|
|
Last night David Miliband the former environment secretary, and current foreign secretary spoke along with Emily Thornberry MP and Andrew Pakes, chair of SERA, in a joint Progress-SERA event chaired by Rachel Reeves on the Progressive road to Copenhagen.
David Miliband started by saying that the proposed deal at Copenhagen needed to be ambitious, fair and most importantly effective. He claimed this deal could only be made by progressives. He admitted that a deal at Copenhagen would be difficult to achieve but he was in high hopes that a deal would be struck.
The foreign secretary said that although the Conservatives now appear to accept the issue of climate change and that extreme action is needed to avert disaster, it was the progressive left who were best equipped to deal with the issue.
The ex environment secretary stated that he believed that there were five reasons why the issue of climate change was a progressive issue rather than a Conservative issue:
1. Climate change requires a radical progressive solution
2. There needs to be a radical progressive shift from high carbon to low carbon.
3. In order to stop climate change we need to control the markets, something which Conservatives are ideologically opposed to.
4. Climate change is not only an environmental issue it impacts over a wide range of areas, financial, institutional and most importantly on social justice. As climate change occurs the worst hit are the poorest nations and to help combat this we need a community approach not individualist approaches as conservative ideology implies.
5. It is an international and European issue not a domestic issue.
He also stated that the Labour party and Britain should defend its record on climate change with zeal. Britain is one of the only countries to exceed our Kyoto targets, and one of the only countries to promise to reduce our CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050. He claimed that Britain had led the way on issues of climate change, through the backing of the European emissions trading scheme, and tprogrammes like warmer homes.
The foreign secretary ended by saying that the west must take the majority of the burden as we are in the position to do so, and that, in order to combat climate change, business, the public and government must work together.
When asked about the likelihood of a deal being reached, he said he and the rest of the cabinet were hopeful that a political agreement would be reached that could later be transposed into a treaty that all parties can sign up to.
One of the key areas of David Miliband's speech was that in order to effectively combat the effects of climate change there is a need for public cooperation. In the question and answer session the foreign secretary stated that he did not believe there was enough public urgency on this matter, but that it was the governments role to show leadership on this issue and provide the public with a sense of agency. Finally he said that it was vital that this issue had public staying power.
Yesterday, Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister and Scottish National Party leader announced is his parties legislative programme for this parliamentary session. The centrepiece of the programme was the SNP’s white paper on Scotland’s constitutional future. Alex Salmond said that although the people might not share his parties view for Scotland’s future, the SNP had been elected with a popular mandate to ask the question of Scottish independence and they must let the people speak, in his speech to the Scottish Parliament.
In his announcement the Scottish First Minister said that he believed that there was a consensus for change on the issue of Scotland’s constitutional future, a belief that is seemingly not shared by his opposition colleagues. The white paper announced has risen out of the SNP’s national conversation on the issue of Scotland’s constitutional future, and will canvass four possible options for the constitutional evolution of Scotland:
1. The Status Quo
2. The Calman Commissions recommendations – this would see minor changes to devolution and possible tax powers given to the Scottish parliament.
3. Devolution Max - The Devolution Max option would devolve almost all powers to the Scottish Parliament giving them almost complete financial autonomy, except Scotland would still rely on the union for defense and foreign policy.
4. Full independence
The final option is obviously Scotland’s first minister’s favoured option.
However Alex Salmond's proposals have been met with opposition from the majority of the opposition parties. Both Labour and the Lib Dems have condemned the announcement as irresponsible, stating that the SNP should be focussing on securing the economy and peoples jobs rather than raising the distraction of independence.
The government has brought forward potential legislation to undermine the referendum argument in the form of the new Scotland bill, which will set out a number of powers that they wish to see devolved from Westminster to Holyrood. The bill is to be published after the general election, as part of its response to the Calman commissions review on devolution. Under the governments proposals Westminster would devolve more tax varying powers to the Scottish parliament, at present the Scottish parliament is able to vary the standard rate of income tax by up to 3p. However under the new proposals Holyrood would also have control over stamp duty, aggregate levy, and landfill taxes. The parliament would also be given powers of on capital borrowing, giving Scotland greater financial autonomy. Scottish secretary, Jim Murphy said in his speech to the commons ‘Since the first day of devolution, the Scottish government has been accountable for how it spends taxpayers' money, under today's proposals, they will also be held to account for how they raise it.’ As part of the bill new powers would also be given to the Scottish parliament, such as powers to change Scotland drink drive limit and Scotland’s speed limits, powers which at present are orchestrated from Westminster.
