I'll definitely vote YES - but I can't get excited over AV.

I have just read about a friend’s serious, intelligent wrestling-match over the question of deciding how best to use her genuinely divisible single (or crude, two-part) vote for the Scottish election next month. It's at points like this that I wilt at the thought of what my fellow Lib Dems have done. They got us a referendum on whether we should make an unfair system marginally slightly fairer! Well Whooooooopeeeee!!!! Why? Why for the love of God didn't they have the wits or the guts to say no too Hague's offer of a referendum on AV? Why didn't they say, “Sorry William lad. We'll accept either AV without a referendum or a referendum on a real proportional system - but not a referendum on the least worst option”.

The modern Scotsman, Italy and the outside of Wandsworth Jail

I think it is deeply ironic that the Scotsman, on 7th April 1840, was the first newspaper in the world to publish a (controversial) account of the ice ages (from the utterly fascinating, unknown Scottish genious, James Croal) - but nowadays the paper sinks into ocassional fits of climate change denial. (And thanks to BBC2's Men of Rock for the details!)

 

Italian politics may be operatic in its tone (although they can teach our lot a thing or two about rioting) but underlying the Berlusconi confidence vote I think there is more than simply the man's scandalous behaviour. He flaunts his power and wealth and luxury in the faces of ordinary Italians. They face the same economic woes that we do in the rest of the West and can recognise a plutocrat just as well as we can. It makes people angry - and a violent reaction has now been demonstrated in yet another major European capital city to prove it. Our problem is not capitalism. It is plutocracy.

 

The Private Eye "Going Live" column will undoubtedly revel in the BBC News live report from outside Wandsworth Jail. Let's face it. They will have a serious point. Julian Assange arrived in a wagon and it seems desperately highly unlikely that anything else was going to happen - or that he was going to give interviews. Does it still cost a small fortune to do a live report?

2 Party Systems - An open letter to an American chum.

Dear Kev,

You've got to ask yourself if political systems like yours and ours, with space for only two parties are sensible systems. I think you need electoral reform in the US to eradicate the duopoly - just as badly as we do here in the UK - but you have a constitution that won't allow it to happen under almost any foreseeable circumstances. As a consequence of this constitutional stasis, nobody in the States even thinks about constitutional reform seriously. It seems to me that constitutional reform has become a major taboo - the quickest route to the political dustbin. Every time I suggest reform to an American they reject it as an impossibility – almost a stupid thought but…….here we go again!

My suggestion to you chaps, for what it is worth, is that the great taboo may have to be broken. It may well be time for major reform of the constitution. It may seem to be a terribly European social/liberal democratic notion, but in my experience it is a truth that all politics is a negotiation (and when the negotiation breaks down that means the politics has broken down). But in the US you have a two party system where one party can refuse - and is refusing - to negotiate = political breakdown in the middle of global financial and environmental crises = not sensible.

I think your blog on the Republicans having only the single aim of brutally removing Obama from office in 2012, and the extraordinary gridlock that will arise as a consequence of it, totally hits the mark. And the consequences are anything but of domestic US concern only. They have a serious knock on effect around the globe, whether we like it or not. If US politics really has degraded to the level where one side genuinely believes that the other side is evil, and this is going to happen for years on end, you really, seriously, determinedly need to tackle the problem. If we are to successfully tackle the economic, social and environmental problems faced by our planet in the next few decades, it will be much easier if the governmental system of the world's largest economy isn't stalling all the time like a cranky old engine, and then taking a minimum of two years to get fixed each time it happens.

Believe me this is NOT an anti-American rant. I really do feel your pain. After all, I've lived all my 53 years in a country with a constitution that also only really works for two parties at a time. In many respects our two-party system is even more crude than yours.

We "Brits" only have the option of being governed by the currently largest minority gang in the political playground - and we have an electoral system that almost inevitably means that the second largest gang is the only serious replacement option. Ever increasing numbers of voters begin to understand that there are many more than two ways out of any given political situation. Too reflect this fact, they decide that you need a system that recognises the truth that there are, as a matter of fact, more than two gangs in the playground. Elections should not be about deciding which gang "wins". Oh no. Elections should be about the strength of the negotiating hand each gang will have in the negotiations for the next four or five years.

