Should politicians be allowed to lie to the voters in their (prospective) constuency? One would assume that such a question would be but a rhetorical one. Yet as the BBC reports, today two High Court Judges sitting in a special election court in Saddleworth - the first such court to be convened in nearly a century - had to tell a politician that lying is wrong. Phil Woolas MP, the Labour shadow immigration minister, has been ejected from Parliament as a result of the ruling that he had knowingly lied about his Lib-Dem opponent Elwyn Watkins. During the general election campaign Mr. Woolas charged his opponent with wooing the support of Islamic extremists and that Mr. Watkins did not intend to live in the constituency. Mr. Woolas, of course, is challenging the judgment and the Guardian quotes him as saying that the decision would "chill political speech."
Now I'm sorry to be crass, but Mr. Woolas is just being silly here. This decsion does nothing to "chill" anything. Knowlingly telling an untruth is what normal people call a lie, and we teach children that lying is wrong and that one shouldn't do it. Lying is not part of acceptable political intercourse and Mr. Woolas knows that. If he doesn't he's manifestly unqualified to represent anyone in Parliament. He's definitely allowed to fight the ruling on the merits, by claiming that he didn't in fact lie about his opponent, but not by spreading these horror stories about impending judicial totalitarianism.
Politicians have but one duty to their constituents and that is to inform them of the facts as they understand them to be true. The truth in this case is paramount. If a politician lies to the voters, they cannot make an informed decision on who is to represent them. I understand that politicians are hardly saints and angels and that they spin and twist and twirl the facts to help them get elected, but they should never be allowed to get away with an outright lie. The voters of Oldham East and Saddleford have the right to have their representatives be honest with them and as such deserve a new election.
Under the judgment passed down today Mr. Woolas is barred from standing for Parliament for three years and will not be participating in the by-election. Hopefully politicians will take notice of this and think twice before lying in elections. Even if they get away with it at the polls, they will be rightfully be hounded until caught. It would be better if Mr. Woolas were to be judged guilty in the court of the people on election day, but the court of law is a close second.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Thursday, November 4, 2010
An Upcoming EU Referendum?
Daniel Hannan MEP in a post entitled Dutch parties call for another Euro-referendum on his blog yesterday discusses the proposal of Geert Wilder's PVV and the Socialist Party SP to hold a referendum on any new treaty to establish or change the monetary support mechanisms and penalty regimes for countries like Greece that are on the brink of financial ruin. Hannan links to an article on EUobserver.com, which says that the entire proposal "hinged on the support of the largest opposition group, the Labour Party[.]" So there really isn't anything to be afraid of. The PvdA will never support a measure that has no chance of passing the Lower House. Together the three parties have only 69 out of a 150 seats and the other parties are unwilling to countenance another referendum.
Hannan's post ends with him endulging in some wishful thinking:
Holding a referendum in any EU member state at the moment on such a relatively minor issue would also be an impossibly intricate operation. A referendum should only concern that issue for which it is being held - in this case a very complicated set of rules for the financial relationship between the states. But any plebiscite on the European Union will undoubtedly become more about the entire project of European integration than about the issue nominally at stake. If a referendum is to be held at all, in Britain or the Netherlands or anywhere else, it should be about the continued membership of that country in the EU. Only by asking the people to vote on such an all-encompassing issue will the referendum be about that which it is supposed to be about and nothing else.
Hannan's post ends with him endulging in some wishful thinking:
If the Dutch were allowed a vote, several of their neighbours might become restive. British voters might ask why the Netherlands should be allowed to vote on Britain’s future.But there is no danger of any restive Britons anytime soon. Besides the political make-up of the Dutch Parliament as outlined above, a second circumstance will serve to block any plebiciscite. Any change to the Treaty of Lisbon, or any other EU treaty for that matter, will normally require the consent of all member states. However, if push comes to shove, the EU leaders will without a doubt - read about it here - activate the Passerelle Clause in the Treaty to change the voting requirements on the issue in question. From then on only a qualified majority of states will have to agree for the change to be enacted. Hannan, normally a man well versed in the myriad ways of politicking in Brussels, has to be aware of this fact.