The tactics seem to be working, a recent Ipsos MORI poll showed that although 75% would like to see a referendum on independence, only 25% would like to have one put to them at the earliest possible opportunity, while 50% believe that it is not a priority at this time. What’s more the same poll showed that only 20% wish to see Scotland independent from the union, 32% wanted to retain the status quo, and 48% wish to remain part of the union but with increased powers like those set out in the Calman commission report.
Why is Alex Salmond pushing this referendum? Well the window of opportunity is closing fast, as the Scottish elections of 2011 come on to the horizon 2010 may be Alex Salmond’s last chance to put this question to the public before the SNP are once again banished to the political wilderness.
Yesterday saw the latest lecture in Progress’ lecture series ‘New thinking for Britain’s next decade’ given by Rt Hon John Healey MP, minister of state for housing and planning.
John Healey stated that in order to see our way forward we must first look at our present position. He went on to say that the Labour party is in a difficult position to go on to a fourth term, saying that being in your third term puts the government in a difficult place having been in government just long enough so that all the mistakes made are remembered, but not long enough for all the benefits to be shown. He also stated that the media cycle was against the party, claiming that many media sources have already decided the outcome in their own minds and written off the Labour party, in his view too early. However he argued that whilst the odds are against us, Labour has won against the odds before. John Healey also believes that the ideological cycle is with us, citing a recent Times poll stating that two-thirds of people do not believe the Tories have really changed.
The housing minister spoke of how the Labour party has always and will always be the party of Britain’s low earners and will continue to be that party. However, we cannot just be that party. John Healey stated that the party must reiterate our commitment to middle Britain. The former local government minister stated that in recent years the media has focused on the metropolitan middle class, those with a combined income of £88,000+, and that we should not be fooled by this. We should focus on the real middle Britain - the 7 million median earners in the UK as they were the ones who have been truly affected by the recession - those who have an annual income of less than £19,000 pa and those with a combined household income of less than £25,000.
For the full speech click here.
John Healey in response to a question on what the Labour government could do to alleviate spiraling house prices, said the answer was simple - we need to build more homes, and more affordable homes. He explained that in 2007 there were over 107,000 new homes built in Britain in conjunction with private contractors and land developers and that the government needs to continue to work with the private industry to build more affordable homes. He believes that this is the way in which the government can help in alleviating spiraling house prices and therefore allow more of median Britain to get their foot on the ladder. To do this he said we must not be afraid of using public money to assist in building.
Private renting is something which is becoming more and more common in Britain, and the housing minister talked in his speech about making this a more attractive option. The housing minister explained that the government will be introducing more legislation to improve the rights of tenants, as well as introducing the respect kite mark standard which increases the standards for landlords and increases the rights of landlords on dealing with antisocial behavior of their tenants. John Healey also stated that the government is very keen on improving the standards of private rented accommodation and the rights of tenants.
In summary John Healey’s speech focused on the fact that in order for Labour to exceed the expectations of the media and to defeat this underdog status that the Labour party has been awarded in recent times the party needs to show its commitment not to middle Britain but to median Britain, and use this ideological cycle to our advantage.
Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, yesterday writing for the Independent called for the Queen’s speech to be scrapped in favor of a programme of wide ranging political reform. Nick Clegg claimed that the Queen’s speech will be a work of fiction as Gordon Brown will only have 70 days to implement the legislation set out in the speech, and therefore would be little more than a road test of Labour’s next election manifesto and policy gimmicks to see whether they may save the governments skin.
The Lib Dem leader claimed that in the wake of the expenses scandal this parliament has lost its legitimacy, and therefore the only job that this ‘rump parliament’ is good for is the reformation of parliament. In his article for the Independent the Liberal Democrat leader suggested that parliament should focus their efforts on agreeing on an action plan to reform parliament in the few months until MPs leave for the election battle. The Lib Dem leader suggested a series of steps towards the reform of parliament. The first step in the Liberal Democrat leaders plan is for parliament to approve proposals to be set out by the public administration committee which would curb the powers of the commons whips and increase the autonomy and influence of the backbench MP’s. Nick Clegg also suggested moves to introduce fixed-term parliaments, agree a code of conduct for election candidates, sack corrupt MPs, make the House of Lords fully-elected and reform the Commons voting system. Nick Clegg stated that the one gift this failed parliament can give its successor is a fresh start.