But if our electoral system parallels yours in its effect on our political culture, our "constitution" is even worse than yours. Because we haven't actually arrived at a point where we write down the rules (and this makes it rather terribly difficult to change the rules) it has taken a terribly long time to move towards changing the electoral system. It has taken over a century to reach a point where electoral reform is achievable (and my party is currently blowing the chance. AAAAARGH!)

But I really hope that you are going to try and reform too. Believe me when I tell you that our experience of an Anglo-Saxon, democratic, pugnacious, adversarial legal and political culture has not been unerringly pleasant. Experience informs my strong opinion that two party systems are childish and it is time to grow up. I think it is in the interests of both our countries if we move to a more proportionate, balanced and generous political culture. The Anglo Saxon model of democracy is becoming increasingly ugly and divisive.

Best wishes

Angularity

Canada applies to join EU

A very wise Canadian friend suggested that she didn’t mind paying her taxes, and appreciated the work that public servants did. She wanted her taxes to pay for daycare and free tertiary tuition. She wanted these things, instead of the fighter jets and the money spent sending refugees home before they arrived that her tax dollars were currently being used for.

I responded that I was struck by how European these comments seemed, both in tone and substance. I had been equally impressed by how Canada had felt very European when I visited Montreal in the summer. Quebec really did have a lot in common with Scotland.

I suggested, semi-jokingly that Canada should apply to should join the EU instead of NAFTA.

My wise friend thought the suggestion an impossibly pleasant daydream – and went on to give a long list of policy areas where she and Canada were much closer to the EU position than that of the US. Her fear was that the EU would reject an application, thinking Canada too much like the US – with some cause.

She complained of the Canadian right always banging on about the growth of the “nanny state” – without seeming to realise that if Canada thought the phrase was an American import, in fact it was, to all intents and purposes, Mrs Thatcher who invented the term (right slap bang in the middle of the EU she so hates to this day!). Even the Canadian right wing is, it seems, much closer to the European equivalent than it is to the Tea Party!

And so I let it turn itself into that impossibly pleasant day dream......

The Canadians, New Zealanders and Australians start to consider whether they are actually much closer in their politically values to the Scandinavians, the UK and Ireland, than they are to the increasingly bizarre and worrying politics of the “leader of the free world”. They decide that it’s true and, quite soon decide to do something about it.

They successfully apply to join the EU - and it immensely strengthens the institutions and democratic roots of the EU. Having a few more anglophone states in the Union helps Britain to finally come to terms with membership (because the Tories think that at last OUR empire can counterbalance the French and the German one). France is very happy because it gets to play with Quebec. Quebec joins a grand coalition with Scotland and Sicily, Catalunya and Corsica, arguing that there are now so many seats at the top table, a few more won't make that much difference.

The whole process gives a very, very serious message to the US. Their imperialist antics have become seriously unacceptable to the rest of us in the West - not to mention what the rest of the world thinks. The United States has to grapple with the reality that it is not a good neighbour. It really has turned into more than a bit of a bully.

And then on to the elaboration......

If there existed a global political "power" that was NOT a state, but an entity firmly based in European liberal democratic values (as opposed to the sort of democratic, continentaI bloc the EU currently is), would any other states be interested in applying for membership?

Would the “white commonwealth” countries apply to join the EU? Probably not, but they might find it an interesting fantasy. On the other hand, Iceland have already applied to join and they’re geographically and geologically as close to Canada as we are!
How would the EU react if the idea caught on in the three states? Would it quail in front of American wrath and might? Or would it welcome the applicants with open arms and a profound sense of relief and possibility?

Could we all be a real force for good if we were better organised? Or are we stronger apart?

..........................

Boy! Did I enjoy that day dream! Please forgive my self indulgence.

Let's crush this tuition fees rebellion

The rebellion inside the Liberal Democrats is not one against the acceptance of Lord Browne’s report on funding higher education in England. It is a rebellion by Liberal Democrat Ministers in the UK Government against the firm principles of their party. This presents Liberal Democrats across the UK with their first opportunity to say that they might be persuaded to accept some compromises in coalition – but they will not be bounced into a complete u-turn on a matter of principle.

