That devastating break in liberal representation from Wales which occurred in the 2017 general election is at an end. From 1885 until the last general election, when Plaid Cymru won Ceredigion, Wales had always returned a Liberal or Liberal Democrat MP. BBC describes Jane Dodds' retaking Brecon and Radnorshire as a "narrow" victory. A thousand votes is not narrow in Liberal Democrat terms, it seems to me, but surely the headline figure ought to be the twelve per cent swing from the Conservatives. The full figures (together with those from a couple of council by-elections) are on Liberal Democrat Voice.
There are two other aspects of the B&R win which should be highlighted. Firstly, Jane's success will bring the already healthy female representation on the Liberal Democrat benches up to 42%. With so many women candidates already declared in winnable seats (including Sheffield Hallam, which will produce a by-election in the autumn if a general election does not intervene) the future of a more gender-balanced parliamentary party seems assured.
Secondly, Jane is distinctly on the social liberal wing of the party. She will temper any drift to more conservative politics if, as seems likely, former Conservative MPs defect to the Liberal Democrats. She will carry her fight against the malign effects of Universal Credit, which she observed in her day job, on to the floor of the House and, one hopes, into a Select Committee.
That social conscience must have been a factor in winning back the Labour-inclined voters we lost in 2015 as a reaction to our going into coalition in Westminster. The Corbyn factor sealed Tom Davies' fate. The Labour candidate finished a remote fourth, surely the worst performance in this constituency since the modern Labour party was founded. Welsh Labour may have been consoling themselves that pathetic performances in recent local by-elections would be compensated for by a return to the fold in parliamentary elections. Mark Drakeford and his advisors must now be seriously concerned.
More ominous is the arithmetic on the atavistic side of politics. The sum of Conservative and Brexit votes in B&R was greater than the Liberal Democrats'. The European policies of both Brexit (which describes itself as a party, but is not constituted as such) and the Conservative Party are now practically indistinguishable. The Brexit leader is sure to point out to the current prime minister that an anti-EU alliance at the next election, combining their two votes, will do better than Conservatism on its own. Conservative leaders have so far resisted such blandishments, which would involve Conservative candidates standing down in some seats, but Boris Johnson is a stranger to scruples and may well yield.
Friday, 2 August 2019
Thursday, 1 August 2019
200 years of Herman Melville
Melville was born on the first of August 1819, . He is most famous for writing the classic of whaling with religious overtones, Moby-Dick. He is also responsible for the extraordinary short story, Bartleby the Scrivener, which seems to prefigure so much twentieth century fiction, and the posthumously-published Billy Budd.
Wednesday, 31 July 2019
UK not on fast track
- but not the slowest either
Last Saturday, the South Wales Evening Post headlined a story about fast trains "On the wrong track". This year's report of world train speeds in a biennial series from Railway Gazette International shows the UK in 13th place. The magazine's survey reflects a real-world railway from the passengers’ point of view. Trains are selected if they run from Monday to Friday and average more than 160 km/h between different station pairs. The survey does not include one-off or weekend services. Entries in the tables are based on the timetables in use for May and June 2019.
The point that the Post makes is that in 1977 the UK made it to second place. Since then, we have been overtaken not only by prestige projects such as those in Japan and later China (who now holds the record at 317 kph) but also by fellow EU members Italy, France, Spain and Germany who have the same problems of upgrading existing infrastructure in a modern democracy. Austria comes in at 179.6 kph, the same as the UK, but with the probable excuse that there not as many lines on a level grade as here. Norway, Sweden and Finland are even slower, but so, surprisingly, is the Netherlands.
Personally, I am less concerned about the top speed of our top lines than about the experiences of the majority of rail passengers. Resuming the electrification programme initiated by the coalition would not only raise average speeds and reliability of service, but also go a long way to reducing our CO2 production.