The truth is that although Clegg may be right about the need for parliamentary reform he is way off the mark on two counts:
One: the Queen’s speech serves more of a purpose than merely announcing the legislative programme of the government for the next term of parliament. The monarch’s speech at the state opening of parliament is a tradition that has been in place for over 500 years, it is after all her government. If the speech were to be cancelled especially at this late stage it would not only be done at huge cost to the British tax payer as all of the security procedures will already be in place for the Queen’s journey from Buckingham palace to parliament. But the cancellation of the speech would also signal a much more significant constitutional change. If the government were to stop the Queen’s speech then it would be the prime minister effectively overruling the head of state, effectively in one action removing the presumed authority in the crown. This action in itself would symbolize a major shift in British constitutional politics.
Two: his argument that the Queen's speech will be a complete waste of time and would be little more than a road test of the Labour party manifesto can be said of any Queen’s speech near the end of a parliament, both Labour and Tory. Harriet Harman rejecting this claim stated that this Queen’s speech would contain important plans to foster economic growth and make the banks more accountable.
The call by Nick Clegg is quite simply a blatant example of pointless politicking, the kind of which the British public has come to detest. I suggest that the Lib Dem leader gets off his high horse and takes a look around. This Labour government has introduced and passed legislation, which became an act of parliament in the summer, which will make sure that MPs no longer set our allowance system. And Gordon Brown announced his plan to have a referendum on electoral reform after the next general election.
Yes there does need to be reform in politics, but significant steps have already been taken, and Nick Clegg’s announcement seems to be playing politics in an area that needs unity and coherent action.
Jacob Lister
Cameron just can't win with the die-hards in his party. He tells them that he'll bring in a 'Sovereignty Bill' (without explaining just how this will overturn two decades of European law taking sovereignty since the 1989 Factortame case), but the Europe haters still aren't satisfied!
Another press release from the spluttering Bruges Group:
"Barry Legg, Co-Chairman of the Bruges Group and former Chief Executive of the Conservative Party, issued the following statement in response to David Cameron’s post-Lisbon press conference:
“David Cameron has said ‘never again!’ will now be the hallmark of his European policy. Anyone listening to his press conference can only conclude that it’s ‘yet again’.
“Yet again a British politician has broken his promises on Europe. Yet again a would-be Prime Minister has promised us that if we elect him, everything is going to be different. And yet again, not one plausible detail is offered as to why.
“Having failed to deliver on his promise to oppose Lisbon in office, David Cameron now promises to oppose future treaties transferring power. The whole point of Lisbon is that it does away with such treaties in future. Does David Cameron really not understand this, or is he again trying to play games with words?
“If we take seriously what David Cameron now pledges, he says he means to equip Britain with the same defences against European federalism those two famed bulwarks against European integration, the German and Irish governments, are content with. Even if he actually passed into law a United Kingdom Sovereignty Act, the very fact that such a bill would already be complaint with existing European law proves that it would do nothing to improve Britain’s relationship with the EU.
“David Cameron very foolishly lectures us on ‘trust’. He says that ‘what people want from their politicians is some straight talk and plain speaking’. Yet what has David Cameron done? Far from setting out plainly before the British people what he would do in the event of Czech ratification of Lisbon, he steadfastly refused to. No matter how humiliating the empty formula of just wait and see became for Tory spokesmen bumbling in front of reporters, David Cameron wouldn’t let William Hague or anyone else admit what Tory policy would be once President Klaus was forced to give way. We can now all see why.
“Worse still, David Cameron refuses to say how he’ll able to convince every single other EU state to agree to hand back powers to Britain. He refuses to say what he’ll do if they don’t. He refuses to say what timescale he is working to. He refuses to say what he expects to give up in negotiations. Or does he take us for fools? Does he seriously expect us to believe, in defiance of every single precedent, we’ll get everything we want and won’t have to give up anything? Even Margaret Thatcher couldn’t do that. And David Cameron is no Margaret Thatcher.
“Never mind the prospect of grassroots Tory resentment of David Cameron breaking his word risking ‘five more years of Brown’. With Prime Minister Cameron, we can be quite resigned to ‘thirty more years of the same’ as far as the EU is concerned. With his contemptuous surrender, David Cameron has provided Brussels with the icing on the Lisbon cake. They have nothing to fear from this man and they know it”. As the French right-wing turn on the Tories labelling them 'pathetic', you wonder exactly who does support Cameron's European policy?
