When I read about the arrest of Lord Levy earlier this week, I was reminded of a blog I'd read not long ago, which said that there was no problem with a link between honours and party fund-raising, but there was a serious problem with the link between honours and an unelected seat in the national legislature.
Actually, I didn't read that blog post. I wrote it.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Monday, March 13, 2006
Honours and titles
Last week it was announced that the head of the National Health Service, Sir Nigel Crisp, was retiring early. Some people claimed he was being made the fall guy for recent NHS failures. His reward? A seat in the House of Lords.
Today, the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson commented in his blog on the evidence that shows that every donor who has given the Labour Party a million pounds has received a knighthood or a peerage.
I have got no problem with distinguished people from the public service, the arts, sport, or industry, being granted honours in recognition of their various efforts. I don't even have a problem with the ruling party doling out honours to major donors.
What does bother me however, is that the most popular honour being given out isn't just a fancy medal or a posh prefix to your name, it's a piece of unelected and unaccountable political power, in the form of a seat in the House of Lords. This government removed most hereditary peers (most of whom were there because one of their ancestors had done some service to the crown in previous generations) from the Lords but has stopped short of any real reform. They seem to regard rewards for historical favours are a bad thing but consider that rewards for contemporary favours are fine and dandy. As a result, we still have a second chamber that is appointed and not elected, and therefore unaccountable, except to the person who made the appointment.
By all means give distinguished people, or even wealthy party supporters, a gong or a title, and send them off to the Palace to shake hands with the Queen. But for goodness' sake, isn't it time we stopped giving them a seat in Parliament?
Today, the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson commented in his blog on the evidence that shows that every donor who has given the Labour Party a million pounds has received a knighthood or a peerage.
I have got no problem with distinguished people from the public service, the arts, sport, or industry, being granted honours in recognition of their various efforts. I don't even have a problem with the ruling party doling out honours to major donors.
What does bother me however, is that the most popular honour being given out isn't just a fancy medal or a posh prefix to your name, it's a piece of unelected and unaccountable political power, in the form of a seat in the House of Lords. This government removed most hereditary peers (most of whom were there because one of their ancestors had done some service to the crown in previous generations) from the Lords but has stopped short of any real reform. They seem to regard rewards for historical favours are a bad thing but consider that rewards for contemporary favours are fine and dandy. As a result, we still have a second chamber that is appointed and not elected, and therefore unaccountable, except to the person who made the appointment.
By all means give distinguished people, or even wealthy party supporters, a gong or a title, and send them off to the Palace to shake hands with the Queen. But for goodness' sake, isn't it time we stopped giving them a seat in Parliament?
Sunday, February 26, 2006
The boundaries of free speech?
I have been pondering the question of whether there should be limits or boundaries to free speech. The thing that bothers me about an absolute right to free speech is the possibility of using free speech to abuse the rights and freedoms of a minority. Free speech can only exist in a free and open society, and I believe a free and open society has to be a society that believes in pluralism.
A pluralistic society agrees that everyone has the right to be different, and to express different opinions, and to do so without fear of reprisal against their person, their life or their liberty. Speech which tends to foment prejudice or incite violence against others is not free speech, but hate speech.
In a pluralistic society, people can insult and offend me as much as they like, and I can insult and offend them in return, or I can ignore them. But individuals and groups that tend to a non-pluralistic outlook on the world believe that they and they alone know the absolute truth, and that they and they alone have the right to speak, and to control everyone else. Wherever they come from on the political or religious spectrum, it's totalitarianism, and that is (or should be) alien to what is known as the "western democratic" model. Some of these groups claim that "free speech" gives them the right to promulgate their "hate speech". I would disagree.
A pluralistic society agrees that everyone has the right to be different, and to express different opinions, and to do so without fear of reprisal against their person, their life or their liberty. Speech which tends to foment prejudice or incite violence against others is not free speech, but hate speech.
In a pluralistic society, people can insult and offend me as much as they like, and I can insult and offend them in return, or I can ignore them. But individuals and groups that tend to a non-pluralistic outlook on the world believe that they and they alone know the absolute truth, and that they and they alone have the right to speak, and to control everyone else. Wherever they come from on the political or religious spectrum, it's totalitarianism, and that is (or should be) alien to what is known as the "western democratic" model. Some of these groups claim that "free speech" gives them the right to promulgate their "hate speech". I would disagree.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Ken comes a cropper at last
London Mayor Ken Livingstone has been suspended from office for four weeks by an independent standards watchdog tribunal, following his refusal to apologise for offensive remarks to a journalist. This is widely reported with a transcript of the exchange between Livingstone and the journalist on The Independent website, and an audio clip on the Daily Mail website.
