Europe’s Outliers; Too Little Too Late?

Not so long ago, in the wake of David Cameron’s decision to leave talks on deepening EU governance, I accused the British Prime Minister of forgoing willing allies in Central Europe in order to advance narrow interests. Europe had a unique opportunity to grasp a desperate situation and reform the institutions of the European Union. After all, Britain’s austerity drive should not render her opposed to an EU keen to control the spending of others, particularly when the instability of the Eurozone has been a key factor in her lack of growth.

Well, incomprehension of Britain’s position did not last as long as might have been expected. The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, stated that she wanted Britain to play a role in the Union’s economic governance, while even Nicholas Sarkozy has been able to do business on defence integration in the past weeks. Now Britain is engaging again. On the eve of a summit to discuss progress on Greece, twelve heads of government have written to the EU Presidents to lay out their plans for promoting growth.

Letter of 12 EU states on growth is here. db.tt/SBch95IE—
EconomistCharlemagne (@EconCharlemagne) February 20, 2012

A good selection of ideas and personalities are represented; the Poles, Czechs, Balts and Slovaks are represented in a drive for energy integration, in order to prevent the threat of bilateral deals such as that between former German Chancellor Schroeder and Vladimir Putin or the Gas Wars between Ukraine and Russia that effectively shut off supply to Eastern Europe in the winter of 2009. A Swedish-British drive to remove barriers to green technology is attached to that.

Much of the letter concerns liberalisation of one form or another; the deepening of a common market in services, common copyright laws and the removal of regulations. The group also want the EU Commission to “publish an annual statement identifying and explaining the total net cost to business of regulatory proposals issued in the preceding year.” An anti-banking thrust, of sorts, is also present, with calls to increase liquidity and capital standards. Given that Britain, Italy and much of Central & Eastern Europe (the Vienna Group) are the most afflicted by banks in need of bailouts, these proposals are coming from the right quarters.

What the letter is silent on, however, are the very issues that are most pressing; debt and Greece. While Eurozone Nations are struggling to borrow, and this applies also to those tied to the Eurozone as much as those in it, imports are going to be harder to come by and more expensive, whatever the results of the proposed “deepening economic integration with the US, trade and investment relations with Russia and a strategic consideration of China.”

The twelve outliers, basically anyone but Merkozy, are constrained by a lack of money and the inevitable political battles that will delay and follow any decision. Rolling out broadband, one of the few spending proposals, is in danger of entanglement with proposals to introduce the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which has already brought thousands onto German and Polish streets, much to the surprise of its writers.

Convincing Germany of the benefits of a deregulating European Union would cement a coup for the twelve signatories to this letter, but that looks far away. As a piece of political theatre, it is neutered in comparison to Radek Sikorski’s famous speech in Berlin last year. All in all, Britain’s return to the fray does not give it the appearance of having any more heft.

Signatories to the Letter to Barroso and van Rompuy

David Cameron, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

Mark Rutte, Prime Minister of the Netherlands

Mario Monti, Prime Minister of Italy

Andrus Ansip, Prime Minister of Estonia

Valdis Dombrovskis, Prime Minister of Latvia

Jyrki Katainen, Prime Minister of Finland

Enda Kenny, Taoiseach, Republic of Ireland

Petr Nečas, Prime Minister of the Czech Republic

Iveta Radičová, Prime Minister of Slovakia

Mariano Rajoy, Prime Minister of Spain

Fredrik Reinfeldt, Prime Minister of Sweden

Donald Tusk, Prime Minister of Poland

Central Europe: A Forgotten Ally for Britain

When David Cameron was undiplomatically told, in comments that were crafted to be reported, to butt out of negotiations over the Eurozone by Nicholas Sarkozy, both he and the French President would have been pleased by the impression given to their domestic constituencies. As a political manoeuvre it is not quite on the scale of the war of Jenkins’ Ear or the Ems Despatch, but it served to remind concerned followers of the Prime Minister that he was not going to refrain from speaking his mind or advancing British interests in the notoriously closed-minded European Union.

Offending the EU and its members for the sake of domestic consumption has been Mr Cameron’s strategy ever since he took his party out of the European Conservatives grouping and set up a new, eurosceptic grouping in the European Parliament. The affair earned him a tongue-lashing from David Miliband, but if that was the worst of it, no more senior member of the Shadow Cabinet need retort than Baroness Warsi – keen as ever to go to war.

Yet the strategy of carping at the margins has failed, and embarrassingly so. France, an awkward partner, aside, the effect on Mr Cameron’s relationship with Angela Merkel has been disastrous. Last week the German Chancellor, undoubtedly the political centre of gravity in the EU at present, warned Britain to avoid substantial amendments to any new treaty to regulate the Eurozone. Mr Cameron could claim, with well-worn earnestness that ‘they started it’ but Ms Merkel could as easily repeat the claims of the British Labour Party, that is not a time to play politics in the midst of a serious crisis.

That Mr Cameron went alone to the meeting with Angela Merkel, as well as to see Jose Manueline Barroso and Herman van Rompuy, is revealing. Moreover, he did so at a point when the figureheads of Central European countries are substantially parroting his own agenda.

First, there is Slovakia, the most reluctant contributor to the bailout of Greece. As the second poorest member of the Eurozone, it is not hard to see why, especially as the financial crisis has already claimed one government.

Second; Poland, whose Prime Minister, Donald Tusk has just accomplished the unique feat in post-Cold War Polish politics of being reelected. Moreover, Poland has the honour of being the only economy in the EU not to go into recession in the past four years. In an eloquent and wide-ranging speech to Parliament, Mr Tusk set out his plans to tackle a looming pension gap, reform farmers’ national insurance and promote growth through the tax system. In practically the same week, the Polish EU Presidency settled on a 2% rise in the EU budget to keep pace with inflation, contrary to the more profligate demands of the European Parliament, which wanted 5%.

Third; Hungary, whose Prime Minister, Victor Orban recently spoke at the London School of Economics. Mr Orban admitted, in Steve Hilton-esque terms, that his country had a ‘growth problem,’ but that it was well poised for investment nonetheless through its renewed infrastructure and culture.

Finally, Romania, who alone in the EU seem to be speeding towards some form of growth.