On Monday Rt Hon Ben Bradshaw MP, Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport, was the fifth speaker in Progresses New Thinking for Britain's Next Decade Lecture series.
Bradshaw’s speech ‘Don’t risk loosing Cool Britannia’ issued a warning that the cultural and sporting renaissance enjoyed under Labour would be put at risk under a Tory government. He explained that under previous Tory administrations that access to cultural and sporting facilities were the preserve of the rich and there was no interest on the part of a Tory government to continue with the investment, and the ‘at arms length’ policy that this government has operated which has allowed culture to flourish and Britain’s present sporting success. He stated that we need access to achieve excellence, access that the Labour government has provided, and access that a Tory government would not allow.
During the question and answer session the culture secretary set out his views on the future of funding for the BBC and regional programming on commercial channels, as well as his views on the Tory proposals on the licence fee the media regulator Ofcom, and Boris Johnson’s proposed appointment to the London Arts Council.
Should the BBC be involved in rating wars? – The former BBC journalist said that the problem is that the BBC like any media institution needs to compete for viewers. However he stated that this should not be done to the determent of quality of programming. Commenting on the proposal by Greg Dyke to scrap the licence fee and replace it with a BBC tax, Bradshaw says that this would blur the lines of perception of independence of the BBC, which is imperative. He also stated that the licence fee served to protect the BBC from politics, and to a certain extent politicians from themselves. He said that now mid way through a licence fee term is not the time to look at the restructuring of the BBC’s system of governance, as it is irresponsible to do so due to the speed at which the media changes. We should look at it when the charter is up for re negotiation so that a proper and informed debate can happen, with the downturn in advertising revenue he said could not out rule the possibility of establishing Public Service Broadcasting Trust.
Regarding Boris Johnson recent attempt to appoint as chair of the London Arts Council Veronica Wadley, the former editor of the Evening Standard, the culture secretary assured the audience that he had blocked the appointment. Bradshaw stated that Boris Johnson had asked him to re advertise the job as it would be entirely improper and in clear violation of the Nolan rules.
What are the biggest threats to Britain Cultural renaissance? – Bradshaw said that he believed one of the biggest threats to this cultural and sporting renaissance that we are experiencing is the Tory threats to Of Com, which he points out, are very confused. David Cameron said that he wished to scrap the regulator, where as Jeremy Hunt said that the Tories did not wish to completely scrap the regulator merely cut it down. The culture secretary warned that any steps to reduce the regulator would be detrimental; Ofcom is seen as a model regulator for the digital age throughout the world. Another key threat to this cultural renaissance is the Tories presumed policy of axing the governments ‘at arms length’ policy when dealing with media and cultural aspects.
Bradshaw ended the question and answer session by re iterating the main theme of his speech that we cannot allow the Tories to come back and destroy everything this government has done to promote culture media and sport.
Blair-bashing is in full spate again, initially triggered by the setting up of the Iraq inquiry but more recently by Tony Blair’s possible bid for the EU Presidency. Anti-war columnists have resumed dipping their pens into that special phial of vitriol reserved for our former leader and no utterance on these topics can be made without a torrent of abusive comments about the man following in its wake. The intensity and persistence of the loathing is almost pathological with repeated calls being made for Blair to be hung at the Hague, tortured, assassinated, or consigned to Hell. As is the way with the deranged, the commentors (mainly at the Guardian’s Cif site) do not seem to get bored with saying the same things over and over again.. . It now looks like this hate campaign (orchestrated largely in this country) has frightened off some of Blair’s friends in Europe and with the Iraq inquiry due to start in earnest towards the end of this month the Blair-bashers will soon be turning their attention to it again to land the fatal blow against Blair’s political career. Every piece of evidence submitted will be carefully scrutinised for anything that can prove Blair was wrong. . Every scrap of damaging material will be inflated and, dare I say, sexed-up to fit their “Get Blair” agenda. Newspapers, broadcasting channels, and bloggers will be competing with each other to discover the “smoking gun” that will finally ruin Blair’s reputation. And there will be no question of waiting for the Inquiry’s verdict