We should start of by remembering the party’s position here. Education is not a commodity. It is a right. It was one of the UK’s saddest days when Westminster rubber stamped Blair's decision that higher and further education should become purchasable commodities. Tertiary education is no more "goods for sale" than primary or secondary education. It is the gift of our community and it should be given freely for the best of reasons - enlightened, communal self-interest.

This is an issue of principle not pragmatism. Before they introduced them, in the 1997 General Election campaign, I asked New Labour's Scottish Education spokesperson when fees would rise from one to two thousand pounds, and when variations in cost between subjects were introduced, and if perhaps it might be the turn of six-form colleges to charge fees next? I received in effect that most hideous and often chilling of politicians' replies. "We have no plans to do what you are suggesting". The only problem was, and is, that I wasn't "suggesting". I was predicting.

Virtually the same questions can be asked of the Coalition Government. Where does it say that this system is set in stone? What principle is it based on? Neither Lord Browne nor the Vince Cable can answer these questions. The tuition fee system proposed is a pragmatic answer to the financial mess we are in. Come the next mess, there will be yet another answer. And so it will go on. The only real progressive thing here is the progressive nibbling away at the edges of free education.

Vince Cable might well have built progressive elements into the system proposed by Lord Browne, but in doing so he accepts the fundamental premise that education is a commodity.

This leaves one to ask how Scottish Liberal Democrats in the UK Parliament will vote on raising tuition fees in England. In Scotland we - the Scottish Liberal Democrats in the Scottish Government - proudly abolished them (and agreed the graduate endowment). It was a matter of principle. Will it be a matter of principle in Westminster too? Not according to the leadership, apparently.

We should remember at this point how disgusting a spectacle it was when New Labour passed laws for England using a majority provided by Scottish MPs – but where the Scottish Parliament had voted for something completely different. We should remember, also, that the Liberal Democrats in Westminster are not even bound to vote for this measure. “If the response of the Government to Lord Browne’s report is one that Liberal Democrats cannot accept, then arrangements will be made to enable Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain in any vote.” So says the Coalition’ Programme for Government, signed in May, with a clear steer that Liberal Democrats would not vote to raise tuition fees in England.

Here in Scotland we have to sort this one out for our own Universities. We should give priority in the Budget Bill to spending to higher education. It is one of the geese that lays Scotland's golden eggs. We should reconsider whether we need 50% of young Scots in higher and further education. The figure has never had a meaninful explanation and it is time to ask the question properly, rather than continuing to follow a figure that appears to have been plucked from thin air. We should consider the possibility of students with advanced highers and further education modular qualifications going into second year at university, and at solving once and for all the outmoded nonsense that stops proper articulation between the various parts of our education system. We should even look at merging institutions. Above all else, we should find ways to have business invest more in universities and colleges. Their record in Scotland is not good.

Under no circumstances should we abandon the principle of free education. It is one of the very foundations of modern Scotland.

Scottish Lib Dems at Westminster

Angularity wonders how Scottish Lib Dem ministers in the UK Parliament will vote on raising tuition fees in England. In Scotland we - the Scottish Liberal Democrats in the Scottish Government - proudly abolished them (and agreed the graduate endowment). It was a matter of principle. Will it be a matter of principle in Westminster too?

This is a critical point for me.

Tuition Fees

My good friend Greg Mulholland has announced on Radio 4 that he will not vote for tuition fees to be raised. Well said Greg!

It was one of our saddest days when Westminster rubber stamped Blair's decision that higher and further education should become purchasable commodities. Tertiary education is no more "goods for sale" than primary or secondary education. It is the gift of our community and it should be given freely for the best of reasons - enlightened, communal self-interest. I am proud that in Scotland tuition fees are paid by the Scottish Parliament and people.

This is an issue of principle not pragmatism. Before they introduced them, I asked New Labour's Scottish Education spokesperson when fees would rise from one to two thousand pounds, and when variations in cost between subjects were introduced, and if perhaps it might be the turn of six-form colleges to charge fees next? I received that most hideous and often chilling of politicians' replies. "we have no plans to do what you are suggesting".

The only problem was, and is, that I wasn't "suggesting". I was predicting.