Last Saturday, the South Wales Evening Post headlined a story about fast trains "On the wrong track". This year's report of world train speeds in a biennial series from Railway Gazette International shows the UK in 13th place. The magazine's survey reflects a real-world railway from the passengers’ point of view. Trains are selected if they run from Monday to Friday and average more than 160 km/h between different station pairs. The survey does not include one-off or weekend services. Entries in the tables are based on the timetables in use for May and June 2019.
The point that the Post makes is that in 1977 the UK made it to second place. Since then, we have been overtaken not only by prestige projects such as those in Japan and later China (who now holds the record at 317 kph) but also by fellow EU members Italy, France, Spain and Germany who have the same problems of upgrading existing infrastructure in a modern democracy. Austria comes in at 179.6 kph, the same as the UK, but with the probable excuse that there not as many lines on a level grade as here. Norway, Sweden and Finland are even slower, but so, surprisingly, is the Netherlands.
Personally, I am less concerned about the top speed of our top lines than about the experiences of the majority of rail passengers. Resuming the electrification programme initiated by the coalition would not only raise average speeds and reliability of service, but also go a long way to reducing our CO2 production.
Tuesday, 30 July 2019
Llanelli boy must make good
It is not many people in my circle who can say they have shaken hands with a future Lord Chancellor, but many years ago I met the young Robert Buckland. It was in the armistice period of a long-forgotten campaign (possibly the European Parliament elections of 1994) between the closing of the ballot and the counting of the votes when the agents, candidates and their guests guardedly socialise. Then, although I found him personable, I rather dismissed him as an ardent Thatcherite and all that this entails. Following his career over the years since, I came to realise that he was more of a one-nation Tory (to quote Iain Macleod) than that. Although I am sorry to seen that he has taken the Johnson coupon of a disorderly withdrawal from the EU, his is probably the best of the new appointments of the new administration.
His pledge to reform courts, tribunals and criminal legal aid is most welcome, though, as Liberal Democrats have pointed out, the restoration of civil legal aid to the just-managing is more pressing. The cuts to criminal legal aid have received more publicity because, dare I say it, that is where barristers are most affected and the bar is very good at achieving media coverage. That is not to deny that young barristers struggle to make a living now, and something must be done to prevent any accused being denied a proper defence in court, but there are ordinary law-abiding people put at a disadvantage in disputes over state benefits or tenancies because of the cuts made by successive governments. One trusts that the new Lord Chancellor will listen to solicitors and Citizens Advice as well as his fellow-barristers.
His pledge to reform courts, tribunals and criminal legal aid is most welcome, though, as Liberal Democrats have pointed out, the restoration of civil legal aid to the just-managing is more pressing. The cuts to criminal legal aid have received more publicity because, dare I say it, that is where barristers are most affected and the bar is very good at achieving media coverage. That is not to deny that young barristers struggle to make a living now, and something must be done to prevent any accused being denied a proper defence in court, but there are ordinary law-abiding people put at a disadvantage in disputes over state benefits or tenancies because of the cuts made by successive governments. One trusts that the new Lord Chancellor will listen to solicitors and Citizens Advice as well as his fellow-barristers.
Monday, 29 July 2019
Sunday, 28 July 2019
Seeds of Brexit
There has been some discussion in the groups I belong to on Facebook and on Cix as to who was our worst prime minister. David Cameron was in the lead for some time, but Theresa May came up to run neck-and-neck until she announced her resignation. Pity, if not sympathy, seems to have been a factor in that last change. For some reason, Labour PMs have not come into the reckoning. I would have ranked Callaghan as a challenger if only for his failure to go to the country in 1978, thus ensuring that Mrs Thatcher achieved an absolute majority in 1979. I would add his failure to back Barbara Castle's union reforms and his reversing of Roy Jenkins' progressive policy at the Home Office. Gordon Brown also came into consideration, but his custodianship was largely a continuation of what had started under Tony Blair, and he did at least come to realise what mistakes he had made as a chancellor and appointed Alistair Darling to start to put them right.