before they deliver their verdict. It was this scenario that prompted a group of fair-minded people to set up an online petition with the catchy title, BAN BLAIR-BAITING. As it says in the preamble “Bear-baiting, whereby a tethered bear was attacked by a pack of dogs, was outlawed in this country in 1835. It is now time to stop BLAIR-baiting, i.e. attacks on our former Prime Minister by the dogs of anti-war. Less metaphorically it can be defined as the constant incitement of hatred against Tony Blair for taking us to war in Iraq.” The preamble then points out that many people are already calling for the inquiry to be a trial of Tony Blair’s so called war crimes “except that unlike a normal trial Tony Blair has been presumed to be guilty in advance” and suggests that those who take this view should follow the same rules as a trial and stay silent until the outcome of “the trial” is known. The petition itself reads as follows “We, the undersigned agree that Blair-baiting should NOT be allowed to prejudice the outcome of the Iraq war inquiry. We therefore call upon the media and other interested parties to refrain from such activity for the duration of the inquiry.” It has already attracted the signatures of John Rentoul (who has also blogged on it for the Independent), Oliver Kamm, Tom Harris MP and Sedgefield’s Paul Trippett and John Burtonl. It has also been signed by people from all over the world. Some of their associated comments have been quite moving. Here’s a couple from Iraq “When Saddam’s people came to our village a nightmare became reality. Today ,my country is a changed place. But please do not leave us to the mercy of the suicide bombers. They are not true Iraqis or true Muslims. We are not ready for you to go yet. Not yet.” “I am and my family are deeply grateful for the salvation from Saddam’s terror by Mr.Blair. I don’t understand why so many people attack him.He only wanted to help .He did not tell lies. Saddam’s regime was as terrific(horrfic??) as explained by Mr. Blair. It is easy for people living in the West to criticise. They don’t have to live here and don’t get killed by terrorists.” from Afghanistan “Our enemy is not Tony Blair but the Taleban” From Bulgaria “Mr Blair you are a true leader. You have stepped forth when all others have stepped back.” from the USA “No witchhunt!” from Uganda “Why are all eyes on Tony’s failures and no eyes on his achievements all over the world?” from Ireland “He should not be at the Hague but at Stockholm receiving the Nobel Prize for what he achieved in Northern Ireland” from Iran “I wish he was still in power and could help MY country. It is good to know that not all Western leaders are looking away but that some take actions. Be proud of your former PM, Brits” If you agree that whatever the perceived faults of our former Prime Minister, Blair-baiting should play no part in the coverage of the Iraq inquiry then I urge you to stand up and be counted by signing the petition. Should you be worried about possible “repercussions” please bear in mind that you can sign anonymously and that your email address will not be shown.
Stan Rosenthal is a member of Progress
So the Tories have got themselves in a tizz
about Europe once again. They want to re-negotiate Britain's membership of the
EU and Cameron will put that in his manifesto. Of course, when he says
re-negotiate we instantly assume he means with other European leaders. But no,
he actually means with Sun Editor, Dominic Mohan, the former Editor of the
paper's bizarre column. Precisely.
Of course, they are going to keep all this
bottled up. There's an electorate to be hoodwinked and an election to be won
don't you know. Tim Montgomerie, Editor of ConservativeHome, tries to ride both
horses- loyalty and euroscpeticism. It will work for a few months but will
explode in David Cameron's face should he win next May.
I would love to be a fly on the wall in
Paris, Berlin, and Madrid when the first attempt to re-negotiate the Treaties
is made. David Cameron may well be prepared for a hostile reaction. I'm sure
Margaret Thatcher's 'give us our money back' rhetoric could be resuscitated. He
could conveniently forget that two years after Fontainebleau, Mrs Thatcher
signed the Single European Act, the biggest single expansion of European power
since the Treaty of Rome. Maybe he could be honest and call his rallying cry:
'give me my party back.' But he'll be disappointed. He won't be met with
hostility. He'll be met with ridicule.
Maybe once they've wiped the tears of
laughter away, they will decide to get all pragmatic. Sure, you can have those
social and employment rights opt outs- things like maternity leave, guaranteed
holidays, rights for agency workers (which also protects non-agency worker from
having their terms competed away)- but there's a price. Um, we'll have that
£3billion rebate for a start. You want to reform CAP? Silly boy. I hope you
don't mind Mr Cameron, but we've put you with Iceland and Slovenia for the
dinner. Don't worry your table gets jelly and ice cream rather than grown-ups'
puddings. You just love jelly and ice cream, don't you?