Holding a referendum in any EU member state at the moment on such a relatively minor issue would also be an impossibly intricate operation. A referendum should only concern that issue for which it is being held - in this case a very complicated set of rules for the financial relationship between the states. But any plebiscite on the European Union will undoubtedly become more about the entire project of European integration than about the issue nominally at stake. If a referendum is to be held at all, in Britain or the Netherlands or anywhere else, it should be about the continued membership of that country in the EU. Only by asking the people to vote on such an all-encompassing issue will the referendum be about that which it is supposed to be about and nothing else.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Small Bar Smoking Ban Lifted
The Netherlands might become the first place on earth where a smoking ban is being lifted, if only partially. Whereas other countries are scrambling to ban things which are harmful to people, adults or children - case in point, San Francisco where it is now illegal for fast-food restaurants to give away toys with kiddie meals in the hope of stopping kids craving a cheeseburger - The Dutch government is changing the law to allow small bars without employees to put the ashtrays back on the tables.
Bars where patrons may smoke will have to put up signs at the entrance stating clearly that smoking is allowed inside and the NRC Handelsblad newspaper quotes (Dutch language warning) the Minister of Health as saying:
The entire ban, in the Netherlands at least, was predicated on protecting employees from the dangers of second hand smoke. While I do appreciate the fact that workers have the right (though right may be a bit strong) to work in a smoke-free environment, this is exactly the reason why today's decision is an eminently appropriate one. For if there are no employees to protect in bar, than a law specifically passed to protect them should have no effect. Yet until today it did, giving rise to the impression that the justification given for the law was no more than a fig leaf for yet another paternalistic imposition on the freedom of choice enjoyed by the common citizen.
Today's decision brings the law in line with the stated intent of the lawmakers, something that should be applauded. If politicians continue to clamour for banning smoking altogether, they will from now on be forced to be honest about their true opinions or face justly the shame of hypocrisy, although I do suspect that some politicians will not be deterred by this.
Bars where patrons may smoke will have to put up signs at the entrance stating clearly that smoking is allowed inside and the NRC Handelsblad newspaper quotes (Dutch language warning) the Minister of Health as saying:
If you don't like standing in cigarette smoke, you can go somewhere else.This to me is a wholly reasonable approach to smoking in bars. Although I like being able to go out, have a beer and come home without having to air out my clothes the next morking, I can decide for myself whether or not I want to go to a bar where smoking is allowed. If not, I'll just go to the bar next door. I don't need the government to protect me from any potentially fatal fumes, I can do that just fine on my own.
The entire ban, in the Netherlands at least, was predicated on protecting employees from the dangers of second hand smoke. While I do appreciate the fact that workers have the right (though right may be a bit strong) to work in a smoke-free environment, this is exactly the reason why today's decision is an eminently appropriate one. For if there are no employees to protect in bar, than a law specifically passed to protect them should have no effect. Yet until today it did, giving rise to the impression that the justification given for the law was no more than a fig leaf for yet another paternalistic imposition on the freedom of choice enjoyed by the common citizen.
Today's decision brings the law in line with the stated intent of the lawmakers, something that should be applauded. If politicians continue to clamour for banning smoking altogether, they will from now on be forced to be honest about their true opinions or face justly the shame of hypocrisy, although I do suspect that some politicians will not be deterred by this.