There must be some nineteenth-century qualifiers, but post-Victoria, only Bonar Law comes into consideration. However, it seems that the worst one can say about him is that he was ineffectual.
No, May and Cameron take the top two places because they have been held culpable by all sides of the political argument. May has some excuse in that she was loyally following the path which had already been set down. She also felt it her duty to issue the Article 50 letter initiating the withdrawal mechanism as practically her first act on taking office. However, at no time did she pause in the face of evidence that Brexit was fatally broken by immanent contradictions, not least the UK's borders with Ireland, Spain and some island dependencies. The 2017 election served only to make it more likely that we would leave without a deal - which is perhaps what Mrs May's advisers aimed for. Away from Brexit, she identified many of the difficulties experienced by the worst-off in our society but failed to do anything to ease them. Indeed, she presided over a tightening of "austerity".
Cameron is condemned by Leavers for delaying the Brexit referendum and, when this returned a majority in favour of leaving the EU, in reneging on his promise to immediately legislate to leave and stay in office long enough to see it through. In the event he dithered and finally dumped the mess on his successor, after he decided after all to resign. Remainers condemn him for holding the referendum at all, or at least for declaring that it would be binding however narrow the majority. I would certainly condemn him for the last, but my main criticism would be that he should have held the referendum in 2010, when the Labour leadership was still on board with the European project. It could have taken the place of the pointless referendum on AV, a Gordon Brown idea which was in neither coalition partner's manifesto and which even Labour failed to support when it came to the vote.
There are other roots of the unsatisfactory 2016 referendum, though. We could have had a more civilised debate in the 1990s when Ming Campbell originally floated the idea, for a start. A more serious decision was taken by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in pushing through the devolution programme bequeathed to them by John Smith. In 1979, a virtually insurmountable hurdle had been built in to the Scottish devolution referendum by an anti-devolution Labour member. For the 1997 referendum, they went to the other extreme and stipulated only a simple majority.
Surely on a constitutional matter, even when confirming government policy, a significant majority - say 60% - would be necessary? It was certainly obtained for Scotland in 1997 (74% to 26%) and in the first Euro referendum in 1975 (67% to 33%). Welsh devolution would not have been approved (only .6 of a percentage point separating "yes" from "no" in 1997) on that criterion, but given the flawed nature of the Welsh devolution settlement that would have been no bad thing.
So the stage was set for the Scottish independence referendum of 2014. The then leader of the SNP Alex Salmond had little difficulty in ensuring that a bare majority would be enough, thus reinforcing the precedent. When some opinion polls indicated that "yes" might actually win, the Cameron government panicked, resorting to promises which were not completely fulfilled in order to maintain the status quo. There were also fear tactics, like the strong probability that an independent Scotland would not be a member of the EU. In the end, "no" won but the experience should have warned Cameron what was to come in 2016.
Then there is the question of trust. There is already a prejudice against government between general elections, which grows with the age of the parliament, and shows itself in by-election results. It was almost certainly a factor in the size of the defeat of the AV proposition. Remaining in the EU was official government policy at the time of the Brexit referendum. Add to the general anti-government feeling the mistrust engendered by the delay in mounting the referendum, when it was or had been part of each of the coalition parties' manifesto policies, and you already have a handicap before people start to look at the arguments. On top of that, deputy PM Nick Clegg and most Lib Dem ministerial colleagues had broken a personal pledge to the NUS over student fees. The Lib Dems were then, as now, most closely associated with the European project.
The Liberal Democrats are committed to a further referendum on the EU. Although popular feeling has clearly swung against leaving - certainly against leaving without an agreement - the outcome cannot be taken for granted.
There must be some nineteenth-century qualifiers, but post-Victoria, only Bonar Law comes into consideration. However, it seems that the worst one can say about him is that he was ineffectual.