The thread linking these countries is a wariness of the Eurozone, of which only Slovakia is a part. Hungary, which is threatened with a downgrade to ‘junk’ status by the ratings agencies (and a politically unreliable government), may be the hardest to believe when they call for stringent benchmarks (Mr Orban specifically questioned the timing of the higher capital quotas for banks, now 9%), but it is nonetheless in the interests of these countries, as of all, that the Euro is maintained by common standards of solvency to avoid devaluation or the attentions of short sellers.

Poor countries largely, they are understandably keen to see investment in infrastructure and their economies continue. Having caught up to some extent with the established EU members, that could be either focused in key areas or come from the private sector, so long as there are credible markets to their east.

In a pithy turn of phrase, Mr Tusk pointed out that in the EU, everyone is invited to dinner. However, if you are not at the table, you are most likely on it. This is the distinctive attitude that Britain has taken to the EU, and it is unlikely to be constructive. It has alienated Germany with its defence of finance and has failed to seek new allies amongst the governments of Europe. Having given up a share of the rebate under Tony Blair, it has failed to push for the removal of protectionist subsidies in favour of ones that open up investment and undertaken the same hectoring tone of President Obama over the Greek debt crisis; sort out your mess so I can jolly well carry on blaming you for my own.

Perhaps the only point on which Mr Cameron could conceivably differ from those Central European countries named above is over Russia, where Mr Cameron has recently been touting Britain as open for business. Overturning uneasy British relations with Russia is not a bad decision but it should be recognised that as an emerging market, Russia will naturally look for partners to do business with, if the political costs are not too high. At the moment, pushing for the expansion and reform of the EU would not hurt Mr Cameron’s relationship with Vladimir Putin, and should be strongly considered, if Messrs Tusk, Orban and Radičová still see fit to associate with Britain amidst its own growth problem.

_______________________

Postscript: A really good article from MP Denis MacShane on the Conservatives’ EU isolation at Progress makes similar points.

The London Riots – Glimmers of Common Sense

David Cameron made a fair few remarks in his keynote speech on the causes and consequences of last weeks’ breakdown of public order that were reminiscent of his old compassionate conservativism. Society initially went from broken to sick and is now broken again – the implication quite possibly being that a sick society requires lots of expensive treatment, whereas there prison and the police can ‘fix’ a broken one together.

The Prime Minister has a few tricks up his sleeve – and before you think that the common sense in this title refers to Mr Cameron, it does not. The most spectacular is the return of his election pledge of national service, which now moves up the order paper. Germany, which is abolishing its system of to the anguish of its voluntary sector, might have been a useful model. Instead, the Prime Minister’s prescription sounds rather like a holiday camp, with fun activities such as archery providing a more purposeful use for itchy trigger fingers.

Of course, the whole idea is a dog-whistle to the Tebbit-right of the Conservative Party and what is more, a contradiction of Mr Cameron’s own ‘Big Society’. While taking individuals out of their inhospitable surroundings once a year (more likely, once ever) might not be such a bad thing, it is unlikely to take the Tottenham out of the boy/girl. Thus, the whole idea is just another spin on the Tory individual morality response to delinquency and not much more. Moreover, Tottenham itself remains much the same, albeit that the funding for this national service is more than likely to come from those voluntary groups that do something for the local area. Finally, it is perhaps worth remembering the distinctly unpersuasive manner in which Michael Caine framed the idea when it was announced at a Conservative election event:

The eponymous sensible man of the title of this blog is Nick Clegg, who has once again stolen a march on the Prime Minister. Admittedly, the inquiry into the causes of the riots was probably agreed with the leading partner in the Coalition, but there was still some steel in the Deputy Prime Minister’s speech. Reading between the lines of the community payback scheme, and indeed in some of his less trumpeted comments, Mr Clegg has disagreed with the arbitrary withdrawal of benefits and declared that the income tax threshold will have to rise before married couples are given a tax-break.

Finally, I believe in credit where credit is due. Though in general not much of a fan of Diane Abbott, I have to admit that her Parliamentary speech on the riots was one of the best. On the one hand, student wins academic prize is not much of a headline. However, there really aren’t enough rewards for achievements in education or community affairs. Mr Cameron might want to consider using his leverage to set up a system of awards for public service in these communities to show that the good gangs have something on the bad.

 

Another Five Myths About Rioting

…and hopefully some half decent points.

It has been pointed out to me, not unreasonably, that I am probably doing the subject of the London and now British riots an injustice by portraying only the Left as loony on this subject, Well, the Right has not been altogether helpful either.

Of course, the first reaction to the riots from all reasonable people is anxiety – where does this end? The second is contempt – what do these people have to riot about that I don’t and why should we mollycoddle those who take for free what many have to work hard for. These two instincts lead to a pretty conservative (deliberate small ‘c’) response, of which the most uplifting form has been humour. This can pretty easily be overdone, which leads me to my number one stupid comment.

1)   The Army would cope with these riots better, or teach them some manners

Tempting as it is to criticise the police for an ineffectual early response and for taking two days to boost the numbers on duty, there has actually been relatively little violence against individuals. That is not to downplay deaths or assaults resulting from the riots – here’s hoping the perpetrators spend a long time in jail thinking about what they’ve done – but the whole outbreak was the result of a protest against police brutality. It is not entirely clear why there is a high level of paranoia in the black community (Katherine Birbalsing is her usual bullish self on this) but there is undoubtedly a sense of resentment, not to mention a very mobile contingent of troublemakers that is not best served by greater casualties or fixed police units.

Also, whose army? Is it not becoming fairly common to cede troublesome areas to NATO, i.e. US control? This might be a public relations disaster too far for President Obama.

2)   This is the fault of the parents/welfare state/multiculturalism/New Labour

Explaining why a protest became a riot, which became looting is a pretty complicated exercise of causality. For that reason, almost all of the above explanations are glib and generally beneath the level of the people who make them (see here and here). A lot of parents are either worried about or disgusted by the actions of their children, so to suggest that all crime is a result of poor parenting is pretty offensive. So is ‘welfare dependency’ – if that was the case, why are there people on benefits or on the poverty line not looting?

As for multiculturalism, I am sure there are plenty of conservative-minded people who rather admire the Sikh determination to protect property, if not the religious requirement to carry swords (the Sikhs were after all, a warrior caste by origin). What you are in effect saying is that certain cultures are problematic because we say they exist. Well, true enough in a Catch-22 sort of way, but the assimilationist French are not strangers to a bit of public disorder.

