next Friday, and we crash out of the EU, then the country will need competent leadership which is not beholden to vested interests to pick up the pieces. If you agree, then Vince Cable and the Liberal Democrats are here for you. You can either commit as a member, or register as a supporter, here.
Accordingly, I support the Stop Brexit March: https://www.libdems.org.uk/march
AND
I signed the Revoke Article 50 petition (others are available but that is the one which is gaining most support - 1.15 million at the time of writing).
If the worst happens next Friday, and we crash out of the EU, then the country will need competent leadership which is not beholden to vested interests to pick up the pieces. If you agree, then Vince Cable and the Liberal Democrats are here for you. You can either commit as a member, or register as a supporter, here.
Thursday, 21 March 2019
Weimar: a lesson from history
This coming August sees the centenary of the post-Great War constitution for Germany approved in Weimar. No doubt there will be detailed examination in the print and broadcast media of the liberal expectations raised by Weimar and the way they were dashed, but Mrs May's lecture to the nation last night highlighted one of the flaws in the constitution which Hitler took advantage of.
Article 73 introduced the concept of referendums to ratify laws passed by the Reichstag; in some cases they were compulsory, in others at the whim of the President, and even to initiate new law. Hitler took advantage and extended the use of this provision. As a scholarly article of 1935 (JSTOR access required) summed up the situation:
this revolutionary change in Herr Hitler's political theory has an intensely practical explanation. In his evolution as dictator of the German people, the time had arrived when he needed a fresh mandate of authority - one, moreover, from an unassailable source. The death of President von Hindenburg had removed the link which originally legalized his succession to power in the Reich, and the "Roehm revolt" of June 30, 1934, moreover, made it perfectly clear how unstable a mere party mandate for the exercise of that power might ultimately prove to be. Hitler accordingly ordered the referendum with a view to removing any possible constitutional stain from his official position of leadership and at the same time to free himself from subordination to the shifting clanship of a political party. His action makes it possible to regard him as the first of the contemporary dictators to attempt seriously to establish his power on some basis other than an authoritarian political party, a military following, royal prestige, or a sham parliamentary mandate. The German Reichsfuehrer has gone beyond these familiar bases of modern dictatorship and has attempted to substitute for them the Napoleonic constitutional basis of the plebiscite.
From the point of view of a foreign observer, the most interesting aspect of this experience with the popular referendum in the Third Reich continues to be the extraordinary success attending the cabinet's efforts to control the political behavior of the citizens. To mobilise almost forty-five million voters and so regiment their opinions on international and constitutional issues as to secure a favorable verdict little short of unanimity is a political achievement with few, if any, parallels. Should any doubts remain as to the practical political value of the Nazi propaganda ministry, or as to its effectiveness, these referenda must certainly dispel them. Nor could any better evidence than is furnished by these same referenda be adduced to confirm the truth of the observation that illiberal suffrage laws and success in "getting out the vote" do not guarantee genuinely democratic government; that, on the contrary, such government depends primarily upon certain intangibles such as a free press and impartial officials and above all upon an informed and critical electorate. [Links added by me]
Mrs May's assertion that she represented the will of the people against our parliament had uncomfortable echoes of the justification used by Hitler and Goebbels in the 1930s. Fortunately, there is no compulsion built in to our multi-sourced constitution, though one worries that the 2016 referendum and the call for a People's Vote to contradict its verdict have set a precedent. We do have a free press - though weighted towards conservatism - but a rather less informed and objective electorate than one would wish for.
Article 73 introduced the concept of referendums to ratify laws passed by the Reichstag; in some cases they were compulsory, in others at the whim of the President, and even to initiate new law. Hitler took advantage and extended the use of this provision. As a scholarly article of 1935 (JSTOR access required) summed up the situation:
this revolutionary change in Herr Hitler's political theory has an intensely practical explanation. In his evolution as dictator of the German people, the time had arrived when he needed a fresh mandate of authority - one, moreover, from an unassailable source. The death of President von Hindenburg had removed the link which originally legalized his succession to power in the Reich, and the "Roehm revolt" of June 30, 1934, moreover, made it perfectly clear how unstable a mere party mandate for the exercise of that power might ultimately prove to be. Hitler accordingly ordered the referendum with a view to removing any possible constitutional stain from his official position of leadership and at the same time to free himself from subordination to the shifting clanship of a political party. His action makes it possible to regard him as the first of the contemporary dictators to attempt seriously to establish his power on some basis other than an authoritarian political party, a military following, royal prestige, or a sham parliamentary mandate. The German Reichsfuehrer has gone beyond these familiar bases of modern dictatorship and has attempted to substitute for them the Napoleonic constitutional basis of the plebiscite.