No, May and Cameron take the top two places because they have been held culpable by all sides of the political argument. May has some excuse in that she was loyally following the path which had already been set down. She also felt it her duty to issue the Article 50 letter initiating the withdrawal mechanism as practically her first act on taking office. However, at no time did she pause in the face of evidence that Brexit was fatally broken by immanent contradictions, not least the UK's borders with Ireland, Spain and some island dependencies. The 2017 election served only to make it more likely that we would leave without a deal - which is perhaps what Mrs May's advisers aimed for. Away from Brexit, she identified many of the difficulties experienced by the worst-off in our society but failed to do anything to ease them. Indeed, she presided over a tightening of "austerity".
Cameron is condemned by Leavers for delaying the Brexit referendum and, when this returned a majority in favour of leaving the EU, in reneging on his promise to immediately legislate to leave and stay in office long enough to see it through. In the event he dithered and finally dumped the mess on his successor, after he decided after all to resign. Remainers condemn him for holding the referendum at all, or at least for declaring that it would be binding however narrow the majority. I would certainly condemn him for the last, but my main criticism would be that he should have held the referendum in 2010, when the Labour leadership was still on board with the European project. It could have taken the place of the pointless referendum on AV, a Gordon Brown idea which was in neither coalition partner's manifesto and which even Labour failed to support when it came to the vote.
There are other roots of the unsatisfactory 2016 referendum, though. We could have had a more civilised debate in the 1990s when Ming Campbell originally floated the idea, for a start. A more serious decision was taken by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in pushing through the devolution programme bequeathed to them by John Smith. In 1979, a virtually insurmountable hurdle had been built in to the Scottish devolution referendum by an anti-devolution Labour member. For the 1997 referendum, they went to the other extreme and stipulated only a simple majority.
Surely on a constitutional matter, even when confirming government policy, a significant majority - say 60% - would be necessary? It was certainly obtained for Scotland in 1997 (74% to 26%) and in the first Euro referendum in 1975 (67% to 33%). Welsh devolution would not have been approved (only .6 of a percentage point separating "yes" from "no" in 1997) on that criterion, but given the flawed nature of the Welsh devolution settlement that would have been no bad thing.
So the stage was set for the Scottish independence referendum of 2014. The then leader of the SNP Alex Salmond had little difficulty in ensuring that a bare majority would be enough, thus reinforcing the precedent. When some opinion polls indicated that "yes" might actually win, the Cameron government panicked, resorting to promises which were not completely fulfilled in order to maintain the status quo. There were also fear tactics, like the strong probability that an independent Scotland would not be a member of the EU. In the end, "no" won but the experience should have warned Cameron what was to come in 2016.
Then there is the question of trust. There is already a prejudice against government between general elections, which grows with the age of the parliament, and shows itself in by-election results. It was almost certainly a factor in the size of the defeat of the AV proposition. Remaining in the EU was official government policy at the time of the Brexit referendum. Add to the general anti-government feeling the mistrust engendered by the delay in mounting the referendum, when it was or had been part of each of the coalition parties' manifesto policies, and you already have a handicap before people start to look at the arguments. On top of that, deputy PM Nick Clegg and most Lib Dem ministerial colleagues had broken a personal pledge to the NUS over student fees. The Lib Dems were then, as now, most closely associated with the European project.
The Liberal Democrats are committed to a further referendum on the EU. Although popular feeling has clearly swung against leaving - certainly against leaving without an agreement - the outcome cannot be taken for granted.
Saturday, 27 July 2019
Like laughing at Bernard Manning, in spite of oneself
Boris Johnson's inaugural speech as prime minister was a bravura performance. The enthusiasm was infectious and, if one did not know that the EU27 were adamant that the Barnier-May withdrawal pact could not be renegotiated and that not all of his promises could be fulfilled without an increase in tax or borrowing or both, one could be hypnotised into believing that a new one-nation-tory dawn was breaking.