3)   The Government/politics plays no part in the motivation behind this unrest

Moral bankruptcy seems to me to be a poor choice of phrase to describe what is going on at the moment. Certainly, there is a great deal of bogus moral equivalence (this distressing clip, for one). However, while politicians should not try too hard to establish links between public policy and rioting, they should also be fairly humble about denying that there is anything they can do.

Michael Gove, for example, goes too far in challenging Harriet Harman’s point that there are things the government can do, particularly for young people. Obviously sleep deprived, irritable and by accounts, mourning the theft of his bicycle, Gove instinctively goes for the ‘don’t give the bastards anything they don’t deserve’ line. Yet he has failed to deliver his promised ‘reform’ of EMA in time for the new school year and his emphasis on discipline in the classroom clearly hasn’t had time to take effect.

The problem is not the policy, but the sense that something is being hurriedly withdrawn from one section of society. More than a year into the government, the impression is getting stronger that reform is being put off while previous policies are cancelled. Then you have the unfortunate reminder for Nick Clegg of his arguing that riots could break out if a government tries to make big changes without legitimacy.

4)   This means the end of David Cameron’s Big Society

David Cameron is not usually a stupid man and has made more than a few brave stands against his detractors in his time as leader of the Conservative Party, so it will be interesting how he chooses to describe the rioters when he addresses Parliament tomorrow. The taster is that Britain has moved from being broken to being sick, and that we need to return to normality as soon as possible. Where previously the implication was that broken still meant repairable, it is less clear now that Cameron thinks that the effected areas are not terminal – that is a harsh thing to say about the Prime Minister, but reforms seem to be far from his mind;

Question
Prime Minister, you have said that parts of Britain are sick.  What is the cure in your view, and what do you say to people who say that part of the cure is more police, not fewer, more prison places, not fewer?

Prime Minister

When I say parts of Britain are sick, the one word I would use to sum that up is irresponsibility.  The sight of those young people running down streets, smashing windows, taking property, looting, laughing as they go, the problem of that is a complete lack of responsibility, a lack of proper parenting, a lack of proper upbringing, a lack of proper ethics, a lack of proper morals.  That is what we need to change.  There is no one trigger that can change these things.  It’s about parenting, it’s about discipline in schools, it’s about making sure we have a welfare system that does not reward idleness.  It is all of those things.

At the same time, the removal of funding for institutions like Children’s Centres and for charity groups means that the public sphere for introducing a cure is growing smaller. On the other hand, it seems clearer and clearer that if the state doesn’t have all the answers, there are people and groups who at least know the arguments first hand;

(If you listen to nothing else on the riots, which I doubt, try this. It’s more thoughtful than most and I’m sorry I can’t embed it).

In addition, the Big Society has actually had its most positive moment, albeit while proving that it tends to be proportional in response to the challenges that give need for it;

Coda

If I have made any cheap party points, which I haven’t had time to check for, I am more than happy to have them pointed out to me. What I wish to convey is not that the rioters are ideologically coherent, that they are somehow morally excused or that this was a logical result of the government’s policies (past or present). There are too many ’causes’ to this story to make sense of them, but it is interesting in itself that there was a breakdown in public order, that the political became materialistic and that such diverse groups chose to take part.

Now listen, 99% of London is not on fire. We have discovered some exceptional leaders in times of duress and rediscovered some very good qualities in ourselves. The spirit of partisanship, anxiety or racism is almost overcome (or at least banished temporarily) while people become sympathetic to the victims, many of whom fit into the same characterisations as stereotypical looters. The past year has been marked by a sense of concern for the less fortunate in life. It would be the greater tragedy if that were now to become a part of history.

I am going to invite contributions for a fifth stupid comment. What riles you most about what people are saying about the riots?

Not Balls, Not Brown, Not Now

To win credibility, Ed Balls needs a new speech that acknowledges that the Coalition is not all-wrong on the economy.

Perhaps the suddenness of Alan Johnson’s resignation caught most commentators by surprise, or perhaps so much has already been said about the new Chancellor of the Exchequer over the past three years, but by the time that Ed Balls was called upon to take Labour’s lead argument against the coalition, the occasion seemed rather flat.

There are two chief topics of discussion about Labour’s new configuration. The first is whether Mr Ball’s unorthodox economics will have an impact on Labour’s political strategy in opposition. The second is whether giving Mr Balls a portfolio in which he will feel all-powerful will affect the chemistry of the Shadow Cabinet. Both anxieties are considerably overplayed.

Firstly, the Shadow Cabinet, including Mr Balls, endorsed the Darling plan for halving the deficit over the course of five years less than two weeks ago. There are also important political reasons for sticking to the course set out by Labour’s last Chancellor, Alistair Darling; the Party is in no mood to admit that it was completely wrong in its handling of the financial crisis, its current leadership does not have the authority or inclination to outflank the Coalition government on the right (either in part or in full), and confidence in deficit-broadening spending plans is flaky among the media, businesses, and the public (although polls show weakening resolve in that area).

The second reason Ed Balls will be required to act cautiously is that his popularity within the Party is fragile. Although he performed markedly better in the Shadow Cabinet election, coming third with 179 votes, than in the leadership election last year, MPs do not rush to worship at his feet. He will be cheered when he performs well – and he enjoys a sort of folk-hero status for his shadowing of Michael Gove – but like Wayne Rooney, politicians can be all-conquering one week and frustrating the next. Then there is the legacy of thirteen years of briefings – notably the blaming of Douglas Alexander and Ed Miliband for the election-that-wasn’t in 2007.

These two factors will keep Ed Balls on his toes, at least for the short term.

The Fight to Come

The sad departure of Alan Johnson, who lacked detail but was forthright in his defence of New Labour shibboleths, merely encourages the impression that Labour needs to be more aggressive in attacking the government. But where there are political opportunities, Labour ought to beware of political dangers.

Ed Balls was not regarded as a great Education Secretary, and while his Parliamentary performances may have forestalled the rise of Michael Gove, he also lacked the confidence in people’s aspirations that has allowed the current Secretary to re-establish his reforms based on the curriculum.