This has sparked a major debate about a range of issues: why is there a panel with the powers to suspend elected officials?; is Ken a victim of a hate campaign by the Daily Mail group of newspapers?; shouldn't journalists accept that getting insulted is part of the game?; and above all, were the remarks evidence of Ken's underlying anti-semitism, or was the Jewish community's response a case of over-sensitivity?
If you listen to the clip or read the transcript you'll note that Livingstone compares any journalist working for the Mail group to a Nazi concentration camp guard because both journalists and camp guards only do what they are paid to do. This is an incredibly weak argument based on a totally inappropriate analogy.
It would indeed be pathetic for a concentration camp guard to claim innocence because they were "only doing their job", when the content of their job was totally immoral and indefensible. For a journalist to attempt to ask a politician a few questions as he is leaving a high-profile social event is neither immoral nor indefensible. It is perfectly reasonable. It would also have been perfectly reasonable for Livingstone to reply "No comment".
Furthermore, Oliver Finegold did not make the claim that he was "only doing his job". Ken Livingstone inferred that all by himself, based on his existing opinion of the newspaper the journalist represented. Even if Ken's opinion of the newspaper was justifiable, the Nazi slurs were not. For Ken to continue with his insulting remarks after Finegold told him he was Jewish and was offended by them was an unacceptable way for the Mayor of London to behave, even when he was off-duty. (By the way, Ken has conveniently forgotten that he himself worked as the restaurant critic for the "scumbag" newspaper with a "history of supporting fascism" for several years.)
There are plenty of things that "Red Ken" has done over his long career for which I have some grudging admiration. Back in the 80's he championed gay and gender issues long before it became fashionable to do so, he consistently campaigned against apartheid in South Africa, and above all he defiantly stood up to Mrs. Thatcher.
But on this issue, he has behaved like a moron and deserves his punishment. He had no justification for insulting the reporter, and by not apologising he has behaved with unbelievable arrogance. In fact, his refusal to apologise, even more than the insenstive remarks, has definitely "brought his office into disrepute".
This has sparked a major debate about a range of issues: why is there a panel with the powers to suspend elected officials?; is Ken a victim of a hate campaign by the Daily Mail group of newspapers?; shouldn't journalists accept that getting insulted is part of the game?; and above all, were the remarks evidence of Ken's underlying anti-semitism, or was the Jewish community's response a case of over-sensitivity?
If you listen to the clip or read the transcript you'll note that Livingstone compares any journalist working for the Mail group to a Nazi concentration camp guard because both journalists and camp guards only do what they are paid to do. This is an incredibly weak argument based on a totally inappropriate analogy.
It would indeed be pathetic for a concentration camp guard to claim innocence because they were "only doing their job", when the content of their job was totally immoral and indefensible. For a journalist to attempt to ask a politician a few questions as he is leaving a high-profile social event is neither immoral nor indefensible. It is perfectly reasonable. It would also have been perfectly reasonable for Livingstone to reply "No comment".
Furthermore, Oliver Finegold did not make the claim that he was "only doing his job". Ken Livingstone inferred that all by himself, based on his existing opinion of the newspaper the journalist represented. Even if Ken's opinion of the newspaper was justifiable, the Nazi slurs were not. For Ken to continue with his insulting remarks after Finegold told him he was Jewish and was offended by them was an unacceptable way for the Mayor of London to behave, even when he was off-duty. (By the way, Ken has conveniently forgotten that he himself worked as the restaurant critic for the "scumbag" newspaper with a "history of supporting fascism" for several years.)
There are plenty of things that "Red Ken" has done over his long career for which I have some grudging admiration. Back in the 80's he championed gay and gender issues long before it became fashionable to do so, he consistently campaigned against apartheid in South Africa, and above all he defiantly stood up to Mrs. Thatcher.
But on this issue, he has behaved like a moron and deserves his punishment. He had no justification for insulting the reporter, and by not apologising he has behaved with unbelievable arrogance. In fact, his refusal to apologise, even more than the insenstive remarks, has definitely "brought his office into disrepute".
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Is the Hamas victory actually good news?
In his comments on the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections, Gideon Levy, writing in Ha'aretz, has gone much further than me. Where I offered hope that Hamas may possibly do some good, he suggests that only Hamas can take meaningful steps towards a peace settlement.
Levy has for many years been an outspoken critic of the Israeli occupation. His firmly logical and totally unorthdox positions have proved him to be one of Israel's bravest journalists, and this article may yet show him to be one of the sanest. Across a broad swathe of the Israeli political scene there continue to be calls for assassinations of Hamas leaders, even though judging by last Wednesday's election results, that policy is exactly the one that has brought Hamas increasing support.
Levy has for many years been an outspoken critic of the Israeli occupation. His firmly logical and totally unorthdox positions have proved him to be one of Israel's bravest journalists, and this article may yet show him to be one of the sanest. Across a broad swathe of the Israeli political scene there continue to be calls for assassinations of Hamas leaders, even though judging by last Wednesday's election results, that policy is exactly the one that has brought Hamas increasing support.