From the point of view of a foreign observer, the most interesting aspect of this experience with the popular referendum in the Third Reich continues to be the extraordinary success attending the cabinet's efforts to control the political behavior of the citizens. To mobilise almost forty-five million voters and so regiment their opinions on international and constitutional issues as to secure a favorable verdict little short of unanimity is a political achievement with few, if any, parallels. Should any doubts remain as to the practical political value of the Nazi propaganda ministry, or as to its effectiveness, these referenda must certainly dispel them. Nor could any better evidence than is furnished by these same referenda be adduced to confirm the truth of the observation that illiberal suffrage laws and success in "getting out the vote" do not guarantee genuinely democratic government; that, on the contrary, such government depends primarily upon certain intangibles such as a free press and impartial officials and above all upon an informed and critical electorate. [Links added by me]
Mrs May's assertion that she represented the will of the people against our parliament had uncomfortable echoes of the justification used by Hitler and Goebbels in the 1930s. Fortunately, there is no compulsion built in to our multi-sourced constitution, though one worries that the 2016 referendum and the call for a People's Vote to contradict its verdict have set a precedent. We do have a free press - though weighted towards conservatism - but a rather less informed and objective electorate than one would wish for.
Wednesday, 20 March 2019
The governments may be exasperated, but there is still sympathy for us in mainland Europe
So often the attitude of leading Leave spokesmen (rarely a woman) seems to be that of an attention-seeking child in a tantrum.
Nobody likes me, everybody hates me
I think I'll go eat worms!
The trouble is that Brexit would finish with the rest of us eating worms while the likes of Farage and Fox are wined and dined by the shadowy funders and supporters of the various Leave campaigns.
So it is nice to be reminded that below the level of government the ready interchange across the Union would be missed.
Nobody likes me, everybody hates me
I think I'll go eat worms!
The trouble is that Brexit would finish with the rest of us eating worms while the likes of Farage and Fox are wined and dined by the shadowy funders and supporters of the various Leave campaigns.
So it is nice to be reminded that below the level of government the ready interchange across the Union would be missed.
Tuesday, 19 March 2019
Bercow's ruling not based on arcane historicism
The Brexit minister (backed up by at least one BBC reporter) today presented the Speaker's pronouncement on repeatedly bringing back the same motion to the Commons as a idiosyncratic dredging up of a 17th century anomaly. The contrary is the case. The fact that the principle was established in 1604 shows how fundamental it is. Examine the constitution and/or standing orders of any council from a mighty unitary authority to a humble community council and you will find a ban on an attempt to reverse a decision previously voted on. The period may vary from a few months to the lifetime of that council before the next election, but the principle of taking decisions seriously and letting a realistic period of reflection go by before revisiting them is ubiquitous. Of course, if there is a dramatic change of circumstances, there is the possibility of suspending standing orders but this is a course not to be taken lightly.
For a student of parliamentary history like the member for Rhondda, the Speaker's ruling did not come out of the blue:
This ruling has been repeated many, many times. On 30 June 1864, Sir John Pakington wanted to give more money to nursery schools—hoorah! On 17 May 1870, Mr Torrens wanted to relieve poverty by enabling the poor to emigrate to the colonies. On 9 May 1882, Henry Labouchère wanted to allow MPs to declare, rather than swear, an oath so as to take their seats. On 27 January 1891, Mr Leng wanted to limit railway workers’ very long hours. On 21 May 1912—this one would probably have the support of every Member—George Lansbury wanted to allow women to vote.
On every single occasion, the Speaker—Speaker Brand, Speaker Peel, Speaker Denison and Speaker Lowther—said, “No, you can’t, because we’ve already decided that in this Session of Parliament”. That is why I believe the Government should not have the right to bring back exactly the same, or substantially the same, measure again and again as they are doing. It is not as if the Government do not have enough power. They decide every element of the timetable in the House. They decide what we can table and when. They decide when we sit. They can prorogue Parliament if they want. They have plenty of powers. The only limit is that they cannot bring back the same issue time and again in the same Session because it has already been decided.
What do the Government not understand about losing a vote by more than 200 and losing it a second time by 149? For me, the biggest irony of all is that the Government repeatedly say, “The people can’t have a second vote”, but the House of Commons? “Oh, we’ll keep them voting until they come up with the right answer”. We should stand by tradition—Conservatives should be a bit more conservative about the traditions of the House—and stop this ludicrous, gyratory motion.
For a student of parliamentary history like the member for Rhondda, the Speaker's ruling did not come out of the blue:
This ruling has been repeated many, many times. On 30 June 1864, Sir John Pakington wanted to give more money to nursery schools—hoorah! On 17 May 1870, Mr Torrens wanted to relieve poverty by enabling the poor to emigrate to the colonies. On 9 May 1882, Henry Labouchère wanted to allow MPs to declare, rather than swear, an oath so as to take their seats. On 27 January 1891, Mr Leng wanted to limit railway workers’ very long hours. On 21 May 1912—this one would probably have the support of every Member—George Lansbury wanted to allow women to vote.