Gordon Brown’s book on the financial crisis, densely written and frustratingly self-serving though it is, gives an indication of the traps that Mr Balls could fall into. Brown has several arguments, among them that Britain needs to spend to maintain its educational, technological and financial ability to compete with the rising powers and that companies are hoarding cash rather than spending it. On the face of it, this justifies the Keynesian instincts of Messrs Brown and Balls, and their injunctions to the Conservative Party ‘not to return to the mistakes of the 1930s.’

Mr Balls based his economic pitch to the Labour Party on this message – in his widely acclaimed speech to Bloomberg last year. That speech is still being discussed, and Mr Balls may be tempted to say that the lower cost of borrowing justifies a retreat from the austerity programme. That would be a gamble however. The current crisis in the Eurozone is a result of significantly greater risks in Ireland, Spain and Portugal. The attractiveness of British bonds is cause for celebration, but not one we should be complacent about – the danger of a ratings downgrade in May 2010 was real, and no one knows what the implications of a change in tact could be today.

Furthermore, Mr Balls should be wary himself of making the mistakes of the 1970s. The Bloomberg speech raised the spectre of deflation – in 2011, the rising cost of commodities is causing inflation. Borrowing more would risk exacerbating this tendency, and it is for this reason, rather than the risk of protest that David Cameron has considered cutting fuel duty. Another reason that public spending needs to be restrained is that Britain is ageing and growing – meaning that there is no prospect of holding health and education spending steady without changes.

So while globalisation does require a new form of industrial intervention – one that cannot be provided purely by tax cuts – there is no other way to win business confidence and combat inflation than by reform. Indeed, there is a link between business confidence and public opinion, no matter how anti-business the current mood gets.

Labour sought to defend the interests of the consumer in 2008-10; reducing VAT temporarily and introducing scrappage schemes, and still lost the election. It may be that the unseen dimensions to the financial crisis do not intrude onto the voters’ minds, but it is beholden on Mr Balls not to mislead people on the sustainability of current spending. Given that he will not want to be a Labour Shadow Chancellor suggesting that he will raise new taxes, he will be locked into supporting some cuts.

David Cameron’s Felicific Calculus

“It’s time we admitted that there’s more to life than money and it’s time we focused not just on GDP but on GWB – general well-being.”

David Cameron

“No doubt Cameron will use the index to claim that despite rising unemployment, home repossessions, longer NHS waiting lists and unaffordable education, the people of this country are happier under Tory rule. The reality is a gathering gloom.”

Len McCluskey, General Secretary of UNITE

Like much about David Cameron, the Prime Minister’s recent suggestion that the Office for National Statistics (ONS) should collect data about how happy Britons are has given rise to much mirth and cynicism. However, the proposal is also very like Mr Cameron in that it has clearly been thought through and actually offers no little promise for a shift in political attitudes.

I could quite easily give an essay on Jeremy Bentham’s attempts to create his own happiness index, or Tony Blair’s efforts to introduce his own that were squashed by Civil Servants. None of those themes seem so relevant as the increasing depoliticisation of politics over the past couple of decades. This is as much a Conservative as a Labour theme – Thatcher was by no means averse to claiming that hers was the only way forward, or to locking Britain into the ERM in order to control inflation, and while Conservatives object to the Quangocracy that Labour are alleged to have founded, there is a consensus around the use of independent boards in health (NICE-excluded) and independent school in education.

What Labour and the Liberal Democrats will make of the policy is unclear, however. Undoubtedly, they will criticise it as a means of distorting the public’s attitudes and distracting commentators away from economic concerns, especially if they feel that Keynesianism is beginning to become attractive. Some clever young things will want to get at the mechanics of the policy and will probably score some points but my feeling is that this is a dangerous ground on which to attack. Quite probably, only one of the bigger hitters in the Labour Party could do Mr Cameron any damage and it is a telling fact how few big beasts with even a modicum of public trust or stature remain.

The problem I foresee is that Labour politicians do, or will appear to, fundamentally disagree with the premise of the policy. Mr Cameron’s move, I suspect, is about enhancing his own standing on the liberal end of the Conservative Party and in the centre ground of British politics. He will succeed in the former if some of the areas that he has tried to appropriate from Labour, such as housing, figure largely and in the latter if the public appear to want a little less interference, a lot less immigration and progress in education and health, even if this is at the expense of universal standards.

Both Labour and Conservative politicians have a healthy fear that Britain could become a breeding ground for a movement as instinctive and destructive as the Tea Party in America. However justified they might be, this is no excuse to react passionately and ideologically. It is fairly well documented that in the last few years the book of choice amongst Labour-thinkers has been The Spirit Level. Ed Miliband, in his speech to the National Policy Forum last week opined that people want ‘to get on, but also to live in a strong, fair and equal society.’

Speaking up for equality is something that the Labour Party has done little of in the past decade. Tony Blair, in A Journey as in office, was keener that the Labour Party should not forget that people are aspirational at heart. Mr Blair would have made fairly short work of Mr Cameron’s happiness index, as indeed he did when in office (witness this article published just a few months before he left office in June 2007).

Labour would do well to remember that when Mr Cameron took over the leadership of the Conservative Party he intended to make his party more diverse, more optimistic and greener. When, two years into his tenure, the recession changed the entire political landscape, Mr Cameron had to sacrifice much of his agenda to the economic determinism of George Osborne. As the economic gloom lifts, and it appears that it will do, Mr Cameron will be seeking to re-establish a political agenda that revolves around soft individualism, and, dare I say it, social mobility.

Those on the right of the Conservative Party will criticise the idea that government can increase happiness, suggesting that it does best by doing least. Data collected by government will be sporadic and inconclusive but would most likely represent that tightly-contested ground between individualism and government intervention that characterise aspiration in Britain. I suspect that the grievances of the British public will not be on the scale of the Tea Party or the cahiers of the Third Estate. Then again, as John Lennon found out, people can develop strange ideas about their own desires.

Rights Supremacy

How and why the Conservatives became a Party of Civil Liberties

‘I love liberty by taste, equality by instinct and reason.’ Alexis de Tocqueville to John Stuart Mill in 1836.