The Republicans Gain Is Obama's Opportunity
The dominating strain of opinion about yesterday's US Congressional elections seems to be that it is a serious blow to President Obama and his chances for re-election in 2012. For instance, in his Election-Winners-and-Losers list Toby Harnden says:
LOSERSLooking at the results of the vote it does indeed look like a damning rejection of Obama, the Democrats, and their policies. Gaining a majority in the House of Representatives is a coup for the Republicans and a major set-back for Obama's agenda. Eric Cantor, the current Republican minority whip, is already talking about repeabling Obama's healthcare bill as well as cutting spending. Ambitious new proposals like the anti-climate change bill are now also in danger of never getting past the House. With the Democrats holding on to their majority in the Senate, the ratification of treaties and appointments of judges and Cabinet members is unlikely to cause Obama many sleepless nights. But he will definitely have to scale back some of his other plans.
1. Barack Obama. Ronald Reagan recovered after 1982 and Bill Clinton came back after 1994. But is Obama in the same league as either man? Right now, he looks like a one-term president.
Yet, this should not be a problem and may even be a boon to him. One of the main consequences of the Democrats controlling both the presidency and the two Houses of Congress is that, in the minds of many Americans, they alone were responsible for the lack of any economic revival, as well as everything else that went wrong in the country. Obama and Vice-President Biden toured the country in the last weeks of the campaign season trying to convince voters that the powerless Republicans were somehow just as responsible as the party that actually controlled the strings of power in Washington. Needless to say, few Americans believed them. But now, with the Republicans in the majority in the House, blame can be spread around a little more credibly. This should make it easier for Obama to reclaim some of the 'change' glamour that he has lost over the last two years, by pointing out that the Republicans are shutting the gate on his agenda.
What's more, the GOP is not exactly a united party at the moment. The rise of the Tea Party has frightened a lot of moderate Republicans while a great number of ultra-conservative Tea Partiers have been send to Congress. These two wings will have to spend at least some time sorting out who takes top spot. This leaves open the chance for the Democrats and Obama to split the Republican party along Tea Party / non Tea Party lines by introducing bills that some moderates might want to support.
Finally, the success of the Tea Party has shown us two closely related things that might benefit Obama in 2012. The first is the obvious power Sarah Palin now holds as the darling of the Tea Party movement. She will almost certainly run for President in two years, and at the moment seems to be the favourite to win the Republican nomination. The second is that Americans do not, to use a cliche, suffer fools gladly. The defeat of Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell in Nevada and Delaware respectively is a sign that voters still expect at least a modicum of intelligence in their politicians. Palin's cup did not run over in this department in 2008 and it's not at all clear that she's improved since then. Should she win the GOP spot next time round, Obama might just have a cake-walk, just like Reagan had in 1982 and Clinton in 1996.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
France and UK to work together
A new chapter is about to added to a long and checkered history of animosity and co-operation today. France and the United Kingdom have on and off been foes and friends for centuries, but the French President Nicolas Sarkozy and PM David Cameron today will sign two treaties affirming that those long years of hostile rivalry are hopefully behind us forever. Under the terms of the accords signed at Lancaster House the two countries will increase military co-operation and establish a "combined joint expeditionary force', shared usage of aircraft carriers, as well as set up centres for the testing of new nuclear weapons technology.
The BBC quotes a Downing Street spokesman as saying:
So here we are, Britain and France have finally decided that what they have in common, in terms of shared values, views of the world and hopes for the future, is more important than their cultural differences. After the dire news of the last weeks with the scrapping and cutting of so much military hardware and personnel, the future's horizon is looking a little brighter for Britain's place in world.
Yet even so - and I hate to end on a sour note - the UK should never become wholly dependent on the goodwill of any nation, not matter how friendly, for the defence of its shores. It's fitting to remember Harold Macmillan's words from the 50s and the plans for an independent British nuclear deterent:
Substitute 'France' for 'United States' and you'll see what I mean. Only if the UK maintains its own military capabilities will France lift a finger to defend it should ever that need arise. Britain should not, therefore, become a docile demesne, but remain committed to its own defence, while sharing what can be shared.