(As an aside, what happens if David Cameron
does succeed in a re-negotiation? Would that not be a Treaty change? So would
he not be bound to have a referendum in accordance with his own promise? And
what if he then lost that referendum? Just a thought....)
Jessica Asato makes the important point that
Labour shouldn't just carp from the sidelines and revel in the Tories
repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot for no purpose. We should 'make the
case.' But what is that case?
Well, it's about national sovereignty actually.
The EU, far from being a dilution of national sovereignty, is a reclaiming of
national sovereignty. In a world of large regional powers, with open commerce,
movement of people, global communications, and large-scale cross-border
environmental damage, there is little use in defending formal sovereignty.
Instead, you have to find ways of cooperating with like-minded nations to
confront these challenges. That is a reclaim of de facto sovereignty- you have
a greater say over the future of your people.
What is the consequence of this? We can
better manage and grow our economy, fight crime and terrorism, manage our
borders, reduce climate change, protect the rights of our workers, influence
global affairs and confront the multiplicity of risks that modern nations face.
Is Europe perfect? No, and we have to be
clear about that. We have to support the EU but also articulate a strong case
for reform. It is woefully undemocratic. What say do we have over the
appointment of the new president of the Council? Or the next president of the
Commission? Or the Commission itself? We can only influence these appointments
through the European Parliament and so there is little public debate. There is
a severe deficit of transparency- what actually happens in Council meetings?
The continuation of the CAP in its expansive form is a disgrace and completely
unjustified.
None of this can change without enjoying a
degree of influence. None of these things are costs that outweigh the benefits
but nor are they insignificant. But our influence over our own affairs and our
global influence (just listen to the noises coming out of Washington) depends
on being a strong member of the EU. Any movement towards the periphery away
from the core is detrimental to our national interest and our sovereignty.
Ultimately, that is the cost of a
Conservative government. David Cameron has already placed himself on the very
periphery of the EU- through his rhetoric; his clubbing together with a rag-bag
of anti-semites, homophobes, and climate change deniers in the European Parliament,
sticking two fingers up to President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel in the
meantime; and with his determination to suck Europe back into an institutional
wrangle. That is not in Britain's self-interest. That is not statesmanship.
This article was originally published on Anthony Painter's blog.
Cameron may have tried to emulate New Labour's strategy of winning back power by moving the party to the centre ground, but he failed to realise that New Labour's success was never simply down to improving PR but about making a real shift from the grassroots up to a new policy settlement. Labour's decision to rewrite Clause IV with its commitment to common ownership of the means of production represented a decisive break with anachronisms in its past. Cameron has tried to do this to a very limited extent - talking more openly about poverty, trying to build up some green credentials, accepting the minimum wage and SureStart. But he's never taken on the one issue which looks set to cause him migraines in the next six months, and if he were to win power, would become a dominating issue of his premiership which is the Tory position on Europe. This morning Tim Montgomerie does somersaults to justify Cameron's u-turn on his pledge for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Now as Cameron gets closer to power it is quite clear that they can see the trouble a referendum would cause if they were to win in May next year. Montgomerie quotes a CCHQ adviser saying: "The unions and our political opponents would urge voters to use the
referendum to kick the Tory government in the teeth. A manifesto
mandate is safer, cleaner, less distracting." Quite a long way from Cameron's referendum pledge in the Sun :
"there's nothing "new" about breaking your promises to the British public... And it is the cancer that is eating away at trust in politics. Small wonder
that so many people don't believe a word politicians ever say if they break
their promises so casually."
While it was clear that a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was unnecessary, Cameron cannot be left unchallenged on this huge shift in policy.One cannot help but see this as a move purely in the interests of the Conservative Party and not the general public. Trust is obviously not so important to Cameron the more he scents success. But while Montgomerie's acceptance of Cameron's backtracking might at one glance look like a softening of Tory views on Europe, it actually reflects the fact that Tory Eurosceptics can see that a 'manifesto mandate' would give them license to renegotiate the whole of Britain's membership of the EU, rather than just Lisbon. Montgomerie is quite clear on this:
"If Britain's relationship with the EU is fundamentally the same after
five years of Conservative government the internal divisions that ended
the last Tory period in government will look like a tea party in
comparison." Tough talk indeed which is backed up by a press release from the Bruges Group, an odd little outfit set up in 1989 in homage to Thatcher's Bruges speech in 1988. They obviously aren't prepared to entertain the idea of somersaults over the referendum pledge: "David Cameron needs to come clean with the British people: why is he breaking
his pledge to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty?