On every single occasion, the Speaker—Speaker Brand, Speaker Peel, Speaker Denison and Speaker Lowther—said, “No, you can’t, because we’ve already decided that in this Session of Parliament”. That is why I believe the Government should not have the right to bring back exactly the same, or substantially the same, measure again and again as they are doing. It is not as if the Government do not have enough power. They decide every element of the timetable in the House. They decide what we can table and when. They decide when we sit. They can prorogue Parliament if they want. They have plenty of powers. The only limit is that they cannot bring back the same issue time and again in the same Session because it has already been decided.
What do the Government not understand about losing a vote by more than 200 and losing it a second time by 149? For me, the biggest irony of all is that the Government repeatedly say, “The people can’t have a second vote”, but the House of Commons? “Oh, we’ll keep them voting until they come up with the right answer”. We should stand by tradition—Conservatives should be a bit more conservative about the traditions of the House—and stop this ludicrous, gyratory motion.
Monday, 18 March 2019
Nigel Owens on LGBT rights, equality and missing a quiet life
In an interview dubbed exclusive by the i newspaper, the respected rugby referee reflected, on the eve of his scheduled retirement, on his realisation that he was gay, on his life in rugby and the part he played in pushing back the homophobia in it. He is not lost to the sport, as he is soon to meet the Welsh Rugby Union with a view to coaching the next generation of officials.
At the age of 47, he is looking forward to less travel and therefore to owning a dog again, four years after Mali, a much-loved German Shepherd, was laid to rest. He has bought a smallholding of 30 acres where he will keep “a couple of beef cattle”. He says he is “seeing someone at the moment”, and has his father and godchildren and cousins to keep him company, but he does not have a long-term partner, and he even muses how he might have given all his success up for a perceived “normal” life of a partner and kids and someone to wake up next to each day. “People have said to me that I am brave, and I have gone home at night, and I am lying there alone and I am thinking to myself ‘am I a brave man or have I been a foolish man?’ If I could change all that to have a normal, quiet life, believe me I would.”
Referring to a couple of exchanges on-field with Jefferson Poirot, in which he complimented the French front-row on continuing to wear rainbow laces long after the LGBT campaign was formally over, the interview concluded:
Owens agrees the exchange with Poirot could never have happened, say, 15 years ago. And, by the way, he advocates the mic’ing up of referees in football, to attack the endemic culture of swearing and dissent. “People ask me what will happen when a gay footballer comes out, and I say the majority of people in football will support that player. There will be some people who will do their best to get him out of the club, and people in the opposition crowd may shout abuse because he is gay. But I don’t think society will allow it.”
And is Owens glad he has helped that change occur? “I know I have been part of it,” he says. “When I had a letter from a mum thanking me for sharing my story, and that her son tried to take his own life, but he read my story and plucked up the courage to tell them, and now he is living a wonderful life – it makes you a little bit proud. It’s helping other people and it’s probably helping me when I go through those difficult times.”
One assumes that he will continue to be a contributor to Welsh language broadcasting but I hope he will not be lost to an Anglophone audience.
At the age of 47, he is looking forward to less travel and therefore to owning a dog again, four years after Mali, a much-loved German Shepherd, was laid to rest. He has bought a smallholding of 30 acres where he will keep “a couple of beef cattle”. He says he is “seeing someone at the moment”, and has his father and godchildren and cousins to keep him company, but he does not have a long-term partner, and he even muses how he might have given all his success up for a perceived “normal” life of a partner and kids and someone to wake up next to each day. “People have said to me that I am brave, and I have gone home at night, and I am lying there alone and I am thinking to myself ‘am I a brave man or have I been a foolish man?’ If I could change all that to have a normal, quiet life, believe me I would.”
Referring to a couple of exchanges on-field with Jefferson Poirot, in which he complimented the French front-row on continuing to wear rainbow laces long after the LGBT campaign was formally over, the interview concluded:
Owens agrees the exchange with Poirot could never have happened, say, 15 years ago. And, by the way, he advocates the mic’ing up of referees in football, to attack the endemic culture of swearing and dissent. “People ask me what will happen when a gay footballer comes out, and I say the majority of people in football will support that player. There will be some people who will do their best to get him out of the club, and people in the opposition crowd may shout abuse because he is gay. But I don’t think society will allow it.”
And is Owens glad he has helped that change occur? “I know I have been part of it,” he says. “When I had a letter from a mum thanking me for sharing my story, and that her son tried to take his own life, but he read my story and plucked up the courage to tell them, and now he is living a wonderful life – it makes you a little bit proud. It’s helping other people and it’s probably helping me when I go through those difficult times.”
One assumes that he will continue to be a contributor to Welsh language broadcasting but I hope he will not be lost to an Anglophone audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)