The BBC quotes a Downing Street spokesman as saying:
"This summit marks a deepening of the UK-France bilateral relationship. Ours is now a strategic partnership tackling together the biggest challenges facing our two countries."Seen in this vein, these treaties make a lot of sense. Both the UK and France desire to remain major powers on the world stage, something that is becoming increasingly difficult with the rise of new powers like China, Brazil and India. At the same time, the necessity of budget cuts on both sides of the Channel mean that there are fewer Pounds and Euros flowing into defence coffers. An article on the Guardian website refers to the Entente Cordiale but correctly notes that today's treaties do not arise from fear of a shared enemy, but are "product[s] of hard-headed pragmatism, designed to maximise each nation's military capabilites while saving money."
So here we are, Britain and France have finally decided that what they have in common, in terms of shared values, views of the world and hopes for the future, is more important than their cultural differences. After the dire news of the last weeks with the scrapping and cutting of so much military hardware and personnel, the future's horizon is looking a little brighter for Britain's place in world.
Yet even so - and I hate to end on a sour note - the UK should never become wholly dependent on the goodwill of any nation, not matter how friendly, for the defence of its shores. It's fitting to remember Harold Macmillan's words from the 50s and the plans for an independent British nuclear deterent:
"The independent contribution ... gives us a better position in the world, it gives us a better position with respect to the United States. It puts us where we ought to be, in the position of a Great Power. The fact that we have it makes the United States pay a greater regard to our point of view, and that is of great importance."
Substitute 'France' for 'United States' and you'll see what I mean. Only if the UK maintains its own military capabilities will France lift a finger to defend it should ever that need arise. Britain should not, therefore, become a docile demesne, but remain committed to its own defence, while sharing what can be shared.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Brown Is Risen
It may have taken him almost five months, but everybody's favourite failed Prime Minister is about to return to the Commons, the BBC reports. Like a modern-day Christ we thought him dead and buried, but he liveth yet. Gordon Brown will give his first speech in the House since before the Election on a private member's motion to examine options for the maintaince of the yet-to-be-constructed aircraft carriers. Brown will apparently argue that the contract should be awarded to a company in Rosyth, Scotland, near Brown's constituency.
Not really as impressive as returning to announce the redemption of all mankind, but that might have been too much to expect. Still, the criticism of Bernard Jenkin MP is uncalled for. The Tory MP is quoted in the same BBC article as saying:
However, far from showing that Brown during his time in Downing Street was looking out solely for the fortunes of his own constituents and not for those of the rest of the country, this just shows that Brown understands that his time as a national politician is over forever. Instead of addressing an issue of paramount importance to the whole of Britain, he is doing his primary duty as a MP, speaking up for his constituents for whom the keeping the maintaince work in Rosyth might mean the difference between having a job and unemployment.
As long as he behaves like any other backbencher, Brown is unlikely to become a 'rallying point' for dissident Labour MPs. He seems to be looking to avoid going down the route Ted Heath chose in continually attacking his own party leadership after he was removed as Tory leader. Brown's decision is a wise one in every respect and if he plays it well he will at least have returned to redeem himself.
Not really as impressive as returning to announce the redemption of all mankind, but that might have been too much to expect. Still, the criticism of Bernard Jenkin MP is uncalled for. The Tory MP is quoted in the same BBC article as saying:
"His appearance in this debate shows that his decision to order the aircraft carriers was always about protecting his own interests rather than the national interest."
However, far from showing that Brown during his time in Downing Street was looking out solely for the fortunes of his own constituents and not for those of the rest of the country, this just shows that Brown understands that his time as a national politician is over forever. Instead of addressing an issue of paramount importance to the whole of Britain, he is doing his primary duty as a MP, speaking up for his constituents for whom the keeping the maintaince work in Rosyth might mean the difference between having a job and unemployment.