The Taliban of Ramallah?
In the last few days innumerable Western pundits have been trying to guess what the victory by Hamas in the Palestinian elections will mean. The answer is that no-one knows, or indeed can know, least of all the leaders of Hamas themselves.
Some people in Hamas are definitely terrorists, and some are clearly Islamic fundamentalists who were willing to go along with the "western paganism" of elections only as a route to establishing a religious Islamic state. For example, Sheikh Mohammed Abu Tir, no. 2 on the Hamas list, has been quoted as saying that Hamas will make Islamic Sharia law a source of legislation in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.
In contrast, there are many Palestinians, including many who voted for Hamas, who understand that the word "democracy" means far more than just holding elections. It implies a pluralistic society, with a division of powers, respect for the rule of law, and protection of the rights of all citizens, including members of minority groups. Most importantly, political parties in democratic societies agree to accept "the will of the people": when defeated they relinquish office.
Democracy usually means a secular state, one in which citizens may follow any religious belief of their own choosing while the state follows none, or follows one blandly and innocuously, without imposing it on unwilling citizens.
My hope is that the realities of office may persuade Hamas to become more democratic in the widest sense of the term. I believe that the majority of people in the West Bank and Gaza would want this to happen, as a change of attitude by Hamas is a necessary precursor to any settlement with Israel, which so may Palestinians now appear to want. My fear is that Hamas may quickly become Palestine's own Taliban, and the Palestinian people surely deserve something better than that.
Some people in Hamas are definitely terrorists, and some are clearly Islamic fundamentalists who were willing to go along with the "western paganism" of elections only as a route to establishing a religious Islamic state. For example, Sheikh Mohammed Abu Tir, no. 2 on the Hamas list, has been quoted as saying that Hamas will make Islamic Sharia law a source of legislation in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.
In contrast, there are many Palestinians, including many who voted for Hamas, who understand that the word "democracy" means far more than just holding elections. It implies a pluralistic society, with a division of powers, respect for the rule of law, and protection of the rights of all citizens, including members of minority groups. Most importantly, political parties in democratic societies agree to accept "the will of the people": when defeated they relinquish office.
Democracy usually means a secular state, one in which citizens may follow any religious belief of their own choosing while the state follows none, or follows one blandly and innocuously, without imposing it on unwilling citizens.
My hope is that the realities of office may persuade Hamas to become more democratic in the widest sense of the term. I believe that the majority of people in the West Bank and Gaza would want this to happen, as a change of attitude by Hamas is a necessary precursor to any settlement with Israel, which so may Palestinians now appear to want. My fear is that Hamas may quickly become Palestine's own Taliban, and the Palestinian people surely deserve something better than that.
I was "tagged"
I was recently "tagged" by VoodooMike, and therefore I have to confess to five weird things about myself.
Here is my confession:
1. I hate olives
2. I am addicted to BBC Radio 4. I listen to it whenever I can even though I detest some of the presenters and frequently shout at the radio in disgust. I don't like working or studying in silence, and have radios all over the house to keep me company.)
3. I am an active member of my synagogue even though I don't believe in God.
4. If procrastination was an Olympic sport, I would be something like a five-times gold medallist.
5. I often have difficulty falling asleep and staying asleep.
When I read this list back to myself, I realised that the beloved Mrs. Burrard would hold the opposite position to me on all five points. (She loves olives, hates Radio 4, and so on.) I wonder if this is the secret to our enduring marriage, or simply the my most convenient yardstick for my weirdness, as contrasted with my wife's normality?
Now I am supposed to go and "tag" five other bloggers, but Mike has already tagged most of the bloggers I know....
Here is my confession:
1. I hate olives
2. I am addicted to BBC Radio 4. I listen to it whenever I can even though I detest some of the presenters and frequently shout at the radio in disgust. I don't like working or studying in silence, and have radios all over the house to keep me company.)
3. I am an active member of my synagogue even though I don't believe in God.
4. If procrastination was an Olympic sport, I would be something like a five-times gold medallist.
5. I often have difficulty falling asleep and staying asleep.
When I read this list back to myself, I realised that the beloved Mrs. Burrard would hold the opposite position to me on all five points. (She loves olives, hates Radio 4, and so on.) I wonder if this is the secret to our enduring marriage, or simply the my most convenient yardstick for my weirdness, as contrasted with my wife's normality?
Now I am supposed to go and "tag" five other bloggers, but Mike has already tagged most of the bloggers I know....
Monday, January 23, 2006
Bronwyn is right
Bronwyn is right of course, and an update to this blog is long overdue.
She is always right, is our Bronwyn!
:-)
She is always right, is our Bronwyn!
:-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)