The Assault on Liberty by Dominic Raab (2009)

Since the Thatcher era, there have been two complete reversals in the politics of civil liberties. Under Tony Blair, Labour became a Party intolerant of anti-social behaviour, dedicated to making public services accountable through targets and perhaps overly cognisant of the claims of public safety with the advent of the War on Terror. Then, and ironically, given their perceived authoritarianism in the 1980s, the Conservatives became before the last General Election one of the parties most interested in civil liberties.

The change is striking, not least because the last time the Conservatives were in power, they faced many of the same challenges; terrorism (of the Irish variety), civil protest (Trade Union strife and Poll Tax riots, both admittedly more serious than protests against the Iraq War), and a strong line on law and order. Michael Howard was a key personality as Minister for Local Government, Secretary of State for Employment and finally Home Secretary under both Thatcher and Major. Yet it was under his leadership that the Conservatives finally found an adequate voice to condemn the government’s attitude to human rights, as the Human Rights Act 1998 came under consistent attack from the Daily Mail for its supposed lure to the criminal classes, successive Home Secretaries failed to cope with the problems of immigration and the left-wing press grew uneasy with Blair’s ‘better to fall doing the right thing’ attitude to pre-trial detention (November 2005) and ID Cards scheme earlier in the year.

Part of the reason for the Conservatives’ about-turn is that they have had the chance to consider the issues more deeply in opposition. Dominic Raab’s fairly complete survey of a decade’s worth of policy neatly summarises some of the thinking of the new Tory school. In particular, Mr Raab is an associate of David Davis who resigned as Shadow Home Secretary and fought a flat by-election on a civil libertarian agenda in 2008. Mr Raab’s strongest recommendation is that he is a lawyer by trade and he compiles a body of evidence and opinion, shrewdly (albeit perhaps somewhat myopically) portrayed to support his claims that Labour’s anti-terror legislation in particular has been of little benefit and great cost. Among this evidence is the fact that no evidence used in a criminal trial after the 7 July Bombings was acquired more than 21 days after arrests had been made and that new offences of withholding information and encryption details render the extended detention ineffective.

A good deal of the Conservative libertarian position is principled. Mr Raab argues that John Stuart Mill was right to argue for a pluralistic society, so that freedom of speech should not be restricted on the basis of spurious protests. He is also keen on economic freedoms, something Davis refers to in his short introduction to the book. More importantly, however, Mr Raab advances the argument that much of the new ‘surveillance state’ that Labour introduced through various databases has been relied upon too heavily by the police and has been exercised by local Councils without oversight.

Another part of the Conservatives’ shift is political. Although David Cameron’s calls in 2007 to scrap the Human Rights Act would not have formed part of any plan to attract Liberal Democrat supporters, there has been something of a convergence. The Conservatives were also trying to attract ethnic support for the first time. At the risk of my sounding cynical, Mr Raab argues sensibly that if we expect Muslim communities to be the first line of defence in the War on Terror, we ought at least to avoid tainting or alienating them by introducing laws which effect their liberties disproportionately.

The third reason for the new Conservative position on civil liberties is that they dislike the type of society Labour’s interpretation of Human Rights is producing. They agree with the Daily Mail view that the interpretation of European law through British Courts has made judges, Councils and other institutions risk-averse, unpredictable and unscrupulous, particularly without oversight. The apparent inability of the last government to deport criminals plays a major part in this critique, but so too do new claims on the welfare state in the form of targets and the broad interpretation of rights such as life.

Gordon Brown, the bête-noir of most Conservatives, intended to play his own cards on liberty, making speeches and writing pamphlets calling for a Bill of Rights and a ‘positive’ interpretation of liberty, influenced by Amartya Sen, and based on enhancing the development potential of the individual. However, none of this came to anything of significance and unkind voices whispered that Brown enjoyed his macho image upon assumption of the Premiership, when calling a COBRA meeting became a response to any eventuality.

Wooly Liberals or Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing?

David Davis and Dominic Raab do not necessarily feature in Cameron’s inner-circle. Mr Davis is persona non grata after his by-election campaign and the two clearly do not get along, while Mr Raab is finding his feet as one of the new influx of MPs. Nonetheless, his call for a Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act (rather than to stand alongside it like Brown’s) bears similarity to Cameron’s announcements of 2007 and 2007. Civil Liberties featured strongly in the Coalition Agreement, including an investigation into a Bill of Rights and ‘a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties and roll back state intrusion.’

Much of what Mr Raab has put up for debate in his well-written book is worthy of consideration. If, at times, it reads like a manifesto, that is because it is – the codification of Mr Davis’ campaign. The Coalition will not be able to act boldly on all of it, however, because the Liberal Democrats like many of the positive freedoms that Labour has introduced. Nick Clegg has already ruffled feathers by allegedly planning to allow those in prisons on election days the opportunity to vote (part-timers can vote if the ballot falls on one of their ‘off’ days).

The problem for David Cameron (or, more acutely, for Mr Clegg) is that the focus on rights appears to be part of a larger campaign against universality, and what is perceived as in left-leaning circles as fairness. Mr Raab does not go out of his way to avoid showing contempt for the use of the State as a tool for social mobility, even though he does not condemn it outright. Similarly, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) comes in for some abrupt words for suggesting that the well off can load the system in their favour. However, having argued that a broad interpretation of human rights reduces the ability of Ministers to decide on the size of the State, it seems to me that Mr Raab can only be arguing for a more laissez faire society and the allocation of treatments would be one of such a society’s greatest injustices.

In summary, it seems right that a Minister’s first instinct should be to question the need for new laws, and not to search desperately for initiatives. Some of the case studies are manifestly absurd, even though it is the purpose of the judiciary to avoid these pitfalls. The case for repeal of the Human Rights Act is not convincing, however. Perhaps a better alternative would be to improve the oversight of our contested civil liberties – not by some Big Brother figure, but by checks and balances. If the government were to make Council uses of databases, CCTV and ASBOs permissible only at the approval of Councillors, who would take the hit if embarrassment results, there might be fewer cases of children followed home to check that they really did live in a school’s catchment area.

Miliband of Brothers

The mood at the Labour Party Conference is said to be like a wake, with 49.35% of the delegates distraught and a chunk of the other 50.65% concerned that they may have elected the wrong brother. In contrast, today started off as a kind of retirement party, with most feeling that they were too cool to be there, but still prepared to listen kind-heartedly to elder statesmen Jack Straw and Alan Johnson (the latter showing what an eloquent, if unspectacular leader he might have been) before the new leader addressed the class of 2010.