As long as he behaves like any other backbencher, Brown is unlikely to become a 'rallying point' for dissident Labour MPs. He seems to be looking to avoid going down the route Ted Heath chose in continually attacking his own party leadership after he was removed as Tory leader. Brown's decision is a wise one in every respect and if he plays it well he will at least have returned to redeem himself.
Dutch Labour Party in Trouble
It seems that the Dutch minority Government - made up of the (Classical) Liberal VVD, Christian Democrat CDA and supported in Parliament by Geert Wilders' PVV - is in total control of the political narrative and the main victim is the PvdA, the Dutch Labour Party.
According to a poll (Dutch language warning) taken over the weekend, if elections were to be held today the PvdA would gain only 18 seats in the Lower House of Parliament. At present they have 30 seats and they have been on the losing end for weeks now. The ruling parties, on the other hand, are busy gaining votes and would win 81 seats today against 76 at the last election.
Are we witnessing the catastrophic foundering of the PvdA? Maybe it's still too soon to say that, but with its leader Job Cohen struggling to find his role as a voice of the opposition, the party may have to sail the dark, broad seas for a long while still. And the Happy Isles are not yet in sight. In the same poll referred to above, Cohen was judged to have had the worst performance of all party leaders in the debate on the Government's Policy Declaration last week. Other opposition party leaders such as Emile Roemer (Socialist Party, SP) and Femke Halsema (Green Left, Groenlinks) had a much better debate. But even they are far behind Prime Minister Mark Rutte (VVD) who got a 7.2/10 approval grade.
Volkskrant columnist Thomas von der Dunk writes (Dutch language warning) that the leftwing parties need to be much more assertive, much more aggressive in their attacks and opposition. He thinks that Cohen managed to do this, but I'm not too sure. It's all very well that he attacked Wilders on his proposals to stem the tide of immigration, but it's not enough. Cohen's problem might well be that he has the image of being a softy, whether deserved or not. People have trouble believing Cohen when he gets aggressive because of his history of moderation and dialogue when he was Mayor of Amsterdam.
So the PvdA seems to be stuck with a bit of a Catch 22. Either Cohen stays on in the hope that he'll grow in the role of leader of the opposition - without the certainty that he ever will - or he is forced out. Yet that may well lead to a power struggle that is unlikely to win the PvdA any votes either.
According to a poll (Dutch language warning) taken over the weekend, if elections were to be held today the PvdA would gain only 18 seats in the Lower House of Parliament. At present they have 30 seats and they have been on the losing end for weeks now. The ruling parties, on the other hand, are busy gaining votes and would win 81 seats today against 76 at the last election.
Are we witnessing the catastrophic foundering of the PvdA? Maybe it's still too soon to say that, but with its leader Job Cohen struggling to find his role as a voice of the opposition, the party may have to sail the dark, broad seas for a long while still. And the Happy Isles are not yet in sight. In the same poll referred to above, Cohen was judged to have had the worst performance of all party leaders in the debate on the Government's Policy Declaration last week. Other opposition party leaders such as Emile Roemer (Socialist Party, SP) and Femke Halsema (Green Left, Groenlinks) had a much better debate. But even they are far behind Prime Minister Mark Rutte (VVD) who got a 7.2/10 approval grade.
Volkskrant columnist Thomas von der Dunk writes (Dutch language warning) that the leftwing parties need to be much more assertive, much more aggressive in their attacks and opposition. He thinks that Cohen managed to do this, but I'm not too sure. It's all very well that he attacked Wilders on his proposals to stem the tide of immigration, but it's not enough. Cohen's problem might well be that he has the image of being a softy, whether deserved or not. People have trouble believing Cohen when he gets aggressive because of his history of moderation and dialogue when he was Mayor of Amsterdam.
So the PvdA seems to be stuck with a bit of a Catch 22. Either Cohen stays on in the hope that he'll grow in the role of leader of the opposition - without the certainty that he ever will - or he is forced out. Yet that may well lead to a power struggle that is unlikely to win the PvdA any votes either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)