Of course, he has the typical politician's belief that wishing something makes it so. "We got rid of 20,000 police since 2010. It was a mistake, which we can simply reverse by funding their return." In fact, while some officers may return, if they have not committed themselves to a new career, with a modicum of re-training, the vast majority of that number will have to be raw recruits who will only be fully qualified after two years. We also learn from BBC News that there is a shortage of expert trainers, so this lead time may be even longer.
"More bobbies on the beat" will be a good thing, but it has clearly been chosen for its appeal to the average voter, like the rather more sinister proposal to relax the protocol for "stop and search". If the PM really wants to tackle crime, he needs to reverse the cuts to the prison service and thus reduce violence, cut drug use and improve prisoner rehabilitation. If he succeeds in his aim of increasing the length of sentence for sexual and violent crimes, then he is going to have to build more prisons, too - or take at least as many imprisonable offences off the statute book. This last would be no bad thing, but is he prepared to stand up to both the Mail and the Mirror who will no doubt go to town on it?
Of course, he has the typical politician's belief that wishing something makes it so. "We got rid of 20,000 police since 2010. It was a mistake, which we can simply reverse by funding their return." In fact, while some officers may return, if they have not committed themselves to a new career, with a modicum of re-training, the vast majority of that number will have to be raw recruits who will only be fully qualified after two years. We also learn from BBC News that there is a shortage of expert trainers, so this lead time may be even longer.
"More bobbies on the beat" will be a good thing, but it has clearly been chosen for its appeal to the average voter, like the rather more sinister proposal to relax the protocol for "stop and search". If the PM really wants to tackle crime, he needs to reverse the cuts to the prison service and thus reduce violence, cut drug use and improve prisoner rehabilitation. If he succeeds in his aim of increasing the length of sentence for sexual and violent crimes, then he is going to have to build more prisons, too - or take at least as many imprisonable offences off the statute book. This last would be no bad thing, but is he prepared to stand up to both the Mail and the Mirror who will no doubt go to town on it?
Friday, 26 July 2019
Liberal influence in Europe
There is confirmation of the shift in the centre of power in the European Union caused by the rise of Liberal representation after this year's European Parliament elections. In the following report from VoteWatch Europe, Renew Europe is the grouping which includes ALDE, of which British Liberal Democrats form a large part, and Emanuel Macron's La République En Marche!
Renew Europe is confirmed as the kingmaker in the new EP as the group was on the winning side on all the votes cast so far. That is because the group sided with a right-leaning coalition on issues concerning Venezuela and Russia, while it sided with a left-leaning coalition on issues concerning the migration crisis at the US-Mexico border. The performance of the other ‘rebranded’ group, namely Salvini’s Identity and Democracy was, not surprisingly, quite different. In fact, the right-wing group was mainly on the losing side, with the only exception of the votes on Venezuela. In this case, a majority of ID members were on the winning side when backing a tougher stance towards the actions of Maduro’s government. However, their French members (ie. Marine Le Pen’s colleagues) disagreed with the Italian League and other delegations and voted against recognizing Juan Guaidó as the legitimate President of the country.
Renew Europe is confirmed as the kingmaker in the new EP as the group was on the winning side on all the votes cast so far. That is because the group sided with a right-leaning coalition on issues concerning Venezuela and Russia, while it sided with a left-leaning coalition on issues concerning the migration crisis at the US-Mexico border. The performance of the other ‘rebranded’ group, namely Salvini’s Identity and Democracy was, not surprisingly, quite different. In fact, the right-wing group was mainly on the losing side, with the only exception of the votes on Venezuela. In this case, a majority of ID members were on the winning side when backing a tougher stance towards the actions of Maduro’s government. However, their French members (ie. Marine Le Pen’s colleagues) disagreed with the Italian League and other delegations and voted against recognizing Juan Guaidó as the legitimate President of the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)