The speech itself compensated for at least some of the speculation and criticism that has diminished the result but there is still an element of shock about Ed Miliband’s victory derived from the momentum of his campaign and the unpreparedness of David Miliband for defeat.

The Machinist

What Ed’s victory does show, for those who care to look, is an ability to position himself politically and the means to employ a formidable machine behind him. Ed learnt on the campaign trail – it seems to have been some time since his declaration speech in which civic empowerment, regulation of the banks and immigration featured strongly. Those themes recurred, up to and including his first leader’s speech, but the more important ones were criticism of the Iraq War, coming out for a living wage and the vehemence of his attack on ‘US-style capitalism’.

There was always an element of ‘stop David’ to Ed’s campaign – not that he necessarily instigated that mood, but he was ruthless enough to capitalise on it. David was discredited by being tied to the War on Terror after he refused to turn his back on the last government’s foreign policy, particularly the Iraq War. Ed sought desparately to nullify Ed Balls and Diane Abbot by stealing their natural constituency in the Trade Unions and did so. He then tacked rightwards in order to convince wavering party members and MPs that he was a credible, centrist candidate for the leadership. Ultimately, there are good reasons for arguing that six MPs swung it.

David, on the other hand, was content to eschew the machine politics that are intrinsic to a party as bureaucratic as Labour and always appeared to be concentrating on the next battle. Set-pieces such as the Keir Hardie lecture or the King Solomon speech (oh, yes) were on a different level to any other in the entire race, but focussed too intently on the next General Election and not on the leadership one. For someone who raised so much money, David seemed determined not to spend it.

What is interesting in these circumstances then, is not so much that Ed won the leadership, but that doing so brought him dangerously close to ruin in his first day as leader. Admittedly, the press resented the defeat of their choice (and The Sun and The Times feature prominently in their caricature of ‘Red Ed’), but a General Election can never be won by moving from the left to the centre ground. If the candidate is not discredited immediately, he appears opportunistic. Moving left from the centre ground is a slightly different matter, as David Miliband’s public profile has suggested. This dangerous label, the uninspiring victory speech and the ghost of his brother put Ed Miliband on the defensive and if he deflected some criticism on the Andrew Marr show, he still had a lot to do today.

The New Labour Playbook and Ed

It was therefore reassuring that Ed’s speech was politically and emotionally sophisticated, (even if it had to be squeezed into the Obama formula of life story, narrative, pragmatism, unity). He has been criticised for ditching the ‘New Labour Playbook,’ but in reality it was always going to be impossible to triangulate when your party is the sole alternative to a coalition that is broadly based.

David Cameron was the first to see that the latest divisions in politics were not between parties but within them and by supporting Blair’s education reforms in 2006 he drove the wedge deeper between Old and New Labour. Ed Miliband appeared to understand this, heaping praise on the old New Labour (contradiction?) positions on law and order and Alistair Darling’s reaction to the financial crisis.

On the one hand, Ed Miliband will find it easy to triangulate on the deficit reduction plan.  But on the other, he had to hug the coalition tight on civil liberties, law and order and welfare reform in order to convince the public that Labour are still the party of ‘hard-fought British liberties’. He did so successfully, for the most part, while also finding space to attack the government for offering defendants in rape trials anonymity and their peculiar attitude to CCTV (which, crucially, also showed that he could tell a joke as well as his brother).

There were also some bold strides either ahead of, or to the left of the coalition, depending on your view. The much-vaunted ‘living wage’ formed a centrepiece, and the EU Agency Directive and ‘good society’ also got mentions. The ‘good society’ may sound like a neat counterpart to David Cameron’s big society, but with Ed as with every other activist who likes that term, I wonder if they know what they mean by it, and worry that they do.

One thing that Ed Miliband is very keen on is equality (The Spirit Level is appearently outselling even Ralph Miliband tomes at Conference – no word on A Journey). In this, he ought to be careful. As Tony Blair puts it, Labour needs to ‘get’ (another Ed-ism) aspiration. Ed’s associates, notably Neil Kinnock and Roy Hattersley, see left of centre-majorities as low-hanging fruit and both the impending fiscal tightening and the referendum on Alternative Vote (which won Ed the leadership) will encourage this tendency. On the contrary, Labour will have to fight hard for its reputation and landing blows on the government is only half the battle. The Party is unlikely to have an easy road back to power and will have to challenge itself before the public finds it fit for purpose.

Ed’s Long Shadow

All of which brings us to the Shadow Cabinet. There are two scenarios which will hugely influence Ed’s freedom to choose his team, and David is not the major player. Instead, the key will be the performance of Ed Balls and whether he floats or flops. Balls got approximately eighty first or second preference votes from MPs, suggesting that he will top the poll (unless David stands). If there are any notable shifts in voting in Balls favour, this will strengthen his claim to have an anti-cuts majority in the party and therefore close in on the Shadow Chancellor’s position.

It is in Miliband’s interests to have Balls onside, but Yvette Cooper has an eye for detail that would make her a surer touch in a very unstable playing field. Miliband has also suggested that he would prefer an emollient Home Affairs spokesperson who ‘gets’ civil liberties. Balls is soundest when on the attack, and Health would therefore be a very suitable post for his talents, given that it is an area in which the government is divided (the Lansbury reforms). Getting him to take a portfolio other than the Shadow Chancellor will be the first challenge for Ed Miliband. The second will be stomaching a handful of Blairite ministers, preferably at Education and Welfare and Pensions.

Hague’s Assured Debut

William Hague must finally be relishing his ascent to the near-top of British politics, when all of a sudden, a crisis drops into his lap. The crisis off the Gaza Strip presents a considerable challenge to the new government, and Hague well knows it. Despite being something of a veteran in British politics, he is the most junior member at the table of the international community, and yet he is deterred from inaction by Britain’s history and relationship with Israel, to say nothing of the attitude of voters and the press to the situation.

“Mr Speaker, the events aboard the flotilla were very serious and have captured the world’s attention. However, they should not be viewed in isolation. They arise from the unacceptable and unsustainable situation in Gaza, which is a cause of public concern here in the UK and around the world.”