“There was
absolutely no wriggle room in the unambiguous pledge he made in September 2007.
He offered a “cast iron guarantee” to put any treaty in front of the voters. Why
has he changed his mind now? What has changed his mind now?
“It cannot be
good enough for a man who wants to be British Prime Minister to hide behind the
leader of any other European state. Václav Klaus is a hero in his own country
for having stood up to Communism. David Cameron seemingly can’t even stand up
for his own past promises.
“What is the point in David Cameron upending
one pledge on Europe , but promising he’ll offer us yet more European promises
in his general election manifesto? Why will they be any more credible than the
‘cast-iron guarantee’ he has just broken?
“How can David Cameron claim
he’ll fight to repatriate powers from Brussels when he won’t even fight to
implement his own past words?The press release ends: "The Tory leader stands condemned by his own words.
“David Cameron’s
future European policy is now incoherent, disingenuous and utterly unconvincing.
This is a dark day for the Tory party, but a worse one for Britain .”Labour supporters might feel content to sit back and watch this one play out - there's nothing we like more than to see the Tories split on Europe. But one of the reasons why the Eurosceptics are having a field day is because of our own ambiguity in our support for Europe. This year's European election was a case in point with all of our literature crudely emblazoned with the British flag trying to get the public to engage in double-think. We should support Europe and make it clear to the public why we do. Sure it's an unpopular position, but it's the right one for progressives and we'd do a lot better to square up to our Eurosceptic foes and start doing battle. Sitting on a comfy sofa in opposition watching the Tories take chunks out of each other would be pure indulgence when our international reputation would be in tatters and our country would be worse off as a result of withdrawal from key aspects of the EU. Taking a cue from the Bruges Group - these may seem like dark days for the Labour Party, but even darker ones await Britain if we fail to make the case for Europe in the next six months.
It’s quite clear that the, very necessary, storm over the Conservative Party’s association with Michal Kaminski, is not going to blow over anytime soon. The right-wing blogosphere must still be smarting from the trouble caused during Tory Party Conference by a letter sent by the Board of Deputies which sought assurances over Cameron’s alliance with Kaminski and Robert Zile, because they have now launched a counter-attack on the New Statesman. The Jewish Chronicle has published an email to the Cameron-aligned think tank, Policy Exchange, from the Chief Rabbi of Poland, Michael Schudrich which suggests that the New Statesman misrepresented him in an article published earlier this year. This has given right-wing bloggers like Iain Dale just what they were looking for – a supposed vindication of their view that Kaminski is a supporter of Israel and that Labour folks simply just don’t understand the cultural context of Kaminski’s remarks about Jedwabne. I have two small points to add. The first is that the Chief Rabbi was at pains to insist in his original email to the New Statesman’s James Macintyre, that he does not ‘comment on political decisions’. His worry at finding himself in the middle of political crossfire is reinforced by the Policy Exchange email where he reiterates ‘I made no political statement’. This is not surprising – Archbishops of Canterbury and Westminster both try and maintain their political neutrality, as does the Chief Rabbi in the UK. I expect that Michael Schudrich is trying to quickly extract himself from having created a politically charged situation in his own country (though as Sunder Katwala points out here, he is unlikely to with this intervention.) The second is that Chief Rabbis are one indication of the feelings of the Jewish community in Europe, but those who make up the Jewish community are another. If Conservative bloggers feel as though they have scored a political point by using someone who is so politically-compromised, they can’t shut down the views of ordinary Jewish people so easily. In a Question Time style meeting held at Stanmore Synagogue, the second question asked was about Kaminski’s involvement with the Conservatives. And there was around 70% support for the President of the Board of Deputies writing to Cameron about Kaminski and Vile in a poll for the Jewish Chronicle (I can’t find their archive, sorry). The final thing to remember is that the Conservatives chose to be partners with controversial fringe parties in Europe. They could have stayed part of a mainstream Conservative grouping in the EPP, but deliberately picked Kaminski, Zile and others as their mates. The sad thing is that they seem to place the need to promote their particularly backward brand of euro-scepticism before the need to protect community cohesion and human rights. Newsnight are doing an investigation into this whole affair next week. As I said – no matter how much they want it to – this story won’t go away.
|
|