Hague’s statement in the Commons today was a highly competent one. It was informative – of both facts known to the Government but not in the public domain and the British response to the crisis. Plenty of factors are at play, but Hague met the foremost requirement – to provide information on the welfare of the British citizens involved – consummately. The rest of his statement was equally interesting.

Calm Seas

“Our goal is a process which ensures full accountability for the events which occurred and which commands the confidence of the international community, including international participation.”

An outright attack on Israel would be unthinkable and counter-productive. The circumstances that are currently known do not suggest that Israel was totally to blame, or unjustified in intercepting the flotilla, which makes the Government’s push for an inquiry the most practical response to the crisis.

Hague’s first priority, now that the British citizens involved are apparently out of danger, should be to calm matters. Certain elements of the Obama Administration popularised the aphorism ‘never waste a crisis,’ when discussing their immediate plans to deal with the American economy in 2009. In this situation, Foreign Ministers should be wary of overplaying their hand. The potential for War is never totally to be  written off when talking of Israel, and methinks Turkey doth protest too much (see 1625) in this instance;

“This action, totally contrary to the principles of international law, is inhumane state terrorism. Nobody should think we will keep quiet in the face of this.”

Turkey’s government, facing an election against a newly-selected secularist candidate soon, is keen to play up its Islamist credentials, and though it would appear to have nothing to gain from a war with Israel, the situation in Gaza could be inflamed and other parties – perhaps not States – brought into an armed conflict.

If Hague had discussed his statement with the Prime Minister – we must hope that he did, although one gets the impression that he enjoys Cameron’s implicit confidence – he will almost certainly have been encouraged to keep the domestic situation in mind. That does not mean solely the appeasement of the liberal media (and coalition partners), but Cameron’s One Nation Toryism will have advised that Britain’s Muslims could very easily be isolated socially and politically if Israel were to be given a whitewash.

One must also bear in mind that if there was to be a backlash from this, it may well come in the form of a terrorist campaign, and Britain is by no means immune from criticism of its role in relation to Palestine.

Britain’s Goal

Although it tries to regulate itself through international law, corporate bodies and rotating presidencies, the international community is a chaotic place, in which roles are very much up for grabs. It was therefore welcome to hear that Angela Merkel had been advocating that “everything must be done in this difficult situation to ensure that there is no escalation.”

Hague’s lack of relationships at the international level precludes this role, but his part, as with many others, has been to urge a resolution to the situation of the blockade, which he described as ‘an essential part of the viable Palestinian state that I hope will one day live alongside Israel in peace and security.’ Hague gave a good account of the harm that has been done to Israel by their own actions;

“As the once productive private sector has been decimated and ordinary Gazans have lost their jobs and their incomes, it is tunnel entrepreneurs and their Hamas backers who benefit.

“Hamas now has near total control of the economy. Other groups, even more radical and violent, are finding a place amid the misery and frustration felt by a generation of young people. In this context, current Israeli restrictions are counterproductive for Israel’s long term security.”

These moves have apparently been discussed with Hilary Clinton, and it will be important that the Americans voice their desire to see movement in the peace process, but the real mission is two-fold. If any movement is to be achieved, Israel will have to be a willing partner in it, which precludes any criticism or fundamental surrender of security that could foster a siege mentality. There should therefore be an internationally co-ordinated and observed plan to allow Israel to supervise aid coming into Gaza, as it enters in return for greater amounts of aid. Self-righteousness will not allay any concerns that Israel will have for the security of its citizens.

The second object of British policy should be to strengthen the moderate Palestinian elements that have been eclipsed in the stand-off between Israel and Gaza. Regrettably, there is no magic formula for reviving them, so the opportunity presented by criticism of Israel should also be used to attack Hamas where possible. It was welcome that Hague did so in his statement;

“The House should not forget the role played by Hamas in this conflict. They continue to pursue an ideology of violence and directly to undermine prospects for peace in the region.

“Violence has continued in recent days, with rocket fire from militants in Gaza and Israeli military incursions and air strikes in response. We call on Hamas to make immediate and concrete steps towards to the quartet principles – unconditionally to release Gilad Shalit, who has been held in captivity for four years, and end its interference with the operations of NGOs and UN agencies in Gaza.”

It is of fundamental importance that instead of putting paid to the last vestiges of hope that Israel will proffer some settlement acceptable to the Palestinians and the international community, this crisis should force those involved to take note of new developments and maintain contact in order to give impetus to the pursuit of that ultimate goal. Hague’s recognition of this means that his assured debut is to be welcomed.

Full text of Hague’s Statement to the House of Commons

A Liberal Moment

It is a little over two years since Nick Clegg referred to the Liberal Democrats as ‘very much a national party,’ the only opposition to Labour in the North, and the Conservatives in the South. Now, the Liberal Democrats are in power for the first time, and Clegg holds the office of Deputy Prime Minister, albeit in a state of affairs described by William Hague as the best of their ideas (and people), and the bulk of the Conservatives’. And yet, there is little disguising the extraordinary way in which the Lib Dems have been incorporated into Conservative plans. Although there have undoubtedly been compromises on both sides, the negotiations of these past four days have struck everyone by their seriousness and affability.

The Coalescing of the Parties

Only the most die-hard activist (on either side) would deny that the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have had much more in common in recent years. In the early years of the now historical Labour government, the Conservatives went right under William Hague, Ian Duncan Smith and Michael Howard, focussing on immigration and cession of powers to Europe, while Charles Kennedy (after Paddy Ashdown had taken the Party closer than it wanted to be to the Labour Party), gave the impression that the Liberal Democrats were the party of the Left with his opposition to Iraq and to Top-Up Fees.

Since then modernisers have risen on both sides and moderators to both leaderships. The Liberal Democrats, intellectually driven by David Laws and the Orange Book Liberals, began the acceptance of the Blairite line on public services – reform led by markets. The Conservative intellectual revival was driven by the young Notting Hill set, but particularly by Michael Gove, the one-time biographer of Michael Portillo and proponent of Burkean Toryism.

The recession has also had a significant impact on both sides. For Cameron, it necessitated the return of Ken Clarke to the Shadow Cabinet and let loose George Osborne’s tax-cutting instincts. The Liberal Democrats had adopted a policy of tax cuts for low-earners and saw the logic of becoming more critical of Gordon Brown’s efforts to prop-up the economy through state-action. Nonetheless, the oracular Vince Cable’s tendency to criticise the Conservatives as much as Labour, their position on Trident and Chris Huhne’s previous advocacy of green taxes maintained the impression that they were a party of the centre left.

Cameron’s Clause IV

That all changed with the General Election of last Thursday. Clegg had said during the campaign that he felt that the winner of the ‘largest mandate’ deserved the first opportunity to form of government in the case of a hung Parliament and that he would find it difficult to work with Brown (who, by Andrew Rawnsley’s account had been particularly patronising to his opposites during the expenses crisis). Accordingly, and despite a disappointing net loss of seats in the aftermath of the election, Liberal Democrat negotiators (Clegg’s Chief of Staff, Danny Alexander, David Laws and Chris Huhne), met with Hague, Osborne and Oliver Letwin to discuss areas they could co-operate on.

It is hard to conclude other than that both leaders were immediately in favour of a coalition, surprising a result though that is. For the Liberal Democrats, it would offer the best chance of their policies being implemented and an opportunity to present themselves creditably to the electorate as a party of government. Cameron arguably had less to gain, and could have opted for a confidence agreement, whereby the Liberal Democrats would back the Conservatives on key votes. That would not, however, have offered the stability that Cameron craved to make a successful fist of reforming the economy and public services.

Even so, Cameron has given a lot of ground. The Liberal Democrats bring with them commitments to tax cuts for middle-earners, increased spending on schools and civil liberties. Admittedly, there are those in the Conservative Party who agree, but those belong largely to the modernising vanguard. Cameron has also sacrificed Chris Grayling for his recent inability to stand up for gay rights, but the most significant concessions involve political reform. Cameron has locked himself and his party into the deal for five years and has promised to deliver a referendum on the Alternate Vote System (although he will campaign for a ‘no’). There is even the suggestion that Proportional Representation will be introduced for the House of Lords.

This constitutional radicalism has earned Cameron comparisons to Disraeli, the Conservative statesman who trumped the Liberals by expanding the franchise further and faster than Gladstone. Cameron will certainly be thinking that the strong share of the vote that the Conservatives have traditionally had in the twentieth century can give them the edge in a more proportional system, and he must be calculating that an alliance between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats is a more natural beast than between Labour and the Lib Dems.

It is difficult to say what kind of ideology motivates Cameron. Indeed, he has always given the impression of being a pragmatist – as The Economist approvingly noticed last week. Notably, it was for Clegg to speak at their joint press conference of ‘a radical, reforming government,’ but his affirmation of a common purpose was striking;

This is a government that will last because despite those differences, we are united by a common purpose for the job we want to do in the next five years.

Our ambition is simple and yet profound. Our ambition is to put real power and opportunity into the hands of people, families, and communities to change their lives and our country for the better.

For me, that is what liberalism is all about: ensuring that everyone has the chance, no matter who they are and where they are from, to be the person they want to be. To live the life they want to live.

You can call it fairness. You can call it responsibility. You can call it liberalism. Whatever words you use the change it will make to your life is the same.

(The Guardian bitterly suggested that you might call it wishful thinking).

For Cameron, the government was predictably more about business. His paean to strong government might have come from Hague’s biography of Pitt the Younger, but he also talked of a ‘historic new direction…of hope and unity, conviction and common purpose.’ Cameron has purported to be a One Nation Tory and his government will be measured as much against its social impact as its economic orthodoxy.

For this reason, another significant part of the agreement is ‘the radical devolution of power and greater financial autonomy to local government and community groups.’ This will need to be made accountable and to be properly funded. Margaret Thatcher’s total opposition to local government was at the root of her poll tax and therefore her downfall, but the rumours of a greatly enhanced Office of the Mayor of London and Scottish Parliament promise a more Chamberlainite future.

Will it Last?

Matthew Paris’ sunny dispositon (“I ought to be cynical, I ought to be saying it’s all going to end in tears, but I just sense something good and genuine in the air and it just might work. You almost have a sense of two men staging a coup against the British political system,”) seems typical of the mood at the moment. The two parties have not merged, however, and nor have we necessarily seen a permanent rupture in the British political system. This is a finely negotiated programme for government, as much as a statement of ideals.

Any one of a number of crises or changes in the weather could make this coalition unsustainable. Among the front-running contenders would be a movement for further integration in Europe, war in the Balkans or a breakpoint with Iran. More serious still, perhaps, would be a fall in the standard of living through some further recession or greater unemployment. As a general rule, governments tend to be more unified when they have money to spend, and this Parliament will see little of that. However, Cameron has been smart to ask a Liberal Democrat to be his executioner in the Comprehensive Spending Review.

Political factions will also have a role. Labour lost the election because the feel-good feeling had left them and their rearguard in favour of a ‘Future Fair For All’ seemed hopeless. A rejuvenated party could help to suppress dissent within the coalition, but it could also start to tempt Liberal Democrats away from their current partners. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats claimed that their negotiations collapsed on the basis of ‘deliverability,’ although it looks more like Clegg was forced to make overtures when his party expressed doubts about the Conservative offer on Monday evening. Then again, the Labour and Conservative reactions (David Blunkett likened them to ‘every harlot in history’ and Sir Malcolm Rifkind expressed a sense of betrayal occasioned by Brown’s game-changing resignation) will likely dissuade a precipitate withdrawal.

Then there are Cameron’s back-benchers, and indeed certain of the old-guard within his Cabinet. Ian Duncan Smith’s Work and Pensions brief will pander to Tory (lack of) sympathies to unemployment and William Hague is a noted Eurosceptic and realist in foreign affairs. Some activists have been critical of a lacklustre campaign, which they felt should have been won outright and would have been with good old Conservative values, and plenty of leadership rivals (David Davis and Liam Fox) lurk on the right wing of the party.

Ultimately, ideology is a luxury for any government and despite the fixed term, the fortunes of the coalition, the Prime Minister and his Deputy depend on the perceived likelihood of an electoral success for either party. If things are going badly, the Conservatives will want to shift right, and the Liberal Democrats will want to disinvest themselves of responsibility. This government’s ambition to devolve power will depend on whether people are willing to get involved, and whether public services will improve, but an age of prosperity will certainly not harm its chances.